AIP-266: Authorise Special Council to issue Directives for more efficient DAO operation


Authorise Special Council to issue Directives for more efficient DAO administration




The proposal seeks to formalise a process for Special Council to give Directives to make DAO administration more efficient and to enable Special Council to immediately implement improvements to administrative functions of the DAO by Special Council themselves or on receipt of a request from any member or administrative worker of the DAO.


The proposal is drafted by @ApeforLife, Member of ApecoinDao, who is an Attorney by Profession, with experience as a Director, Executor and Trustee and Current Nominee for Apecoin Special Council in the 2023 election cycle.


The DAO suffers from an extreme inability to speedily and thus also effectively consider and make the most simple of administrative decisions and implement them immediately, thus leading to mulitple individual AIP’s being created to address administrative improvement suggestions. Muliple individual AIP’s to address simple adminstrative efficiency improvements, as and when they are identified is both inefficient and unnecessary if a more efficient procedure is put in place.

There is, for example, currently no fixed procedure in place to simply request that additional website links to the other Apecoin ecosystem pages be added to the Apecoin twitter page or to the Discourse page. A proposed AIP is even being discussed currently in Discourse to request a tab for ‘Treasury’ with an updated counter to be added to the website. There is no reason why the AIP process should be utilised over and over again for the most simple of administrative requests and implementations thereof, such as the examples listed above, in fact using the AIP process for it, causes additional congestion in the AIP process and delays consideration of other important AIP’s, that require funding, that have to make use of the AIP process.

Also it is completely inefficient to go through an AIP process of weeks for something that should not require the AIP process, but is merely an administrative improvement and could and should be implemented in less than a week in some cases and would be so implemented in any other administrative environment.


Adding a procedure for members of the DAO and administrative workers of the DAO to make administrative efficiency suggestions, including related to the Apecoin ecosystem website/s, social media, forum, future discord or otherwise to improve DAO functioning and where no funding is required for the implementation thereof or where it would fall under the discretionary spending of Special Council for the proper functioning of the DAO.

Upon approval of such suggestion/s by Special Council, to then promptly implement same, upon publishing a ‘Directive’ on Discourse.

Also to enable Special Council to implement administrative improvements itself, by publishing such improvements as ‘Directives’ on Discourse.This will also improve transparency as the DAO will be made aware of administrative decisions taken by Special Council, whereas currently they may not have been made aware of certain administrative decisions that have already been made by Special Council or only became aware thereof much later, as there was no formal publication thereof to the members of the DAO.

The above will be considerably more efficient and speedy and futher remove unnecessary administrative related AIPs from the AIP process and immediately enable Special Council to issue and publish ‘Directives’ so as to improve the functioning of the DAO on a much quicker basis. It will also improve transparency in the decisions that Special Council makes.


  1. The person in charge of amendments of the Discourse website page or relevant administrator shall add additional headings called ‘EIS’ and ‘Directives’ on the Main Menu of the Discourse webpage.

  2. Members of the DAO, including DAO administrative workers, may send an administrative Efficiency Improvement Suggestion (EIS), hereinafter referred to as an EIS, which may also include improvements to the Apecoin websites, Discourse, social media, future Discord or otherwise that fall within the ApecoinDao or Apecoin Foundation administrator’s operational control or purview and where no funding is requested for implementation thereof or where the funding would fall under the discretionary spending of Special Council for administrative purposes for the proper functioning of the DAO. Such suggestion shall be sent on Discourse to a Facilitator of the DAO. The Facilitator of the DAO who receives it, shall within 2 business days of receipt thereof forward the EIS to all the members of the Special Council for their consideration and publish the EIS under the new ‘EIS’ heading on the Main menu of the Discourse website page that was created as per 1 above.

  3. Special Council shall on receipt of such request consider same and approve it, or amend it and approve it, or reject it, within no more than 12 business days.

