AIP-361: Community alignment on the immediate reduction or elimination of $APE staking emissions


Community alignment on the immediate reduction or elimination of $APE staking emissions


Ecosystem Fund Allocation


This is a proposal for community alignment on the immediate reduction or elimination of $APE staking emissions in their current form, by an amount to be later proposed by the community. This is not a proposal on quantifying reduction or elimination, but merely aims to express a community-wide willingness to reduce staking emissions in its current form.


A reduction or elimination of $APE staking emissions would benefit the ApeCoin ecosystem over the short and long term. Without a sufficient treasury the DAO will struggle to achieve its mission due to a lack of optionality and funding. By retaining a larger share of the treasury, ApeCoin holders will be able to fund initiatives that are in line with the DAOs ethos, and will advance the DAOs desired goals.


Ronan: Investor at Collab+Currency. Collab+Currency is a crypto-focused venture fund backing early-stage projects building the next generation of culture and consumer technology.


Some relevant metrics: Source

  • 3 year staking program allocation: Year 1 allocation 100M $APE, year 2 allocation 50M $APE, year 3 allocation 25M $APE—37% of the initial treasury allocation.
  • Roughly 85% of the 100M $APE year 1 allocation has been emitted.

The current staking program is depleting the DAO’s treasury without a discernible positive impact on the APE token value or NFT collections. Roughly 85% of the program’s year 1 allocation has been claimed, representing ~49% of the total $APE scheduled to be emitted over the 3-year program. With roughly 90M $APE yet to be emitted, the DAO will retain only 63% of its initial equity by the end of Q4 2025, with no alternative spend.

There is rapid treasury depletion without significant or observable APE token value accrual. $APE is down 95% from it’s all-time high – it is critical to reconsider the staking program in favor of preserving the DAO’s remaining capital for investment in positive ROI initiatives.

Treasury resources should be more effectively used to advance the DAO’s objectives. There are limitless possibilities to advance the APE ecosystem with this capital. I am confident in the DAOs ability to uncover more productive spending outside of the current staking program.

Aggressive inflationary token economic models as a form of yield are a harbinger of negative price action in crypto for a reason – there is no net new capital being created nor distributed.


Long-Term Vision: The DAO has ambitious plans: supporting the development of multiple games, an immersive environment, and more. Such ambitions are capital and time intensive. Depleting the treasury to sustain the staking program runs counter to these long-term goals.

Funding and Liquidity: Securing another large round of funding for Yuga Labs may prove challenging, as investors often seek a pathway to a liquidity event. With three different PFP collections, multiple in-game asset collections, an ERC-20 token, and a Bitcoin Ordinal collection, the avenues to such an event are dwindling. While Yuga Labs and ApeDAO are two separate entities, the DAO itself has no mechanisms or avenues to maintain its treasury.

Importance of Capital: Without a near-term path to self-sustaining revenue, it is paramount that the DAO exercises prudent capital management. As such, the remaining 58% of the staking program (at today’s prices, roughly $147M), should be diverted towards productive investments that align various actors with APEs success – actors that are not existing members of the APE ecosystem. For example:

  • Development and expansion of the Otherside
  • Community cultivation and education
  • Marketing and partnerships
  • R&D on web2 and web3 gaming profiles

Counterargument: There is the case to be made that the staking program supports the prices of the ecosystem NFTs, particularly incentivizing long term holders of the BAYC collection, as well as the $APE token due to the yield holders receive. While this may be true, it is entirely unquantifiable. Even if the staking program kept prices significantly higher in the interim (which I don’t believe to be true), the end state for monetary success of these collections and the $APE token relies on Yuga’s ability to ship their outlined roadmap. Without a significant multi-year war chest that can weather the cyclical nature of our industry, it is difficult to see how the DAO will be able to achieve its roadmap with such little equity.


“Liquidity event”: An event that allows private capital to be publicly traded – in traditional markets this is typically through an IPO or acquisition. In crypto, this is typically through a token launch or acquisition.


In the event of a vote in favor of this proposal, we will put forth a subsequent governance proposal which will outline various options to reduce or eliminate $APE staking emissions, as well as the necessary operational and technical considerations.

The follow-up proposal will be drafted as soon as the proposal is passed.


0 ApeCoin

Footnote: Tax implications of high-yield staking

High-yield staking presents a significant tax burden to recipients and should only be deployed when it is necessary for a protocol to function. In most cases, participants will owe income tax on the FMV of staking rewards upon receipt.

For example: User obtains 200,000 APE at a spot rate of $5 – about $1M in fair market value.

User stakes the entire balance for 1 year and yields an effective rate of 45% in-kind. The value of APE drops by 60% to a spot rate of $2.00 during that time period.

Assuming linear price decline, the taxable income in this scenario is 90,000 APE x $3.50 (average spot rate in the period) for a total of $315,000 of taxable income. This would be taxed at the recipient’s personal bracket, where this lands in the >32% range. For ease, we’ll say their effective tax rate is 30%.

Their tax bill is $94,500 and if no rewards were sold for cash, their entire APE holding is worth ~$580,000 (290,000 APE x $2.00 spot). So they must sell ~16% of their position to cover it. Repeating this process year-over-year results in value erosion over time.

