AIP-466: Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups


Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups


@SmartAPE // Derek Smart, DAO member and writer-of-many-words

I am an indie software developer who has been in the games industry as a gamer and game dev for over 40 years. I have designed, developed, and published over a dozen games during my career.

My first game, Battlecruiser 3000AD (aka BC3K), was a ground-breaking game that was ahead of its time. Published by Take Two interactive in 1996, it was one of their portfolio titles when they went public in 1997. So, you could say that I helped the company succeed to where it is today.

Over the decades, I have worked with some of best software developers and publishers around the world, and my works have been featured in various online and print magazines around the world.

You can learn more about me on my professional LinkedIn page.


The DAO needs to take the following actions:

  1. Disband the Metaverse Working Group
  2. Disband the Marketing & Communications Working Group
  3. Disband the Web3 Development Working Group
  4. Terminate the contracts of all stewards in the aforementioned working groups
  5. Perform an orderly wind down of any/all ops related to the aforementioned working groups
  6. Claw back any/all residual funding for these working groups and which are pending

With the advent of ApeChain, the DAO needs to be run in a manner befitting a well-oiled machine with a $300M market cap, and thus be devoid of distractions and delays.


The following working groups were created as a way to handle various activities for the DAO.

  1. AIP-245: Metaverse Working Group
  2. AIP-246: Marketing & Comms Working Group
  3. AIP-376: Web3 Development Working Group

To date, and with the exception of the newly created WDWG which has yet to be formed, these Working Groups have been largely ineffective in their mandate.

The current yearly budgets based on an approved 6-month budget of the aforementioned working groups are as follows:

  1. Metaverse WG Budget: $831,000 USD per year
  2. Marketing & Communications WG Budget: $987,000 USD per year
  3. Wed3 Development WG Budget: N/A

That’s currently almost $2M per year; and if the 3rd WG budget is added, will likely amount to over $2.5M that the DAO is spending on working groups that are largely and arguably ineffective.

The DAO created these working groups. And the DAO is well within its actions, activities, and purview to close them as per AIP-239: Working Group Guidelines & The Governance Working Group Charter



Closing these working groups has the following benefits:

  1. The DAO immediately saves almost $2.5M
  2. The DAO can re-purpose LESS funds to hire/contract experienced third-parties who have a lot more experience in specific areas such as marketing, communications etc. There is no way that we would spend over $2M a year on marketing and similar activities for the DAO.
  3. The DAO no longer has to deal with the distractions, funding, and down time associated with elections as well as the budget proposals and voting for these working groups.
  4. The GwG and the SC advisors can focus on specific mandates which are beneficial to the smooth operation of the DAO.
  5. The GwG and the SC advisors can hire and contract third-party teams and corps on an as-needed basis. This also provides the flexibility of being able to switch teams if they fail to perform as expected.
  6. With the advent of the Banana Bill, the proposed Web3 Working Group is effectively defunct due to any/all such activities and building being routed through this venture bill which was specifically designed for it. There is no need to duplicate this effort while spending $1M or more for that working group budget.


Upon passing of this proposal, the following are to take immediate effect, and the DAO admins and advisors are further directed to take the following actions:

  1. To TERMINATE the contracts of all the stewards in the affected working groups, and with a minimum of 30-days notice given to the affected stewards.
  2. To pay in full, to affected stewards, any/all amounts that are in arrears. With the exception of payments due with the aforementioned 30-day period, these payments are for that which are in arrears only, and not a contract “buy out” of future payments.
  3. To withdraw (claw back) any/all funding previously extended to the aforementioned working groups as part of their approved budget.
  4. To put into effect an orderly wind-down of the operations of any/all activities and entities (e.g. sub-DAOs) associated with the affected working groups as per AIP-239: Working Group Guidelines & The Governance Working Group Charter

Going forward, this proposal also grants the following approvals to the DAO admins and advisors:

  1. At their discretion and on as-needed basis, put up RFPs for activities and work which were previously required to be performed by the aforementioned working groups. Such RFPs would be based on RFP revisions approved in AIP-401.
  2. At their discretion and on an as-needed basis, hire third-party marketing and communications team or entity which would be directed to handle all such activities obo the ApeCoin DAO, and in much the same manner that it hires and contracts attorneys, accountants and other third-party teams and entities needed for its day to day business activities.
  3. Without the need or requirement for any additional stewards, the pre-existing GwG and SC will collectively manage and co-ordinate the consulting and hiring of any third-parties required for these activities.
  4. As a condition and an integral part of this proposal, interested and experienced DAO members who are capable of performing activities and tasks under this proposal, and who are already engaged in such activities during the normal course of their real-life work, if they are able to demonstrate experience and ability, are to be given first preference in any hiring and contracting for the aforementioned services.
  5. As per #4 above, the DAO secretary is directed to co-ordinate with the admins, advisors, as well as the GwG and SC cohorts in the creation of a Discourse threat and a descriptive “Job Description” topic related to either a work for hire request or an RFP so that the DAO community can have the opportunity to participate in such activities.

