AIP-421: Enable Annual Working Group Budget Proposals


Enable Annual Working Group Budget Proposals




Gm, Amplify is an Ape who has authored and passed many AIPs in the past. This AIP serves to correct one of his mistakes.


AIP-239 states:

“To request Working Group funds, Leads of each Working Group will submit Ecosystem Fund Allocation Proposals, as defined in AIP-1 Proposing the DAO (‘Ecosystem Fund Allocation Proposal’) in the form of a Working Group Budget Proposal within the final 15 days (inclusive) of the months of, February and August each calendar year (each a ‘Funding Window’).”

This AIP, if passed, would simply afford Working Group Leads the flexibility to submit budgets for a term of their choosing (not limited to 1 year), regardless of whichever Funding Window they choose.


This AIP would serve to reduce voter apathy and administrative overhead.


Working Group Budget Proposal: A budget proposal submitted to the DAO by the Lead of any Working Group in order to fund the execution of their charter or larger initiatives.


Upon approval, this AIP would allow Working Group Leads to submit budgets for a term of their choosing during a funding window of their choice.



1 Like

The South Park reference… [chef’s kiss]

Classic :apekinok:


Hey @Amplify !

It seems like this new criteria would aim to align specifically with the term length for Stewards, but since the elections are staggered, this doesn’t necessarily line up with term lengths.

Is there another reason for the 1-year suggestion?

Is there some reason to maintain any barrier for Stewards to propose a longer, multi-year, budget?



Hey Lost!

With all the Working Groups having a multisig / entity that turns over with new Stewards, I don’t see the reason to align the budgets with election timing. I think the convenience of giving new Stewards one month into the new year to author their budget just makes sense, and no reason for leaving it at a 1 year budget other than to allow the DAO a renewed voice in budget decisions every fiscal year. =)

A Working Group could very well request a multi-year budget, the DAO would just expect that budget proposal to be published on the forum within a funding window so that there is still some predictability and structure to it. :slight_smile:


Good step towards a proper pipeline for the DAO.
One more thing we need to do is to make sure there’s accountability and responsibility. There are so many AIPs out there with no updates yet or failed to deliver under the stated timeline. There are few AIPs out there where budget renewal exist but failed to delivered previously stated stuffs.

1 Like

Amp… Really appreciate you taking the initiative to step-up on this, and the humble wording you chose use. All-class, all the time :muscle::muscle:

But first off, yes. An adjustment in this area of the Working Group Charter is absoluetly necessary and part of the current GWG planning when we begin work on OKR1 of our next budget cycle very soon. The only reason that this hasn’t already begun is to allow for an onboarding process with our new Secretary, Bojangle, and a pressing need to adequately complete our AIP-317 (completed, scheduled to be posted tomorrow morning) and Q1 financials (completed, to be posted once outgoing loan funds have been returned from the other Working Groups after lending-out for their startup legal costs).

My concerns are this:

  1. As mentioned, given that revising the Working Group Charter is one of our OKRs, as shown below, allowing the current GWG team flexibility may be best here — even though in theory, we agree this area needs to be changed. Because sometimes, introducing additional layers of involvement can create breaks in the chain that may effect other ammedments that could also be necessary.
  2. It may also be best to remove any mention of “funding window” entirely, as it could be continuing to overcomplicate a process that it appears, you are aiming to simplify with this proposal.
  3. The AIP idea should likely be considered conflicting, given the AIP-408: Q2/Q3 2024 Governance Working Group Budget OKR, assuming that it passes.

Lastly, given the GWGs proven ability to come in under budget, and enable the usgage of surplus for continued operations, beyond any funding window, we serve as living proof that it is not in the ApeCoin community’s best interest to force Working Groups into asking for more resources when they may not require them.

Just my two cents.



Apecoin’s main (some would argue its only) purpose is voting.

Budgets act as much more than a request for money.

How you originally set this up with the six month stipulation works perfectly for all stakeholders imo.


1 Like

Glad you kicked this off. It was been something we have been discussing.

I was thinking about have the fixed costs allocated annually and then have funding for each specific initiative as rolling AIPs through the year. If the idea gets traction, it would probably makes sense to start this just before the next round of elections, when 3 Steward positions are available.