If price declines dramatically in any single tax year, or yield increases to levels beyond 45% in-kind, the impact could mean that a user faces a tax burden that is around the same or more than their entire holding is even worth. Re-running the numbers for a decline in price from $5 to $0.25, the results are: Taxable income $236,250 (90,000 APE at an average spot rate of $2.625), tax due is $70,875, and APE holding is worth ~$72,500. Regardless of subsequent price recovery, the timing of tax years has the potential to create a full liquidation scenario.

Arguments can be made against staking classified as ‘income’, however they are considered aggressive/high-risk.


Statements contained in this proposal are based on current expectations, estimates, projections, opinions and beliefs of Collab+Currency. Such statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors. Additionally, this Letter may contain “targets” or “forward‐looking statements.” Actual events or results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such statements.

The receipt of this proposal further shall not be taken as constituting the giving of legal, tax, investment or other advice by Collab+Currency.


I loved the read.
Numbers are important to take in consideration and inform everyone.


Hi @collabcurrency,

Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 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.




We would like to extend community discussion for another 7 days.


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@collabcurrency has requested to extend the community discussion period for this AIP idea. This topic will automatically close a further 8 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.


1 Like

It’s great that You’ve provided numbers analytics. It’s can form a full picture of proposal. You did a great work, thanks for it!

1 Like

Hi @collabcurrency,

Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 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

We would like to move to the AIP Draft phase.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

Hi @collabcurrency,

Thank you for your ideas [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the insightful discussions]. A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft using the appropriate template. In accordance with DAO-approved guidelines, if the author doesn’t respond within 30 days, the proposal will be automatically transferred to the Withdrawn category, and the author can re-submit the idea. Once the AIP is Drafted and meets all DAO-approved guidelines, it will be published on Snapshot for the official live voting phase at: Snapshot.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. @collabcurrency please see your messages for the next steps.


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@collabcurrency has completed editing their AIP Idea to be their AIP Draft.

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

Kind Regards,


1 Like

So this proposal can be considered more of a temperature check. My question would be would be that in the event this passes, would there still be an option on the subsequent AIP to have staking rewards remain unchanged or does this AIP prevent that option from appearing on the next AIP?

Also, even if this doesn’t pass, you or someone else could, in theory, still provide a proposal which outlines a staking reduction, no?

The subsequent AIP will only have various options on the rate of reduction or the elimination of emissions. A yes vote means that the community is in favor of some reduction or elimination, therefore the resulting proposal is only to decide by how much.

If this doesn’t pass, us or someone else could, in theory, still provide a proposal which outlines a staking reduction. However, given that this proposal will gauge the willingness to reduce or eliminate, a vote no would express the communities unwillingness to reduce or eliminate.

1 Like

Can you clarify a bit more by what you mean by Community? Do you just mean the normal Approval/Disproval of the snapshot vote? Because if so, that is less “community” if this passes by a handful of wallets with a majority interest thus forcing the community at large into something that they may not actually want.

Personally, I think the proper option and best one is that you should go for it all, and put down all possible reduction/elimination/keeping the same options and include a clause that this in binding for at least some time period afterwards, possibly a year from the end of snapshot, to prevent another AIP from undoing this.

However, I do think that if you continue with this temperature check AIP first, then you should include an option to have rewards unchanged since you will be most likely only having a limited option of possibilities. Excluding it just because this passes doesn’t seem right to me.


This went so far over my head I can’t even see it anymore. Will abstain but follow discussion in order to educate myself.

Thanks for the reply here.

In this situation, the community is the DAO. Completely understand your concerns over the merits of token weighted governance, but this is the structure in which we must operate to advance the DAOs objectives.

The purpose of this proposal is to come to consensus on whether or not we would like to have staking emissions unchanged or reduced/eliminated. The choice to separate DAO consensus on the exact % rate of reduction/elimination from DAO consensus on any reduction was intentional. A singular proposal could result in consensus on reduction in aggregate, but no singular option reaching the necessary threshold – leading to an unclear outcome.

We’ve observed a similar dynamic in a recent Uniswap proposal to turn on a fee switch.

Thanks for this. I’m not meaning to debate the DAO voting structure, but wanted better clarity because of your description of a “yes vote” which read odd to me.

I completely get what you are going for. I just think don’t see this AIP as being necessary, and i question whether it actually is an AIP as it doesn’t meet the definition for AIP for Ecosystem Fund Allocation, as this doesn’t provide any suggestion of how DAO funds are to be utilized.

I don’t see this AIP as being necessary because no matter what happens, you or someone else an just bring forth an actual AIP that provides actual percentages to reduce or even maintain the current staking emission, regardless of the decision here.

If you plan on using the AIP to just prevent your next AIP, should this pass, from having a “maintain existing staking emission” option, then i think that is a bad and improper way of approaching this topic as you will be depriving the community of all available options when faced with the decision.

I also recognized that you and everyone else are free to do whatever you this is best, and you can ignore me and ignore this comment. I just wanted to express my opinion on the oddness of this.

That is different from this, in that the Uniswap proposal was an actual vote with specific percentages and options available to the community. Making Protocol Fees Operational: Fee options for V3. Yours is just a temperature check to poll the community.


So lets go for it? When AIP?

1 Like

The depletion of the treasury due to the betting program may hinder the achievement of the long-term goals of the DAO. Redirecting the released resources to productive investments and products that match the success of $APE is a more strategic approach. But I am worried that we will again face the current voting system, will the whales want to give up income right now in favor of a long-distance profit