AIP-445: Temporarily suspend costly active or upcoming AIPs and implement staged fund releases for AIPs


Temporarily suspend costly active or upcoming AIPs and implement staged fund releases for AIPs


  • likkee.eth @maplerichie BAYC holder 5/2021 - 4/2024. Blockend developer.


This proposal suggests temporarily suspending currently active and upcoming AIPs requesting over $10,000. It also mandates implementation of staged fund releases tied to project milestones or having Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) as fund release stages to ensure transparency and accountability.


  1. Ensure funds are released based on verifiable project progress.
  2. Implement tiered voting thresholds for proposals based on the requested amount.
  3. Promote transparency and accountability by ensuring proposers complete their work diligently.


  1. Improved governance and financial oversight within the DAO.
  2. Increased accountability and transparency for funded projects through verifiable progress tracking.
  3. Reduced risk of funds being allocated to stagnant or failing projects
  4. Incentivizes proposers to set realistic and achievable milestones/OKRs
  5. Builds trust within the community by demonstrating responsible fund management.
  6. Attracts high-quality proposals by ensuring a rigorous vetting and release process.


Outline the steps to implement your proposal.

  1. Temporary Suspension of Costly AIPs:
    a. Temporarily suspend any active and upcoming AIPs requesting more than $10,000 until this proposal is implemented.

  2. Staged Fund Releases:
    a. Proposals must specify clear milestones, the funds required for each stage, and ideally include time constraints. The DAO will release funds in stages based on the completion of each predefined milestone.
    b. For proposals utilizing OKRs, clear objectives and key results must be defined. Funds will be released upon meeting the majority of key results for each objective. This allows governance and DAO members to track and verify the AIP’s progress.

  3. Tiered Voting Requirements:
    a. Proposals requesting less than $50,000 require a simple majority (50% + 1) vote.
    b. Proposals requesting between $50,000 and $150,000 require a two-thirds (66.67%) majority vote.
    c. Proposals requesting more than $150,000 require a three-fourths (75%) majority vote.


The expectation is that this proposal would be implemented by the DAO’s administrative team. The community should regularly review the impact of this proposal. If accepted, the administration and the community should review the impact of the updates after the 3-month period for conflict ends, or 6-12 months for high funded proposals.


No additional budget is required, utilizing the existing governance structure

1 Like

Yes! Thank you so much for proposing this!! Stage funding is so much better than giving x amount of millions upfront with no accountability on results. Sure it might create more friction but that’s a great thing imo! Love to see it.


I agree with the intent behind this. Even if suspension of moving the AIP through governance is not the answer, withholding funds until such a schedule with OKRs is established and made public would also achieve this objective IMO.


I get the motivation behind this and agree with it. No one wants to see the DAO Treasury depleted without creating any sort of sustainable revenue loop. That will end in disaster. However, I think this is the wrong way to go about it.

We’re about to launch ApeChain that will be the biggest driver of utility for ApeCoin, but in addition, it will also be the way that we can create sustainable revenue streams for the DAO. That will require outflows of APE, but will also require professional management with transparent ROI projections for any outflows. Stay tuned…it’s coming soon.

The solution to the problem presented here is to vote down any AIPs that don’t clearly show the ROI benefit for the DAO. In reality, that is difficult given the current way that DAO voting works with two or three huge holders that can push bad AIPs through, but that should be the issued addressed in an AIP not a cut off in general of the much needed AIP process.


Support this AIP idea 100%. I just submitted an AIP Idea too.

1 Like

Yup, it’s not make sense especially for proposal request for huge amount.

1 Like

BTW, I’m not an OKR practitioner yet. But I feel like it is suitable for any DAO to release grants.

1 Like

Don’t get the “clearly show the ROI benefit.”.
Everyone can just propose a business plan with a promising ROI, even with the support of authentic statistics, analysis, etc. But business environments change rapidly, especially in Web 3. What can the “ROI” promise?
The voting majority might solve the “huge hodlers issue.” Just that it doesn’t have a perfect solution, as it can be a trick if the huge hodlers really want to push the AIP through, just separate it into multiple wallets.


Lets make Apes Stronger!


Support this aip, apecoindao is not a Venture Capital or Charity Fund, and it doesn’t have the ability to invest/supervise/track the use of funds, stop asking for funds from it.


Well said. It’s time we hold people accountable with tangible results before giving away millions of dollars in Ape.


Since by definition the ApeCoin DAO is a grants organization, whose purpose is to support projects which build up the $APE ecosystem… What do you propose it does with its funds?


There are enough people in the DAO, WGs and SC who can cover this part I imagine.

Proposals like this provide incremental steps for us to continue to evolve as a DAO, tighten up our approval criteria and more responsibly manage the treasury we’ve all been made stewards of.

If this passes, I’m confident we’ve got the right people to make it a reality.

1 Like

I agree that ROI projections and investment analysis in general is far from an exact science. However, the level of diligence that a professional investment manager puts into a potential investment is massive compared to what we see going through most DAO treasury allocations. My point was basically that with ApeChain, we’ll be looking to bring in that professional rigor. It doesn’t guarantee better investment returns but it certainly lowers the risks.


So before the “professional” came, it need a protection plan.

Love to see this!

I think there are more mechanisms that can be used to further add value to the tiered voting requirements.

We already know some large VC-funded voters that arguably have nothing to do with Ape DAO have been swinging the for and against votes of multiple proposals, such as those that do not include their communities explicitly in benefits from funding, which may not be in the interest of Ape DAO itself. This has made many observers and members disenfranchised as they feel their voice is drowned out by these VC-backed entities.

Solutions to counter-balance ownership concentration that have been successfully implemented in other DAOs (e.g. quadratic voting in Ocean Protocol DAO) could be useful to consider.

Relevant readings


Hi @likkee.eth,

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.


1 Like

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

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

The AIP Draft submitted is currently incomplete and feedback has been provided to the author.

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

Thank you,


1 Like