  4. If the suggestion is approved by Special Council or amended and approved by Special Council, it shall become a Directive and if not subject to a proviso, shall be implemented in the ApecoinDao upon publication thereof in Discourse by the DAO Facilitators. Publication shall take place by posting the Directive and the reason therefor under a new heading to be created, ‘Directives’, in the main menu of Discourse. Publication shall take place no later than two business days after Special Council forwarded the Directive to a DAO Facilitator and the relevant DAO Facilitator shall also inform the person or persons who had forwarded the EIS to a Facilitator of the DAO of the approval or amended approval and close the post in respect of the particular EIS post on the Discourse page and leave a comment that the post has closed and the EIS was ‘Approved or Amended and Approved as per Directive nr._’ and provide the appropriate number of the Directive that was issued. If any proviso or provisos apply to a Directive, such as Foundation Approval or otherwise, it shall be stated as such in the Directive and in the message referred to above and the provisions of point 17 will further apply thereto.

  5. If the EIS is rejected by Special Council they shall inform a Facilitator of the DAO of the rejection and the reason for rejection, who in return shall within 2 business days thereafter inform the person or persons who had forwarded the EIS to a Facilitator of the DAO of the rejection and the reason for rejection and close the EIS on the Discourse website page and add the reason for rejection in a comment under the particular EIS post by using the precise wording received from Special Council for the rejection.

  6. Any EIS rejected by Special Council may still be submitted thereafter through the AIP process with all the requirements of a normal AIP.

  7. Special Council may on its own implement any EIS by forwarding a Directive for publication by a Facilitator of the DAO, in respect of any improvement that Special Council has identified and wishes to implement for the improved functioning of the DAO, which may also include improvements to the Apecoin websites, Discourse, social media, future Discord or otherwise that fall within the ApecoinDao or Apecoin Foundation administrator’s operational control or purview and where no funding is required for the implementation thereof or where the funding would fall under the discretionary spending of Special Council for administrative purposes for the functioning of the DAO. A Facilitator of the DAO shall publish the Directive, within 2 business days on the Discourse website page under the heading of ‘Directives’ that is to be added, as per point 1, to the Main Menu of the website page, together with Special Council’s reason or reasons for the Directive. If any proviso or provisos apply to the Directive, such as Foundation Approval or otherwise, it shall be stated as such in the Directive and the provisions of point 17 will further apply thereto.

  8. Special Council shall provide a reason or reasons for a Directive when it forwards it to a DAO Facilitator for publishing. Reasons provided can be limited to short statements, such as for example - This Directive was issued as it will improve transparency to add a treasury tab and treasury spending information to the website and it will be a more efficient way for DAO members to obtain the information than existed before the issue of this Directive - or as further example - This Directive was issued as it will provide a better user experience for new visitors of the DAO’s Twitter page by adding links to our Discourse page and will be a more efficient way for new users to find more information relating to the DAO, than existed before the issuing of this Directive.

  9. Special Council shall upon publishing of a Directive or if a proviso applies thereto, upon approval of implementation thereof as per point 17, instruct the Foundation administrators or any other relevant Working group or person with an administrative position in the DAO and in a position to do so, to implement the Directive, if implementation is required.

  10. Any EIS implemented by way of a Directive of Special Council, as set out above, can be recalled or amended by an approved AIP.

  11. In the case of a conflict between any Directive issued and an approved AIP, the provisions of the AIP shall prevail.

  12. A new Directive can recall or amend a previous Directive or Directives and in the case of a conflict between Directives the most recent Directive shall prevail.

  13. No formalities shall apply in the drafting of an EIS and it can be marked - EIS - as subject and an Efficiency Improvement Suggestion shall be set out in the message that is sent to a DAO Facilitator.

  1. A ‘business day’ is defined as a day excluding Saturday and Sunday. The day on which any document referred to above is received by the relevant person or persons referred to, shall be counted as the start of the first day, unless it falls on a Saturday or Sunday, in which case the First day shall only start on Monday.

  2. Directives shall be numbered consecutively by a Facilitator or Facilitators of the DAO and the number of the Directive shall be listed on publication thereof.

