AIP-43 balance the power climate of the DAO - Ecosystem Fund Allocation


Allowing 1/3 of the initial members of the DAO to control a massive portion of the votes was short sighted, thus the initial ape coin claim should of been based on max supply of the NFTS that could solely claim their coins rather then based off floor price. Especially after the Other Side drop in which a huge portion of the mutants initial claim has now been locked, mutants control an abysmally small portion of the vote. By allowing MAYC to claim another 3005 $APE the balance of power within the DAO will shift to allow mutants to actually participate in a meaningful way.


Currently the DAO is failing to generate positivity and has become a source of negativity that will result in a community rift, the general feeling among mutants is that of disappointment and unfairness. If we continue to allow a small portion of members to control the DAO, we as a group have failed to be decentralized. This proposal also rewards BAYC members that held their mutants.


It is our collective responsibility to increase the desire for people to participate in governance, currently the sentiment among the majority of mutants is that the DAO is very heavily weighted towards BAYC, because of the initial token allocations it is extremely unlikely that mutants will ever be able to be treated fairly. The votes on AIP-22 show this clearly and if something doesn’t change soon, this DAO will alienate many talented people and cause them to be disinterested.


All of the technologies here are already at our disposal, it will be simple to allow MAYC to claim an additional 3005$ APE

Mutant 790, the only MAYC owned by Papasito will be disbarred from this claim to alleviate any and all worries of greed and conflict of interest

Steps to Implement

STEP 1: Draft proposal - complete

STEP 2: Go through 7 day discussion period

STEP 3: Work with moderators to bring the AIP ready to be live

STEP 4: Pass proposal

STEP 5: Give MAYC 30 days to claim their additional APE coin


This Proposal should take about 1 month to complete depending on how voters decide.

Overall Costs

A maximum of 60,100,000 Ape Coin, final amount dependent on if all mutants claim or not, coin not claimed within 30 days returns to DAO treasury.


This comes across very greedy. If you truly believe in the voting balance being an issue then you should be aiming to give mutants holders more voting power. Gaining it through ape is entirely for the monetary gain and most mutants will just sell it again.


I have a number of problems with this proposal which I’ll outline below:

False Narrative
This proposal tries to create some dynamic within the DAO that it is Apes vs. Mutants and there’s an ongoing struggle of power that needs to be rebalanced. As if Apes and Mutants never share opinions or common ground (which seems illogical given the fact that Apes were given Mutants, and are inherently part of the Mutant community as well)

Lack of Understanding of the DAO’s Purpose
The ApeCoin DAO is an opportunity to expand the breadth of ownership in the ecosystem. This proposal seems to ignore that one of the best parts of this DAO can be expanding it’s membership beyond purely Apes and Mutants; but to everyone else as well. If this DAO is comprised solely of Apes & Mutants then we have failed.

Buying ApeCoin
This proposal makes it seem like the only way to get more ApeCoin is through a disbursement, when actually it’s available on the open market. If the someone wants more “power”; buy more tokens.

What about the dogs?
If the foundation of this proposal is to establish balance and fairness, why ignore the dogs? They’ve been in the ecosystem longer, they are a 1:1 ratio to Apes, and they got the smallest allocation! My perception is they were omitted because the proposal writer doesn’t own any dogs; which leads into my last point

It’s tough to write a proposal like this and have it not come across as greedy. You really need to be clear on why this is a value add proposal, not just an opportunity to line your personal pockets. I see no attempt here to do that, all I see is this proposal being called “moral” in a false attempt to shame people who speak out against it.

I actually think a much cooler idea might be a distribution to land owners. Obviously there was some negative feedback on the drop and lots of gas spent. But it’s also the widest distribution to date! If we really wanted to expand the ApeCoin DAO and make this community larger; an ApeCoin distribution to land owners might be a cool way to do it.


I’ve got two mutants and would absolutely benefit from something like this. But handing out more tokens to an in group doesn’t really do anything for growing the $APE community. It might actually have a negatively compounding effect as many MAYC holders are also BAYC holders which might actually concentrate power.


Agreed about increased voting power for BAYC and MAYC owners.


This is a fundamental flaw of any system with token based voting rights which can be purchased. Using influence to acquire and protect token wealth is incentivized. This is a reinforcing feedback loop which will inevitably concentrate power and wealth in the hands of those who already have it. It doesn’t matter how tokens are distributed, if they represent votes and they can be purchased, then wealth and power will be concentrated as a forcing function, the game ends the same way every time. It doesn’t have to be lord of the flies, the lords can behave with benevolence, but its never going to be fair. The outcome is highly dependent on initial conditions. Early actors are unfairly rewarded, so there will always be a growing majority of disadvantaged other classed sub-citizens. The only way to delay the inevitable is to expand and redistribute wealth in a constant way. If done in the right ratios, this will generate economic activity and keep the disadvantaged population busy scraping up enough crumbs to keep them from revolting. So those of you with large caches of tokens had best consider the tradeoff between holding massive influence in a dead system, or giving up portions of your wealth post haste in order to stimulate the economic heartbeat of that system. The clock is ticking.

