AIP-362: Establish bi-monthly AIP voting periods

Proposal Name: Establish bi-monthly AIP voting periods.

Proposal Category: Process

Team Description: @BoredClubCanada @FUDmaster @BoredApeG


The current weekly voting system has significant disadvantages to both AIP authors and voters, particularly delegations. It is often quoted to be too short for AIP authors to adequately campaign for their AIPs, and for voters it has often been quoted to be too frequent.

Bored Club Canada being an active delegate, it is in our experience that the weekly voting is challenging to administer and we could be more efficient if we had more time for our delegates and authors. A bi-monthly (twice per month) voting period is also implemented by our DAO peers such as Arbitrum Foundation.

We propose moving to a bi-monthly (twice per month) voting period of 14 days each. Each voting period would commence for the First and Third Thursday of each month.

APE Foundation will still reserve the right to modify voting periods at its discretion (e.g. emergencies, risks to the DAO, etc.) with reasonable notice to the community and for non-AIPs (e.g. elections).

Benefit to ApeCoin ecosystem

Reduced Administrative Overhead: Weekly voting can lead to a significant administrative burden for managing the voting processes, tallying results, and coordinating activities. With fewer voting periods, there is less frequent overhead for both DAO administrators and delegations.

Time for In-Depth Deliberation: Having a bi-monthly schedule allows members more time to thoroughly research and discuss proposals. This can result in more informed decision-making, as members have the opportunity to delve into the details of proposals and engage in meaningful debates.

Encourages Long-Term Thinking: Bi-monthly voting encourages members to consider the long-term impact of decisions on the ApeCoin ecosystem.

Reduced Voter Fatigue: Frequent voting can lead to voter fatigue, where members become disengaged or less likely to participate due to the constant decision-making process. Bi-monthly voting can help maintain higher levels of engagement.

Supports More Comprehensive Proposals: In a bi-monthly system, members and proposers may have more time to develop comprehensive proposals, conduct audits, and gather feedback, resulting in more thought-out and refined proposals.

More Stable Decision-Making: Weekly voting might lead to frequent changes in the direction of the DAO, which can be disruptive. Bi-monthly voting can provide more stability, allowing decisions to be implemented before new ones are made.

Easier for Time Zones: DAOs often consist of members from around the world, and having a bi-monthly schedule may make it easier for participants from different time zones to participate without always having to be available for voting.

Steps to implement & Timeline

Voting periods commence the First and Third Thursdays of each month, effective January 1, 2024.

Overall Cost



So you are asking for both going from weekly to bi-weekly, and extending the length of the voting period from a week to two weeks.

This could be very interesting to see. Having to vote weekly can be difficult, and being able to do it less frequently would give voters time to breath and educate themselves. Could also give authors more time to campaign when their AIP goes live and make the rounds on X and Discord.


It makes sense, it would reduce the work of the administrative group, so the DAO costs would decrease.
In fact, we would also have more time to be able to think and vote calmly, or even perhaps people who are traveling or who don’t have access to a computer would have more time to vote.
excellent !


I didn’t know we counted ballots? As this is what it sounds like.

The whole process is automatic no? Run through snapshot.

I really think we have enough staff, which btw is a lot more than last year for example, and now people are complaining about ‘burden’ - this seems to just strengthen my resolve to cut bloat and move to more automation.

I’m always free to help count votes. :saluting_face:

1 Like

Hi mate,

Could you just explain why you think the DAO costs would decrease if this passes?

As far as I can tell there is no mention of reducing the staff numbers.


Thanks for proposing this idea @BoredClubCanada @FUDmaster and @BoredApeG. As the number of Live AIPs has increased in recent months, I was wondering how the community felt about it.

Using the last two weeks as an example, there are two Live AIPs this week and there were five last week. If this proposal were to pass, would that mean in this example there would be seven AIPs to vote on during a 2-week period? Or would there be any changes to how many AIPs are voted on during a specific time period?


For clarity, administrative burden here can be more seen for delegation groups themselves. It’s a lot of work to re-present the AIPs, coordinate voting amongst the delegation, gather the votes, and then present them for vote. This is a primary pain point being solved here. However, this inefficiency reasonably impacts Foundation administration team as well.

Our DAO peers such as Arbitrum also have bi-monthly voting periods. It is all about increasing efficiency throughout the entire ecosystem.


In your example, yes I believe that would have been the case. If we are currently seeing ~5 maximum per week go up then we could expect ~10 for the bi-monthly. However, at the end of the day it is always at the discretion of the APE Foundation to determine exactly how many AIPs go up to vote.


Specific to delegations workload I can see the point I guess. As I do see all the work it must take our leader to summarise the live votes and then be free always to submit the majority decisions.

Worse ways I guess - we can always change it back if vote numbers die down again - as I feel sometimes voting does drive excitement and engagement.

GL with this.


I really think voting twice a month could be beneficial, and as you already said, if something goes wrong, you can always go back to basics


How would this affect elections? Would they need to conform with the new schedule, or would they stay the same?

1 Like

No impact to elections covered under the scope of this AIP.


Sounds fun… And a great way to drive deeper awareness to the proposals that go live, making an event out of each cycle :tada: :tada:



It seems very good to me, as was said, we will have more time and we will be able to better review the proposals in question, you have my vote!


I don’t know about DAO costs and administrative burden, but as far as convenience for voters and uptick in voter participation, I see potential here.

Personally I see myself getting more from a scenario where I have more AIPs to vote on at a time and more time to vote on each. And where myself and others would benefit as voters, the authors would benefit too.

My two cents.

1 Like

Hi @BoredClubCanada ,

Your topic would 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 are content with the feedback and can move to AIP draft process. Thank you.

Hi @BoredClubCanada ,

Glad to see this idea finally making its way to the forum. It’s something we’ve discussed at length in the community over the past year, but struggled to find consensus on. I have personally suggested this idea in the past, during discussions, but am currently uncertain if it is the correct solution.

One question that is still ringing in my ears from a few months back regarding this topics is this:
Can you think of any situations, maybe emergency, where a proposal may need to go to vote sooner than waiting 14 days + 7 for the idea stage?

There seems to be great potential to cause harm to the ApeCoin DAO Brand, if we aim to develop an AIP process which cannot move faster than 14-21 days.

Thanks for the submission,



You could, in theory, bake in a clause that defines an emergency proposal clause into this that circumvents the 14+7 days to give you the appropriate timeline that you need.

The issue would be that would have to define what constitutes emergency proposal ahead of time. Not sure if you have any ideas of what falls under that category, but that would be the optimal starting point.


Glad you brought this up @Lost as I was also thinking about unforeseen/unintended consequences if we go from 44 voting snapshots down to 22.