  3. Any reference to Discourse refers to the forum website page and vice versa.

  4. Once any proviso on a Directive has been fulfilled or cannot be fulfilled, Special Council shall inform a Facilitator thereof who shall post a message under a fulfilled Directive as follows - ‘This Directive has received final approval for implementation and is now in operation’. If the proviso leads to the Directive being amended or not being implemented, it shall be stated as such and in the case of an amended directive it shall be published accordingly on Discourse under the relevant Directive with a confirmation that - ‘The Amended Directive as listed above has received approval for implementation and is now in operation’. In the case of a Directive where the proviso was not met, the following words shall be published under the Directive - ‘This Directive did not meet the criteria of the proviso it was subject to and this Directive will thus not be implemented in the DAO’.

  1. The position of Drafter is further hereby created and @ApeForLife will serve in this position for a period of 24 months.

18.1) Duties of the Drafter:

To liaise with Special Council when Special Council requires the Drafter to formally draft the reasons of rejection or approval and Directives as per their instructions. The Drafter will then prepare and forward the relevant draft to Special Council within 2 business days after receiving instructions from them. Special Counsel can request amendments or edits to be done by the drafter thereafter, until they are satisfied that the relevant document is satisfactory to them and accurately reflects the decision or desired Directive of Special Council. It will not be necessary for all the members of Special Council to instruct the drafter and one or more of the members of Special Council can do so on behalf of Special Council and the Drafter shall in such case liaise only with the relevant Special Council member or members and supply that particular Special Council member or members with the relevant drafts. Special Council and The Drafter should attempt to complete the process in this paragraph in no more than 4 days. Special Council should instruct the Drafter within 7 days from receiving the EIS of their instructions, so as to ensure that the relevant document is ready for publication by the expiry of the 12 day period set out in paragraph 3 above.

18.2) Qualifications of the Drafter

@ApeForLife holds the legal degrees of B. Juris and LL.B (c. laude) and has more than 20 years of legal drafting experience as an attorney. A successor to the position, if any, should preferably hold legal degrees and have experience in legal drafting or otherwise have verifiable drafting experience.

18.3) Special Council to decide after 20 months if they wish to put the drafting position up for election prior to expiry of the term and on such terms and conditions as they may decide upon then or whether it be transferred to the working groups or otherwise dealt with at that stage and Special Council can issue a Directive accordingly.


The Apecoin DAO administrators or other administrative worker of the DAO or Apecoin Foundation administrators, with ability to amend the Discourse website page at is instructed to add separate ‘EIS’ and ‘Directives’ tabs to the forum website page of the DAO at which will fall in the main menu under ‘Categories’ and under which proposed EIS from members of the DAO and/or administrative workers of the DAO will be published and listed and the Directives of Special Council will be published and listed respectively. The DAO is to Implement the procedure as set out in point 1 to 18 above and subject to the conditions contained therein.


This AIP can reasonably be implemented within 2 weeks of the AIP being approved by the DAO.


48000 Apecoin as follows - 2000 Apecoin per month for 24 months for @ApeforLife to assist Special Council with drafting and to liase with Special Council to draft reasons for rejection or approval and to draft formal Directives on the instruction of Special Council and to draft said reasons or Directives on their behalf and in accordance with their instructions. Special council to decide if they wish to put the drafting position up for election on expiry of the 24 month period and on such conditions as they decide or whether it be transferred to the working groups or otherwise dealt with at that stage.


This is a really interesting proposal, @ApeForLife. It is well drafted and well-thought out. Providing Special Council with more discretionary power to make administrative changes makes a lot of sense. This proposal would meaningfully make our DAO more efficient while reducing clog of our AIP process, and likely reducing voter fatigue along the way.

As long as their authority for directives is restricted to changes/ improvements that are administrative in nature - as you’ve suggested they should be - it seems to me that the authority would be squarely within Special Council’s mandate and appropriate scope of action.


It will be interesting to consider if this discretionary power might ever be shared with or more appropriately provided to Working Groups. I’ll give that some thought and follow up with more feedback.


Thank you Waabam, it means alot coming from you as a highly respected member here! Very much appreciated!


Very interesting. I really enjoy this idea. From a Product standpoint, it feels like this would create such a smooth & streamlined way of quickly implementing these kinds of functions, therefore optimizing user experiences - but still in a decentralized fashion.