Your friend


Thank you for your feedback and I understand your concerns, to help to alleviate them and prove this is not about greed, I not only give my word I will not claim the $APE but that I will also add to the AIP draft that mutant 790 (my only ape) may not claim this $APE to ensure there is no conflict of interest.

That being said, your potential solution is also a good one.


This alternative is actually quite intriguing, though as I’ve said above, I would be disbarred from this claim. So this is not about greed at all.

1 Like

The true fairness of voting power, not based on how many APEcoins he/she holds, but one vote per holder/member. I am no longer BAYC / MAYC holder anymore, but still have strong confidence in Yuga Lab projects of future web3 vision, so I invested in APEcoins directly. We should encourage everyone whoever is enthusiastic in growing APEdao to invest in APEcoin. BAYC / MAYC holders have received free airdrop of APEcoins already. It’s really speechless to ask for more disbursement from the APEdao treasury. The treasury is belonging to every holder of APEcoin not to BAYC / MAYC holders prestigiously.


Why not give each ape 3 votes per nft, mutants 2, and possibly BAKC/Land 1 vote per NFT rather than vote in ape coin?


I have been here from the begining and read every post from every participant. I do not believe that @Papasito ‘s idea comes strickly from greed (read his other posts). There is a huge imbalance of power that is controlling the DOA as it sits currently revolving around voting power. @steal.neal has said it correctly above. I do not hold any NFT’s and am new to this space. I hold a real investment in coin, for which I am interested in holding and building upon. But I can see already that there is no equality here when it comes to ideas and influence(this is against the tenents of the DOA by the way) Only those huge coin holders, (mostly those with multiple NFT’) have the power and they control everything at the moment. Many individuals made excellent progress in developing ideas for the staking process for example (see @NFTBeliever 's AIP), however the proposals did not include those ideas of others, and just ran rough shot over everyone, keeping the same ideas except with caps that were equivalent to drop basically. Everyone is in a hurry and used the “lets not hold up staking ideology” rather than “lets do whats best for the DOA”, take some real feed back and incorporate it into something equitable for everyone. @Papasito is right in that there is an imbalance. Imo there is even a greater imbalance for coin only holders. I want to work and participate here with eveyone, but it is necessary for everyone to gain equity towards their ideas and effort. Currently if my ideas are good for the DOA but infringe in those that hold all the voting power, then the result is nothing that is good for the DOA gets done, and only that which is good for those with massive voting power is accomplished. This is factually unfair and not good for the DAO.


Have you thought about what the effects of your proposal on the ecosystem will be or on price? If you distributed 61 million $APE out to the masses what do you think will happen to the coin price?

I know it doesn’t seem like it a lot of the times but Yuga has a plan. Being rewarded for having loyalty to the club and diamond handing your BAYC token is why we are all here.

I think a lot of times people forget the gratitude they had when the BAYC expanded the collection and let 10000 new members into the club also allowing the early adopters to sell their mutant further expanding the membership.


We are here to unite the whole community including NFT holders and coin holders respectively not to divide it. APEdao should grant each individual holder one vote equally not by how much wealth you hold.

Is this DAO going to belong to every individual one, either NFT or coin holders or to serve certain group only?


we need to change the voting system completely - 30K votes maximum, based on ownership of apes. No point saying one vote per owner regardless of apes held as the owners will simply transfer the apes to multiple wallets to vote multiple times, so we will still have whales with higher voting rights, but will be nothing in comparison to what it is now which imo as a total $hit show of a minority of people holding the fate of the project i love in their hands. And one thing i know for sure - none of these few people will ever vote for anything which effects their bags, this means most votes are passed/based on bias and motives which benefit the few always - we need to show the NFT community how this can be done fairly and for the many and right now it is unfair and controlled by the few. smh


It seems you are implying that this community is a community which might infringe others by transferring the $ape to multiple wallets, but not to respect each other. I was a very early BAYC & MAYC

1 Like

It seems you are implying that this community is a community which might infringe others by transferring the $ape to multiple wallets, but not to respect each other. I was a very early BAYC & MAYC nft adopter, but had to sell those because of personal reason. Now, I hold a bag of coins equivalent to at least 3 or 4 MAYC nfts, but I don’t think I deserve more right than others.

1 Like

if you read my reply again you will see that your reply makes no sense, as my comments were based on a hypothetical of holders of apes as in BAYC/MAYC NFTs

this is what i was saying - if you care to read my reply again properly - if you held multiple ape NFTs you would get multiple votes - smh

1 Like

Yes, I understand. However, s this DAO serving the NFT holders only not coins holders?

also, are you saying that we blindly trust every holder as they are owners of APES - let me tell you something which may shock you - lots of ape holders funded their apes through TORNADO CASH - why is this, as lots of ape holders are/were scammers - shocking but true - just because someone holds an ape does not automatically make them trustworthy unfortunately