AIP-377: ApeChain Bid // ApeChain A-Team - Research, Deploy, Manage ApeChain

The team listed in this AIP under the “TEAM DESCRIPTION” section and whoever else joins later on

Yeesh. That is a massive payday, especially when I’m not seeing any tangible proof of research conducted.


My question is what percentage will the DAO own then or does this just go to the team. Kinda feel there needs to be some form of kickback for the ApeCoin DAO and community who are going to also put in work to support this and grow.

Very much in favor of creating ApeCoin DAO Revenue Generators in the future or moving forward otherwise it becomes very separated from the family in the DAO already putting in work to make ApeCoin great again.

Currently have an AIP in play to focus on this and would like to push for the growth of both ApeCoin
and ApeChain in future but will be very difficult if we are excluded from this entirely and expected to just sit on the sidelines and be cheerleaders.

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

Hi @Lumberg,

The community feedback period has closed.

  • If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.

  • A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.

  • Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

We look forward to hearing from you.


1 Like

Hi @Lumberg,

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.

  • Once the AIP Draft is confirmed by the author and meets all DAO-approved guidelines, it will receive an AIP ID number and move forward for Draft Analysis Review.
  • @Lumberg please see your messages for the next steps.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. In accordance with DAO-approved guidelines, if the author does not respond within 30 days, the proposal will be automatically transferred to the Withdrawn category, and the author can re-submit the idea.


1 Like

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

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

This proposal has been assigned the AIP ID Number 377.

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

Kind Regards,


1 Like

Fantastic. Thank you.

People mentioned Optimism as a chain- its started as L2, a layer on ETH chain. It’s used and still depends on Goerli testnet, while in process of migrating some usage to Sepholia testnet and stop usage of Goerli. It is a scaling solution to speed up the transactions and records on chains.
Official dev docs here:

It is not fully decentralized as a project and here is some milestones on the way and some in the process of completion or completed:

1 Like

A decision to launch an APEchain token within the APE ecosystem should not be taken lightly. I would like to see the ‘A-team’ release a legitimate white paper detailing the proposed tokenomics of AC governance tokens if this proposal is to be taken seriously. The quoted portion of the AIP does not suffice in its current form.

For instance, it is unclear if the 15% stated emissions for “staked APEcoin” refers to the APEstake protocol currently in place on Ethereum or a to-be-created staking protocol to be launched on APEchain. Would these tokens be issued in a linear fashion over each year or based on an emissions curve mirroring emission rates in place for APEstake?

How will AC tokens be utilized in governance of APEchain? Will there be another DAO formed specifically for APEchain treasury governance based on AC holdings to award allocations from the 83.75%?

I assume the 1.25% allocation to ‘first 6-months contributors/team’ will go to the ‘A-team’? Will there be a lockup / vesting period? With only 7.5% emitted to stakers in the first year, this would put the A-team in control of a significant amount of the circulating AC supply and allow them to own decision-making over the remaining 83.75% in the APEchain Treasury and cement control over APEchain.

So many questions… let us not forget Machi’s alleged history with suspect token launches.


This. They’ve still provided zero transparency into the “research” they conducted, which tells me that everything stated in their AIP is opinion. Which is totally fine, but it’s not research, and it shouldn’t be communicated as such.


No-one wants synthetic shares its like the ETF but more synthetic for the exchange of REAL Apecoin and REAL usd. Who will buy it lol. WE DRS here lol. Plus setting up any legal exchange platform with USDC thats an extra one… not gonna roll well with USA.

These regulatory issues are really annoying, they just make our lives more difficult.

1 Like

The most user-related part is the L2 fees. Have you check


We really have to do better than this level of transparency. Using that sole link, which anyone could look up in seconds, it shows that zksync is cheaper than Optimism. So then, if this is the most user-related part, why not use zksync?

I’d love to see actual transparency into comparisons that were made across chains in order to determine that Optimism was actually the best chain for the task at hand. I have yet to see this in any form.

1 Like

for users, zkSync is a good one for fees. for devs, they have to use a slightly different process to deploy smart contracts on zkSync. if we’d like more devs to port over their dApps on ApeChain, zkSync has slightly more friction.

OP-Stack has a strong community adoption like Base with a Superchain ecosystem (i.e., any OP-Stack deployment counts as part of Superchain). There are a growing number of tools and devs using OP Stack. I spun up a OP-Stack ApeChain Testnet because there are easy tools and supportive community available to me.


Appreciated Jackie. Do you have the finer details comparing the various pros and cons of each chain documented in a way that can be shared?

1 Like

For tech infra evaluation, a better way is to have all proposed chains to have testnets ready to be tested using the same sets of scripts and criteria. However, it’s more than just tech infra to be taken into consideration.

