AIP-229: Establish guidelines for ApeCoin staked in protocols to be counted for voting power

Proposal Name: Establish guidelines for ApeCoin staked in protocols to be counted for voting power

Proposal Category: Process

The current voting system does not allow ApeCoin staked in protocols other than to be considered in voting power calculations for ApeCoin DAO governance.

This AIP sets guidelines for the operators of respective ApeCoin staking protocols to request Ape Foundation’s assistance in implementing ApeCoin staked for its individual users to count as voting power in ApeCoin DAO governance activities.

Authors: BendDAO, JPEG’d, Para Space, @bkr, and @BoredApeG


ApeCoin DAO members have the right to vote, and this right should not be limited by the ApeCoin staking protocol one wishes to use. Establishing a guideline will enable the Ape Foundation to work efficiently with appropriate operators of respective ApeCoin staking protocols to calculate voting power for their users. By supporting this AIP, we can help more users to participate in governance activities and increase those who have a say in the future of the DAO.

Ape Foundation guiding principle of Collective Responsibility: We leave everything better than we found it.

With this proposal we aim to make an improvement to the voting process that preserves each member’s right to vote.

Total Ape Staked as of 3/13/2023

BendDAO ~6,200,000

JPEG’D ~600,000

Para Space ~9,300,000

Allowing users to vote will benefit both the growth of ApeCoin DAO and the whole NFTfi industry.

When approached by an ApeCoin staking protocol operator, Ape Foundation will take reasonable steps to determine the appropriateness of such protocol’s staked ApeCoin to be counted as voting power in ApeCoin governance activities.

Important considerations include but are not limited to the following:

  • Ensuring no aggregators in voting power (e.g. ensuring the protocol operators do not control the voting power)

  • Proving that ultimate ownership is not centralized (i.e. voting represents individual wallet owners only)

Then if deemed appropriate, Ape Foundation will work with the operator for implementation.

Steps to Implement:
Operators of ApeCoin staking protocols may reach out to the administrator of ApeCoin Foundation to request assistance with potential voting power implementation. Subsequently, the Ape Foundation will work with the operator to assess their needs, and if appropriate, the eventual implementation to calculate voting power for end users. Note that this process can change, particularly if such matters are transitioned to Working Groups of ApeCoin DAO.

This will be implemented immediately.

Overall Cost:


This is what I thinking about, it helps $ape holders not to concern about staking or voting, covers both situation


Seems sensible, following the rule of move fast break stuff and see what works. I don’t see a reason not to try this


What type of staking it is about. In case of FLEX type of staking - there should be no problem to vote every 2-3 days. If it’s locked - the actual tokens are not present on the same contract in most cases and being gambled around on the trading platforms by those who have delegation actives access. If you allow those non OG users to vote - it will be more voting power then actual active OG users to use those within short period of time.
Can you please expand on the staking types information you had opportunity to collect?


Thanks for pointing this out…

Indeed it is an important subject, and as the person in charge of the French Ape Yacht Club delegation, I confess my slight frustration to see our voting weight decrease as more members join these staking solutions.


This does make a lot of sense, didn’t even know this was a problem. One question: If voting power is delegated and then tokens are staked in other platforms are this still usable?

Something that happens in other DAOs, let’s see Uniswap and others, is that big corporations that hold big quantities of tokens propose themselves as delegates to support or control their interest in the ecosystem. Making sure that this ApeCoin staking protocols don’t hold the voting power without express permission of their owners is also important.


It is only the same ApeCoin staking contract which Horizen built but these other protocols have created their own front-ends to interact with it; there would no difference to the present calculation of voting power for staked Ape via Horizen’s front-end


Thank you Dr. I’ve seen that dip in delegation as well for your group, so now that makes sense. I’m glad we have the opportunity to aid delegates in this matter such as the wonderful French Ape Yacht Club!


Presently the voting power calculated on ApeCoin staked at can be delegated without issue. Voting power is calculated at a specific snapshot time, after which tokens are free to be used.

This is the key item we will ensure to address. Certainly anyone/entity is free to advocate themselves to become a delegate, but any of these protocols would need to have each individual owner delegate their votes to them the same as everyone else.


First off I’m excited to see this AIP come through, I’m 100% on board with making sure holders with staked $APE are able to vote. I’ve got a couple of questions:

  1. I’m curious how you plan to do the below – wouldn’t this require some sort of KYC or proof of personhood?
  1. Who is going to be doing the deeming of appropriateness as described below and what criteria are you planning on using?
  1. I’m assuming based on the language that the operator would bear the costs of integration, is that why you’re able to propose this at no cost?

