AIP-277: Re-evaluating ApeCoin DAO Special Council Salaries Structure

I just wanted to add context to my assertions that the SC failure to bring this AIP up for vote, by keeping it in indefinite admin revieww, is a clear violation of the DAO mandates, as well as a violation on a DAO member’s rights.

Exhibit 1:

AIP-1 : Proposing The DAO - Process


  1. Every year, there is a DAO-wide vote to determine which DAO members will serve on a special council on the APE Foundation (the DAO’s “Board”). The purpose of the Board is to administer DAO proposals and serve the vision of the community.
  2. A Board member may be removed and replaced prior to the term pursuant to a majority vote of token holders.
  3. The total cost of implementation must be clear in order for a proposal to go to vote.
  4. DAO members must search past proposals to ensure any idea they intend to write a proposal for has not already been submitted.
  5. If a suggested proposal directly conflicts with a proposal that is currently up for vote, the second proposal should not go for a vote until a decision is made on the first proposal to avoid approval of opposing requirements.
  6. A suggested proposal that directly conflicts with another approved proposal cannot go to vote for three months after the original proposal has been implemented to avoid wasting community assets.
  7. Proposals will not be considered/put up for a vote if they involve illegal activity, hate speech, pornographic material, or are at odds with the mission or values of the APE Foundation.

Exhibit 2:

AIP-137 : The Special Council Nomination Process

Exhibit 3:

AIP-138 : The Special Council Election Process

Exhibit 4:

AIP-173 : Add new Discourse category for Administrative Review

And for reference purposes:

The Webslinger RFP

The Webslinger Formal Bid

1 Like