AIP-378: ApeChain Bid // ApeChain Developed with Arbitrum Technology with Growth Led by Horizen Labs

just got bearish after hearing Airveys vision of ape chain, ngl

What was the vision and where was it stated?

Its was something about only bayc and mayc holders should have a say in what gets built. It was in the parallel x apecomm space this morning.

To clarify the part of BAYC and MAYC, there might be confusion with the fact that Horizen Labs did champion the token distribution process to community members, this did include 10,094 tokens allocated to each BAYC holder and 2,042 tokens allocated to each MAYC holder.
Regarding Governance Oversight, our suggestion is for the ApeCoin DAO to function as the primary governing body for ApeChain.
Hope this clarifies!


gm. I didn’t get pulled up on stage last time so dropping these initial Q’s here and in the forum for commentary from the Ape community and on Twitter for a broader audience.

I’lI preface this by saying that I think Arbitrum has one of the strongest engineering and research teams in the space, and I have personally been following their journey for quite a while – I remember watching Ed’s MOOC years back and later being pleasantly surprised after realizing he was part of Arbitrum when meeting the team at ETH Boston 2019.

The first question is to provide more transparency to the DAO of future implications, if any, regarding licenses.

:one: QUESTION 1 — Can you talk more about the licensing details for using Arbitrum and ApeChain? What does this mean for the near future — regarding making upgrades to the chain, forking parts of the software and or making it customizable.

For context to the audience, certain parts of Arbitrum use Business Source License (BSL) license, which is a commercial license and not as permissive as MIT etc.

Meaning that whoever wants to deploy an L2 would need a license from the Arbitrum foundation as stated in the tweet below. There has also been plenty of commentary on the topic by figures in the space — I, for one, remain neutral.

The second question is regarding gaming and technical development.

:two: Question 2 — Fundamentally, gaming and traditional market players (meaning Web2 companies) really don’t care about TVL or liquidity, and this has been proven more and more as we see deals such as Disney choosing @flow_blockchain (great work :clap:) which is top 60 in coinmarket cap. So, what will be the key differentiation besides cheap fast transaction and “good BD” — which are claims that most new L1’s and L2’s presently make. If there’s no clear answer yet, what’s your intuition on this.

The third question is an opinion / commentary question.
:three: Question 3 — why should the DAO not open the stage to other players, such as Rollup-as-a-Service (RaaS) companies like @Calderaxyz, @gelatonetwork, or @conduitxyz and allow them to propose deploying ApeChain, and working with a separate team or teams that oversee the execution and or driving the vision? This is the opposite of what’s happening now, where RaaS companies are almost a second thought — after all, we are working with open source software. This approach would be more distributed and decentralized then relying on committees.

This considering the fact the present proposals for the L2s simply propose low-cost fast transactions, which means that not much would be modified from an existing L2 architecture.

This also includes working with collective efforts such as the one supported by fellow APE Coin DAO member @Machibigbrother which are more distributed in nature.

The fourth question is technical.

:four: Question 4 — if we are targeting customizability and upgradeability of ApeChain, and most importantly targeting features in ApeChain that provide business / product value - why wouldn’t this L2 be developed using a fully-featured blockchain development SDK like the one’s offered by @avax (HyperSDK), @cosmos (Cosmos SDK) or @polkadot (Polkadot SDK) — listed alphabetically. All which have proven to be robust towards developing standalone L1s, Ethereum L2s and custom VM chains that are customizable and upgradeable.

This is particularly important as we see the debate over interoperability converging towards using interoperability protocols like @chainlink cross-chain interoperability protocol (CCIP), and @LayerZero_Labs omnichain interoperability protocol (mentioned in the proposal). To this end, we’d want ApeChain to be able to evolve with market demands or product demands — this could imply technical upgrades or customization.

Thanks. Looking forward to hearing from ya’ll :hand_with_index_finger_and_thumb_crossed:
For those apes reading these questions, feel free to have a peak at some of my initial writing regarding ApeChain and blockchains in general in the link below and keep an eye out regarding an article on DAOs — cheers.


Hi @ninarong ,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.

  • 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.


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Edits have been made to this Topic by the author’s request.

You can click the Pencil icon at the top of the post to see these edits.

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

Kind Regards,


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

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

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

This proposal has been assigned the AIP ID Number 378.

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

Kind Regards,


1 Like

A YugaLabs builds everything in Apecoin regardless of what layers. Let’s don’t confuse layers with chains, again.


great feedback/ questions. were these questions answered?


Nope. Still unanswered, both in the forum and on Twitter.


Arbitrum was down and was not usable during the recent ordinal spamming attack on Dec 16th . Gas fees became very high during this period. Could you please give us some clarity on this and what measure have been taken to prevent another such event

As Apechain will be built with especially gaming in mind such outages can effect adversely to users


Can we get a view of the estimated three year costs, given once the three years is up it’ll be over to the DAO? Obviously an important point is the revenue model - which we can use to help calculate the breakeven point in terms of making the chain self funding. Without this info it will be difficult to approve even if the first three years are covered.

Regarding the security council I would love to see inclusion from an element of the Boring Security team, who are a community team funded by Apecoin with some of the brightest minds in the space. At the moment 4 of the 6 roles come from the same teams.


Please clarify if this would be a L2 or L3.
I find it very concerning that this is not clearly outlined in the AIP and would ask you to adapt that.

From my understanding you are suggesting a L3 on top of Arbitrum.
From my understanding this would mean that there is no direct bridge from ETH Mainnet to ApeChain.
Meaning a user would need to swap ETH to APE (if used as native gas token), then bridge from ETH to ARB, then bridge a 2nd time from ARB to ApeChain.

If true, please explain why you did not propose a L2 in the first place?
I heard a L2 comes with a very strict licensing agreement. Please expand further on this.


Great comment, for some reason no one had thought about it before, it’s really very important.

Initially, it’s not a bad idea to slowly move away from ETH, because there is a bull market ahead and very high gas for all transactions.

Smells L3 for me if they want to use Apecoin for gas and that will make it more vulnerable in some cases.

1 Like

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Our team has reviewed and discussed @ninarong 's AIP Draft and have sent a list of initial questions. We await answers.

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

Kind Regards,