Great stuff :rocket:


I love the idea of empowering the special council with minor changes/additions as such. The concern is what are the guidelines for it and does that impact our “decentralized” ways? I personly think it would be amazing to get some things like this in play, the guidelines thoooooo. And how do we reverse if the community isn’t happy with it?


Thank you Ms_NFTy for the comment. Yes, I was thinking of perhaps adding a point 9 for clarity that any ‘Directive’ issued by Special Council can be recalled by or amended by a community Approved AIP, in case the community is not satisfied with any ‘Directive’ that Special Council issues. Community approved AIP’s will always be above ‘Directives’ in hierarchy and ‘Directives’ can thus always be recalled or amended, but better to spell it out perhaps. I don’t think any more guidelines would be necessary, as Special Council can in fact make administrative decisions to improve the running of the DAO and probably have already done so, this a just a way of formalising it so the community can be made aware of any such decisions to improve the functioning of the DAO that have been taken and then it most importantly also provides a quick way for members of the DAO to bring improvement suggestions directly to Special Council and get it implemented much more speedily, such as simply asking for the adding of links to discord and discourse on the twitter page, you simply don’t need an AIP for it, but there is no other procedure to get it done currently. I asked a few weeks back on Discord if it can’t just be done by someone - it can, but nothing happened - so we need a quick and easy protocol to get small improvements like that done. You can then literally just make a suggestion like this - Add links to Discord and Discourse on the Twitter page - Special Council can consider it and approve it and issue a Directive and it gets implemented immediately. If someone sends in an efficiency improvement suggestion that Special Council themselves are uncertain of whether it would in fact amount to an improvement, they will reject it and the person can still follow the AIP route then.


The idea of not needing AIPs for straightforward changes makes perfect sense to me! The pain of slow speed is something I think we can all relate to.

What I’m wondering is a) who should be doing it and b) how much of this is already in place. On a Twitter Space recently one of the SC members mentioned they don’t need permission to make minor changes to the website, but it’s done by the Administrator. Do we know the extent of that authority and if it’s not enough?

The Marketing & Comms WG seems to aim to solve this also. Have you perhaps checked with those authors to see if that AIP already covers this need? You may decide to still submit own AIP, of course, or maybe both AIPs are covering slightly different things and are thus needed, but it wouldn’t hurt to ask as they maybe have done some research into this.

Other than that, I just have minor feedback on timeline: 1 business day is a very short window for anyone to do anything, and though I know it’s asking for very little, I’d just suggest to consider 2 or 3 business days.


Valuable idea to consider and conversations to have.

Agreed in spirit, with reservations. There’s a lot of wiggle room between inefficient and a very slippery slope, especially given the lack of transparency or clarity on some decisions that have been made.

We also need be careful, for probably obvious legal / regulatory reasons - and why not clarify it in this AIP - about what is or isn’t an official outlet: AFAIK that’s Discourse and that’s it as far as forums. Not Discord. Website; singular not plural. Etc. … or maybe that’s it other than the official Twitter account.


At first glance, the proposal sounds logical and may be useful for improving the organization’s performance.

Do you have any concerns that such a concentration of power in the hands of the council may lead to problems with the democracy and transparency of the work of the DAO? Could this lead to the ad hoc council issuing directives that have no real effect on how the organization works?

In general, the AIP proposal certainly has its advantages


Thanks brOOno, for your valued comment. I thought it better not to specify specific website names etc, and what is currently official or unofficial, as this can change over time and I want the AIP to be as general as possible in this regard so that it would not have to be amended in future. Discourse could also be regarded as a website and perhaps there is another in future etc, the proviso of ‘fall within the Apecoin DAO or Apecoin Foundation’s control or purview and where no funding is requested for implementation thereof’ should address your concerns, but of course the Foundation’s legal counsel will also check if there is any legal/regulatory concerns in the proposed AIP. Waabam and myself are also planning some discussions still, so I will consider any changes suggested. Thank you very much.


Thank you Sasha. Waabam also requested to discuss some things with me, we can push Marketing and Comms WG discussion in there perhaps and if there is any overlap. I think the proposal could actually assist the Working groups as far as simple administrative improvements that they identify are concerned and getting it implemented speedily. Your timeline extension suggestion with another day or so I think is a good idea, as we all know things might be too hectic on a certain day and giving an extra day should not be problem.