For qualitative pros/cons, those tend to leave lots spaces to be argued (because it cannot be measured). For example, $APE to be used as L1/L2/L3 gas or not. The followings are partial perspectives and may not be easy to be categorized as pros/cons:

  • $APE as L1 gas means this is a side chain (e.g., Polygon PoS uses $MATIC as native gas). Since high-value NFTs are on ETH, ApeChain NFTs should be secured by ETH.

  • $APE as L2 gas? L2 gas should be ETH. L2 tokens such as $ARB or $OP are not used as gas tokens. What if there are future gas infra changes on ETH and ApeChain L2 is using $APE as gas?

  • $APE as L3 gas? Arbitrum L3 seems good but too much dependency on Arbitrum infra (what if the uptime is not 100%). ZK Stack with custom native token is cool but kinda too cutting-edge atm (ref).

  • $APE as gas reimbursement. This can be done outside the chain infra. More flexible. Gas reimbursement can go with other incentive programs.

If these all look good, what about $APE voting? Good that the A-team got a solution preserving $APE voting rights for $APE holders. How about $APE L2/L3 onramp? yeah…


Congrats @lumberg and the rest of the A-Team on this proposal and good afternoon ApeCoin community!

Dave of the Eco Association on behalf of the Beam Wallet here!

Beam is the first global ‘onchain venmo’, an ERC-4337 / AA wallet laser focused specifically on payments.

It’s so exciting to see the ApeChain becoming a reality!
As proud members of the emergent Superchain family we wanted to throw our hat in the ring as partners and supporters to offer a custom payment solution for the OP ApeChain…a product we’ve lovingly been calling ‘Paid By Apes’.

Paid by Apes is a custom $APE native wallet that (to start, much more as it evolves) will make it dead simple for $APE holders to purchase goods and services at any Made By Apes merchant (or any other participating merchant) with $APE coin. (As well as seamlessly move $APE around between holders P2P)

By developing a custom implementation of the Beam Wallet, Paid By Apes will bring seamless, $APE native payments to holders, support participants of the Made By Apes program and help facilitate the creation of $APE sinks both digitally and IRL. Transactions will be fast, cheap and tx fees will be paid for in $APE tokens.

Read the full proposal here: Beam Wallet - Paid By Apes Proposal - Google Docs

This is an early, emergent proposal so naturally there will be lots of details to work out, but we wanted to offer our support and resources to welcome the APECoin community to the Superchain family.

Questions or feedback? Let’s talk! Reach out here or on TG @naginnarb

Thanks all!


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@Lumberg has responded to our questions and has provided consent to share them in this forum for the community.

1. Is the Ape Foundation expected to engage in any of the steps of the AIP implementation? If so, please specify the steps and elaborate on how it is expected to work.

No. This is a branding decision to support the A-Team publicly.

2a. Would your team require a licensing agreement from the Ape Foundation to use the ApeCoin logo/marks for ApeChain?

No, unless the Ape Foundation believes it is necessary to provide the A-team a licensing agreement to use the ApeCoin logo/marks. What does “Apecoin logo/marks” include?

2b. Would your team require a licensing agreement from the Ape Foundation to use the ApeCoin logo/marks for any of the primitives mentioned in the proposal?

Same as [2]A.

2c. Is the team requesting that the ApeChain which would be produced as a result of this proposal would be the exclusive ApeChain of the ApeCoin ecosystem?

No, we do not expect the ApeChain we build to be an exclusive chain. We are open to the idea of having multiple ApeChain development teams.

3. Please provide the tokenomics of the proposed ApeChain Governance Tokens (AC), including maximum supply, initial Treasury unlock, Treasury emissions schedule, proportion of the 1.25% of total supply distributed to each team member (along with any corresponding vesting/unlock schedules), and any other information relevant to the distribution of AC tokens.

We’ve revised the token to A token instead of AC. In the spirit of decentralization, we believe tokenomics should be decided by the DAO itself, after the initial 6-month kickoff.

Tokenomics for the ApeChain governance token (A) as it stands today:

Maximum Supply - 1,000,000,000

Initial treasury unlock - 0

Treasury emissions schedule - To be determined by ApeChain Governance.

Token distribution/vesting of the 1.25% initial supply - To be determined by peer-voting DAO tools such as Coordinape. This is not up to the initial proposal.

4. In the Overall Cost section, you state that: “Optimism Foundation is providing a grant to finance the first three years of ApeChain. [Details to be added here].” Please provide those details, including who is expected to request funding and oversee this proposed ApeChain program after the three years of funding from the Optimism Foundation.

Draft OP grant proposal is for 2m OP over 3 years, OR if the A-Team AIP is the only one approved, it will be 10m OP distributed over 3 years, vested based on transactions per month milestones. This was shared confidentially - we will ask the Optimism Foundation if you would like additional details.

5. What is the estimated annual cost to operate and maintain the proposed ApeChain using Optimism?

Low to mid 6 figures plus sequencer fees.

6. Do you provide consent to share these questions and answers with the community in this forum?


A DAR package is being worked on and upon completion this AIP will move into Administrative Review. Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,