I think having the funding split into two parts:

  1. On an annual basis for the fixed costs, such as Steward service fees, Non Profit DAO LLC renewal fees and some overall OPEX costs such as website, email, domain renewals etc.

  2. Funding for initiatives within a Working Group (these costs are dependent on the initiative being in existence and hence are variable costs). I would like to see working groups have many initiatives underneath them. This will reduce the OPEX as a percentage of the overhead of the Working Group, as they grow.

I also think it will help attract more candidates for the elections, if Stewards know the funding will be available. To generalise (knowing there are exceptions to the rule), without fixed funding, you are more likely to get two kinds of candidates to apply; those who don’t need the APE (or not urgently and can happily wait a few months for the budget process, which is not guaranteed to get approved) and those who haven’t got much else going on so are not giving up or diverting their energy away from an Economically beneficial activity.

I think fixed costs on an annual basis will encourage more professionals to apply who may not have the luxury (either in terms of funds or having too many dependents/financial commitments) to go through the election process otherwise.


Agree the method you suggest makes more sense.

Made me think of two other barriers we have in place that do not encourage or persuade the brightest talent we seek to apply:

  1. The length of the FTC.

  2. Amount of compensation.

Both need increasing substancially - we should consider doubling both for steward leads initially.



Hi @Amplify,

Much needed initiative - as we see so far the WG are the engine of our DAO, but 30%-40% of the time is focus on budget/election which seems inefficient. Based on comments above, looks like GWG team on it, once the GWG budget pass.

-Mr. Hype :fire:


I think this might be a slight overestimation and including election in the total is confusing and non-applicable.

Problem is when you remove the small window the communtiy has for insight and I’d argue oversight, then we could possibly get the same situation as we had with SC and look how that turned out - salary cuts and issues regarding disclosure which lead to much more resentment towards them imo as they didn’t take it all seriously.

I’m all for changes, but the reasons offered by the author and others in the thread seem pretty weak tbh.

But I do agree that we should let GWG (AC + BB) sort this one out and bring more suggestions/plans in the future.



Definitely hear where you’re coming from @furiousanger… But there are ways we can get a little more creative and achieve similar results.

A good example would be how terms for the APE_U education and training initiative I developed [and negotiated] with OpenCampus included in AIP-408 Q2/Q3 2024 Governance Working Group Budget, where my objectives always revolve around keeping the community at the front of our minds and service providers accountable. From their side, OC needed a guarantee that the resources being put into APE_U would be recoverable.

This was my solution:

  • Request full payment from community
  • Provide 50% of the total funding request to OC upon AIP-408 grant monies have been recieved
  • Lock remaining 50% in a GWG-controlled wallet + delegate back to Open Campus as APE voting tokens
  • Initiate DAO-wide vote at 6 month mark to determine if program continues
  • Release funds from GWG delegate wallet to OC custody

Pretty interesting way to grow our community delegations and keep the groups we’re working with accountable. Please note that Open Campus (and core members from New Campus) have been an absolute dream to work with since embarking on the APE_U journey together back in December.

Can’t wait to get them those funds and watch all of this blast off.

Hope that helps,



Another quick thought here is that the reality of establishing a set of fixed operating costs tied to the management of core, unique deliverables each Working Group will be expected to fulfill is a very real avenue that we will be looking at, which may not involve the need to campaign for. Any initiatives that a WG wishes to take on after that, included costs associated with managing any new initiatives, would be lobbied either independently or in a grouping of other similar programs.

To close this out, rewriting the WG Charter is going to be a massive undertaking to get it to a place we believe it needs to be, involving input from multiple levels at the DAO. Also given the density and importance of a legislation like this, its final form will likely be written by a contracted legal firm and/or technical writer who is specialized in policy development.



Could we also work in something like Continuing Resolutions, in order to keep Working Groups funded while budgets are passed?


Definitely wouldn’t be a bad idea to add a pool of discretionary funding into any sort of broader planning, with a portion marked for operations constingency situations where a Working Group may need to go without.

It may actually end up being something that could be done without funds ever actually being released by APE Foundation.



The community should check this out:

-Mr. Hype :fire:


Hi @Amplify ,

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.


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

Hi @Amplify ,

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.
  • @Amplify 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.


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

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

This proposal has been assigned the AIP ID Number 421.

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

Kind Regards,


1 Like