Thank you Zloj, I think Special Council will use it’s power to issue directives in respect of improvements they themselves identified sparingly, as they do their current powers. I expect most, if not all administrative improvement suggestions to come from the community members, working groups etc., as such I do not expect any such problems. Any ‘Directive’ will also be able to be removed or amended by the community with an approved AIP, so ultimately keeping the democratic vote at the top.


This is certainly one implementation method, yes. I believe its a topic they’ve explored heavily this year, and it continues really. Put this through the process. Send it. They can adjust implementation method or return for construction. Historically these things can get stuck in process as well like a black box.

There have been many delayed proposals overtime when it comes to special council, or the mission or how messaging regarding the foundation activities take place. I’m quite confident that once you engage with the Ape Foundation in the Cayman Islands in most capacities, you have to limit engagement.

These legal opinions are changing every day. Most everyone is running on opinion, we’re riding the wave of web3 blockchain NFT community yada yada…! By putting it through this process, this will be reviewed by legal and given full process. The exploration of the regulatory jungle continues. Send it!


Thanks 0xSword. I love the reply!


Some things are new & vague and others are fairly straight forward. Like art and the rest of web3, so much is subject to interpretation and new developments that can spur up of night. You’re entering in to the scene to seek a special council position at this time, so what are your early thoughts on all this? I see you have experience listed and a fair resume. Your candidate profile looks really good too.


That works. Thanks.

I believe however that the Foundation’s lawyer isn’t a securities lawyer and hasn’t been commenting on ethical hazards.

People presume so, along with presuming there’s any true ethical or fiscal oversight, audits and 3rd-party assessments of current and future risks (including for already-passed AIPs as the regulatory landscape changes) - but there isn’t, or at least there’s no clear evidence of it based on my experience with public companies and securities regulators. Hence my SC candidacy to hopefully change that for the better before we all learn the hard way why it really matters.

I wish that included in this AIP there’s a requirement for written disclosure - published on this forum in a dedicated thread (perhaps in a new sub forum?) - reasonably detailing by what rationale and processes any such arbitrary decisions and actions are made by SC.


Hi 0x, I’m not in the DAO as long as some others and perhaps that gives me a slightly different view. Firstly I found it very strange that such a big marketcap project does not even have links listed in its Twitter, whereas even small projects listed at number 500 on marketcap usually all have links to Telegram, Discord, Medium, website, etc. I wanted to find out more information on Special Council and only found limited information on the website. I had no idea what ‘Discourse’ referred to. I somehow found a reference to Thank Ape on twitter and reached Discord. A few days later I found out the forum is actually called ‘Discourse’. Discourse has no ‘wallet connect’ tab and I had to connect it as per the application form, first other problem I saw. It is thus not the usual or a user friendly set up currently. I was shocked when I asked on Discord why there are no links on twitter and somebody replied that they are working on some marketing AIP to get this done?? I replied can’t you just ask someone to do it, if I recall right. I actually also asked under a tweet of one of the Special Council members, if they could not add relevant links, perhaps they did not see it, perhaps they waited for an AIP. A very unfriendly initial user environment. I’m trying to get my head around whether the DAO provides any real legal protection at this stage, but would also need to read the Foundation’s founding documents to have a better idea of what is legally set up here and that is not even available to the DAO currently (perhaps better so as else the Sec and otherwise might read it too - lol). An unregistered organistation’s members can usually be held legally liable in most jurisdictions, but this DAO as organisition is not based in any country as such and I presume the thinking is that this could provide some protection for the DAO perhaps, as there is no country which would likely act against it if it does not fall in any country’s jurisdiction. I think that is the current thinking behind it at least. The US however has the nasty habit of claiming jurisdiction where any of its citizens participate. Limiting the DAO to just giving grants and not selling tokens should be a bit of protection in itself, as it is unlikely to draw scrutiny. Vetting is done also it seems so that grants aren’t given to people in restricted countries or lists, so it seems that major threats are addressed. In Web2 world we would set up a Trust and put all the assets in there and then name a Foundation as beneficiary, the Foundation then just receives payments from the Trust and has no real assets itself, thus protecting the assets of the Trust and grants etc can be done from Foundation side. This extra layer could have also been incorporated here, so that a Caymanian Trust would only make payments to a Cayman Foundation and thus only falls in the jurisdiction of Cayman and no other country, it thus makes no Foreign payments and only say one or two legal payments per month to the Foundation. The Foundation could then make international payments for grants etc. Generally if you are set up in a country that is crypto friendly, your unlikely to get as much or any problems, but watch out for foreign dealings with US etc. The US laws and Sec’s regulations do not apply inside any other country, so it is best to set up in the most crypto friendly country, which might be EL Salvador currently. Cayman is however known as a tax haven and I will have to do an analysis still of whether it can be regarded as a crypto haven also. Hopefully somebody did an analysis before they set up in Cayman, but it might have just been for tax purposes, it should be way better than the US though. That is my initial thoughts though and is not to be considered legal advice at this stage. I’ll end with that disclaimer.


