AIP-265: 2/3 "Supermajority" Requirement to Alter Fundamental Tenets of ApeCoin DAO and its Operations

This is a great point, and a downside that could possibly play out, we should certainly keep an eye on this over time, and maybe it becomes a good argument basis for reverting back to the original two options, for or against? I’m definitely open to all the possibilities.


I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement but I’m willing to talk about it.

I think they put forward a neutral stance. Indifference, in this case doesn’t equal to Not in favour so I’ll favour them not being counted

Honestly, That’s something I agree with. Imo ~ 65% should be enough for a decisive vote

Also, one thing : If we Implement both of these at the same time, To reach the 70% threshold to pass while counting the Abstains as Hell No’s would be a monumental task.

I think we can follow the UN general assembly’s voting framework here, It’ll give us a lot of room for Diplomatic posturing :joy:

Open for dialogue, let’s create the best Governance System in the entirety of Web 3


Well said, Critical decisions which hold the power to change the DAO for the better or for the worse like fundamentally overhauling the governance structure or the voting power redistribution would need to be voted overwhelmingly in majority (No option to Abstain cause if lots of people abstain, It’ll create a low base effect which’ll result in a few votes being decisive)

The Criteria and the options to vote for different topics need to be drafted up alongside the Governance Committee


100% agree with you, It’s like the UN General Assembly voting framework.

Neutrality is sometimes underrated and underappreciated


Hi @br00no,

Your topic will be automatically closing in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received, or do you wish to extend community discussion for a further 7 days?

If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.

We look forward to hearing from you.


1 Like

2/3 is a lot imho. Keep in mind that achieving 66% vote is not just 16% harder, but probably 2x as hard as achieving 50% vote.

If we are ever to move away from 51/49, I’d suggest 55/45 or at most 60/40.

There’s no perfect number here. But you don’t want to stifle innovation and exacerbate ‘partisanship’ by making votes super hard to pass. Moving numbers far from each other also puts extreme importance on the whales, as AIPs will become near-impossible to pass without them, and people will have to pander to those votes, which compromises integrity of AIPs.

51/49 isn’t so bad. After all, we should all have some basic trust in each other that we may disagree, but hopefully none of us will vote on obviously awful ideas that hurt the ecosystem. There’s quite a distance from “ehh, I don’t think it’s good enough” to “waste of money”, meaning that even if 49% are “ehh” it may still be a good proposal, as time might tell.

All in all, my opinion is 55/45 should be as far as we take this, if the council decides to take it anywhere.


Hi Lost. Please extend 7 days. Thank you.


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@br00no has requested to extend the community discussion period for this AIP idea. This topic will automatically close a further 7 days from now. We encourage the community to continue to engage in thoughtful discussions through constructive criticism, honest feedback, and helpful suggestions.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Thank you,



I’m thinking to proceed with this as a very low cost, or no cost, AIP to Draft phase with the following tenets:

  1. Seems to be a consensus so far that a higher threshold than 51/49 is worthwhile and desirable. As this moves along we’ll gain more Discourse on what that threshold should be, and maybe final vote could be multiple options? Offhand based on comments above I’d guess “No Change, 60-40, 2/3”.

  2. Make it clear, in case there’s any confusion, that “Abstain” does not count for pass/fail.

  3. Maybe needs to be a distinct AIP(?): Task an existing Working Group or dedicated subset of an existing Working Group (Governance?) to assess / investigate if certain types of votes or thresholds of ask $amounts should perhaps have distinct thresholds higher (or lower?).

FWIW, my personal opinion is that it is beneficial to be higher than 51/49 with no firm opinion on how much higher, but I am of the belief it’d be at least 55-45 to make any real difference even just as a “nod” to asserting something other than the usual 51-49.

No worries if consensus is “no change”. IMO there’s value is in having actually considered and decided this collectively, even “no change”, vs. simply accepting the default.

Having come this far, I volunteer to steer this AIP (or two?) forward and participate in a related Working Group if it goes there.

My b/g that has any relevance is having been on BoD of multiple public companies, usually on the finance side of the business. CFO and such. Board appointments are voted on annually by shareholders. An audit firm oversees the voting. Often a greater than 51-49 vote is required, or highly desirable, for certain corporate initiatives.

Pretty simple, and if at all possible have fun!


Would you be comfortable adding a stipulation to the AIP that it should only be considered “passed” if the % of pass votes is same or higher than the proposed new percentage?

E.g. if the AIP suggests 60/40 and it only passes with 59% of votes, it should be manually adjusted to rejected/failed.

Seems fair that same standard is applied to this AIP as it proposes we apply to others. This is to serve as a test if the suggested new numbers are achievable/realistic.