Thanks G!


Thanks for the excitement BT! Please let me know if I can help to further clarify any of the responses below.

We could certainly improve the language here for more clarity but “limited to individual wallet owners only” is meant to reflect that voting power remains with the single wallet (which in theory the owner of whom could be an individual, an entity, or multiple individuals).

The primary risk to mitigate is that voting power for multiple wallets are not getting aggregated.

We are not expecting to KYC down to specific individuals. Similar to how staking is done currently on where people can certainly be staking with multiple wallets (no concerns there), but they require official delegation to consolidate voting power amongst those wallets.

This would be the responsibility of Ape Foundation, but we don’t believe we need to get into the specifics; we can trust their discretionary judgement for this. We would expect that if the Foundation rejects a protocol that it would be communicated why it is being rejected. Though we do believe that risk, in practice, is low for a well known operator in the space.

Creating a Snapshot voting strategy is very easy for this implementation (it is similar to the current strategy). BendDAO, JPEG’d, and Para Space are ready to provide the logic to scan their contracts.


Super vital proposal and will offer a lot more inclusion for community members. Highly in favor!


I appreciate this proposal, and only makes sense.

I’d like to contribute that @lior.eth’s project, Omni, is an app that not only enables Ape staking but also allows for voting while your coins are being simultaneously staked (as well as access to staking other coins, integrated browser access to sites like OpenSea, etc.). I’ve been using Omni since day one and have had a great, seamless experience, especially knowing that my transactions are executable from my Ledger-protected wallet. Not a paid shill or anything, just interesting that I hear so little of this resource when talking of $APE staking.

So as a user of Omni, I wasn’t even aware of the voting limitations of these other protocols. Greater user access to voting while staking can only be a good thing.


The only thing that stands out to me as a potential issue is the idea that determining potentially large chunks of voting power is left to a non-specific arbitrary process where the DAO has no oversight.

Would it be possible to;

  1. Make sure that any wallets that stake in any protocols that request the ability to vote are able to do so
  2. Make sure that no wallets related to staking protocols have the ability to vote

Some version of that could eliminate the arbitrary responsibility placed on the APE Foundation and provide clear expectations for all $APE holders.

Thanks G, I appreciate the clarifications


I’m not an expert on Omni but in reviewing the guides…perhaps are you just using your ledger or you imported your MM wallet? If your tokens are not actually locked in their platform, then you’re interacting directly with the staking contract. Omni is effectively acting as a front-end to display your balances, hence, no difference with having your voting power calculated.

BendDAO, JPEG’d, and Para Space require the NFTs and ApeCoin to be locked in their platform to be utilized, in part, for other NFTFi activities. This is why they are not captured in the voting power snapshot.

I do think we’re aligned here. That is the purpose of submitting this guidelines AIP which establishes a process for anyone staking in a protocol other than (i.e. not only limited to BendDAO, JPEG’d, and Para Space) to have the ability to request Ape Foundation’s support to have their voting power calculated.

May you please let me know what is the concern about their ability to vote their own tokens? On my initial take if I am reading it correct, I am in disagreement with this request. Operators of staking protocols are also community members so they should be able to vote if they choose to accumulate tokens for themselves. What makes them different than another company community member who has holdings (e.g. Animoca)? Though we want to ensure that the voting power calculation does not automatically consolidate the votes of their member wallets as part of this process.


I’m in, The staked ApeCoin needs to be accounted for. It’s only fair.


You raise a good point, sire.

I remember seeing that twitter post. It was fixed for that one if I’m not mistaken, right?


I’m not against any community member voting their own tokens, I just want to make sure protocol owners aren’t able to vote with the tokens in their protocol. E.g. Any protocol paying staking rewards can not vote the tokens used to earn those rewards, or the earned rewards themselves.

I think we’re saying the same thing here, but I would prefer to eliminate the need for an arbitrary approval process outside of the oversight of the DAO if possible.

If that isn’t possible then I’d like to understand why it’s needed in order to make an informed decision.


I understand, and that would be my preference as well. If perhaps there was a working group that was tasked and appropriately equipped to address such requests, then it could go to them directly. Therefore, this proposal is designed to work within the current framework of the DAO. Since presently the Administrator on behalf of Ape Foundation controls the snapshot assets, working with them directly would be the most efficient way of getting this accomplished sooner than later.