Unfortunately it looks like we will have to get onto Special Council to see the Foundation’s audits etc. The Foundation is registered and I would expect it would be audited by the myriad of auditors in Cayman. Cayman is well known for the myriad of Companies registered there with no offices, just very big bank accounts and an equally big number of auditors that audit those finances coming in and out.Of a concern for me is all the funds sitting in Coinbase in the US instead of in Cayman. If it sits in the US, the US has jurisdiction over Coinbase and the funds etc. Get out of the US and the Sec becomes irrelevant if you don’t deal with the US. The Sec’s regulations only apply in the US and in no other country in the world. DOT, ETH are not set up in the US and the Sec has not touched them, compare that to XRP that sits in the US and is being dragged through the mud and many other crypto projects set up in the US and who stupidly hold their tokens in the US. Make sure you are set up in a country where crypto is defined as an asset and not a security. If you are set up in a country like the US where it is a security then you are dealing in illegal unregistered securities and there is no escape, best to avoid such crypto unfriendly countries completely. I want all legal documents also to see everything is properly registered in terms of Caymanian law. Luckily APE is set up in Cayman where it is an asset and not a security. Of course Cayman law has to be complied with, but it is not a security law concern in Cayman itself. As for my proposal, there will not be a regulatory risk to add a link from Twitter to Discourse for example. Simple administrative improvements is not likely where regulatory risks will lie, they will lie mostly where funds are transferred to third parties and in dealings with third parties etc and Special Council should be able to differentiate in this regard. In a sense the DAO is already more bureaucratic than the worst government, risks must be assessed but the last thing that must be done is to create an environment where nothing can get done, because then inevitably you fall so far behind that your competition bypasses your token and the token becomes irrelevant. Tokens like Ronin are building fast and getting new games onboarded etc., we simply need to move faster or Apecoin will disappear like hundreds of other tokens already did.

1 Like

We shouldn’t presume. I’ve asked for the name of the Foundation’s auditor or where the auditor’s risk assessments can be found, and the silence has been deafening so it’s arguably reasonable to presume there is none. If there is, it certainly isn’t available to token holders as it should be.

Further, “oversight” appears once on the Foundation’s homepage - not in relation to finances, ethical or regulatory peril - and “audit” appears zero times. Hence my SC candidacy.

Dapper Labs (NBA Top Shots) is up the regulatory creek for tweeting rocket emojis, to state it simply if not comprehensively, to make just one pertinent example. The risk is in giving tacit “official” status to outlets that do, regularly, give securities regulators very easy and fat targets. And of course a premium brand in the space such as ApeCoin is a preferred target, and it’s already known we’re on watch.

That’s why someone with SEC regulatory compliance and audit experience on SC is valuable - arguably necessary and overdue - hence my candidacy.

It sounds to me like we want the same things, if perhaps by different (and IMO complimentary) paths. I expect all token holders want this, so please view my comments as those of an ally.


Yes, there must be auditors, so I share your view on this too! True, we can compliment each other, as we both do have valuable experience from different sides and indeed things can’t be hidden from investors! Have a pleasant day further!