Thank you, Sasha.

I’m comfortable with the consensus of people participating in the discussion.

AND yes, I was thinking about this just yesterday. Hadn’t thought of the solution you propose, which seems simple and obvious. So yes I will make this part of any discussion / draft going forward.

For balance, I’m also aware that there’s an irony of an idea failing because of the very “problem” it attempts to remedy.

Far better than picking whatever pass/fail ratio, would be some way of vetting for voters who actually grasp what they’re voting on. Or at least read and understood an AIP. Someone qualified adding comments on ethical or potential legal peril would also be helpful. That’s a different discussion / AIP in progress. It’s all about more quality and informed votes at the core, not picking numbers for the heck of it.

Or maybe “we” don’t care about any of this. What matters is if it’s to be 51/49 it should be by decision not default. That would be a much better title to this idea than “changing pass / fail ratio”… maybe “Determining The Pass / Fail Ratio”. I’ll improve the title next round.

Some study of different systems might be beneficial, especially for more impactful topics like changes to fundamental tenets of the DAO. At some point there’s a legal line crossed. I’ve heard comments by lawyers in the space stating … I don’t want to paraphrase incorrectly…basically that some votes if taken as suggestions are OK but if taken as binding transforms the whole thing into a violation. There’s a lot of nuance that goes with that of course - including whether it’s a social or protocol DAO, or other - it’s just an example.

Brainstorming here. I don’t purport to have all, or any, definitive answers.


I think you’re coming closer to the “meat” of it now, i.e. how can we make sure the votes are more educated as opposed to “I skimmed through, amount won’t bankrupt the DAO, sure why not, YES” or “Too long, don’t know this ape, f it, NO.”

Not sure how to solve this, but def a good thing to think about. I mean, should AIP authors make a simple 3-question quiz about their AIP that every voter must answer/pass before they can vote? lol That’s one way to ensure they’ve read it through.

I’m glad you’re thinking about it and I will just be very helpful and shrug and say that I’m looking forward to reading your final thoughts haha. GLHF

PS: I also don’t think we’ll ever fully solve this, so we should keep in mind. The system needs to be good; it simply can’t ever be perfect. The only perfect system is a dictatorship!


Sasha, thanks again. Agreed 100%

Voting qualification of some kind would solve so very much IRL, and arguably online too.

Just today I heard aggressive criticisms of an AIP up for vote that revealed the person being aggro didn’t 1. grasp what the DAO can or can’t do, and 2. bother to offer / ask comments, concerns or questions in the months the AIP was up for discussion here.

If in addition that person, or others similar, have an influential amount of $APE, it damages this whole process, its purpose and potential.

Is there an appetite for some kind of qualified voting? All comments welcome.


I would vote against this as so little money has gone out so far in relative terms compared to the size of the DAO


Instead of trying to change voting rights, I suggest focusing on educating voters. Explain that the ApeCoin DAO is not a for-profit organization, and has no expectation of financial return on investment for apecoin grants. Perhaps including a statement like that at the top of each snapshot description would help voters understand they should not be voting like a venture capitalist expecting a financial return on their investment?


Thank you. Isn’t the solution better proposals, and voters making an effort to understand them while voting in-line with the Mission?

We could give away the entire endowment to a random person tomorrow. Wouldn’t make this a better, more effective DAO.

Thanks. I’ve heard versions of this “voting like a VC comment” from others too. I’ve not seen that happen, but in any case the point is definitely about more informed voting.

I suggest if voters need to be informed about basic functions and principles at the very last second prior to voting, the DAO is failing and in that case some new form of threshold - whether it be a higher threshold of awareness, pass / fail, both, etc. - is of great value.

Maybe we get there in part through this discussion.


I’ve heard it in a few different forms, yesterday’s being “for this amount of money you should be giving the DAO equity in your business” on the twitter space. Previously were very similar comments when I look at when people comment while voting “No” on snapshot.

When I try to match the no-voters on snapshot I usually cannot find them on on this forum or on the WG0 discord. So it makes sense to me to repeat the mission and clarification about non-profit grants as much as possible. I don’t know how else you are going to reach those that do not engage in the conversations here. But maybe that is because I rarely look at, or participate, on twitter.
Yesterday was an anomaly for me to listen to a twitter space.


Hello. We’ve recently just restarted voting after a long delay. Please consider holding on moving this forward until we can get the results from the active token voters. If this were to go up after a heated week, it could be voted up or down based on emotions. Just something to consider. Thanks Broono

1 Like

I strongly support requiring 2/3 “in favor” for any proposal that has a cost to implement (maybe over some nominal amount) or that changes the voting rules or structure of the DAO.

1 Like