NOTE: The purpose of the distinctions in 1 & 2 above is so that the DAO admins and advisors have the fluidity, flexibility and speed required to most quickly and efficiently. And so, where needed, if hiring a third-party team or entity doesn’t require an RFP, then there is no need for one.


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.


Total amount requested from the ApeCoin Ecosystem Fund = A maximum of $500,000 USD per year would be allocated to hire third-party teams to replace the affected Working Groups.

  1. The cost of this proposal isn’t a fixed amount due to the terms of steward contracts (if any) which are to be terminated alongside the closure of the working groups.

  2. The costs associated with the hiring of third-party teams and entities by the DAO admins and advisors is to be capped at $500K USD per year. This cap can only be lifted via a proposal put by either the GwG stewards or the Special Council advisors.

1 Like

Understand intent here, but not sure this is the way to execute.

I would prefer to see an alternate operating model proposed to drive efficiency within the DAO, with key needs and roles identified and an execution plan that allows for the implementation of the model given the DAOs current operating cadence.

I don’t know if AIPs supersede contractual obligations the Foundation has with way members (assuming those are the parties) nor do I think this embodies the spirit of the DAO to terminate contracts of members, some of which were only elected less than 48 hours ago.

I disagree. For decades, I have run studios and projects (including govt. projects), and in each case, there’s a budget for a specific task, with KPI listings. And in all cases - as happens in any enterprise - if something isn’t working, you either kill the program, don’t renew it, kill the budget etc.

The DAO should not be paying over $2M per year for activities that - imo - have proven to be largely inconsequential. Things fail. All the time. We have to accept that. It’s not about fault or blame. It’s about reality.

I mean, there has been a furor over the SC salaries, which later ended up being slashed. I would like to see someone make the argument that, somehow the SC is far less operational and functional than MarComm and MwG who have a $2M budget and thus have nothing to show for it.

And this isn’t personal. If any of us wrote up an AIP for a $2M disbursement, not only would the DAO put us through the ringer, but if we don’t deliver, while the noise would be inconsequential, we would still face questions and ramifications.

There are many - many - AIPs that have come through here and which made all manner of promises, yet very few of them have actually delivered anything. And there is no way for the DAO to hold people accountable once the funds have been disbursed. In fact, I am working on an AirTable for that using Vulkan’s AIP listing.

I see these two working groups as falling into the same category. While I understand the idea behind their creation, those were different times. In fact, I was actually interested in joining the MwG and was primarily involved in the interest shown. But I later withdrew when I realized that most of the interested parties didn’t quite understand what the role entailed.

I would like to see either of the MarComms stewards explain what they’ve achieved since being in place.

I would like to see either of the MwG stewards explain what they’ve achieved since being in place. In fact, the last time I looked, this is what that group came up with. And idea to buy NFT assets for a failed metaverse environment which, as of this writing, is +2 yrs behind schedule. And they wanted an additional $800K to do it. I mean, wot?

Added to that, AIP-245 outlined the intent behind the MwG. And that was back in April 2023 when Yuga was totally making Otherside, the hype machine was in full swing, and everyone was on the Metaverse bandwagon which later morphed into AI.

I don’t spend so much time writing up AIPs on a whim. My entire career is based on numbers and analytics. And so, when I look at performance related AIPs, I read up on what I believe to be an achieved or achievable milestone. And in that regard, I haven’t seen a single thing that tells me that either of these two WGs have been successful in any, way, shape or form. Nothing.

This isn’t personal. Stuff happens. As I type this, thousands (over 10K in the last 6 months) of my friends and peers are out of work or close to losing their jobs/contracts due to the consolidation and constriction of the gaming industry. It’s not about fault. It’s about performance + metrics; two key components that ultimately lead to success.

That’s why you hire third-party teams who not only have the experience and skills, but also who can be held accountable.

e.g. we could hire Layer3, Galxe, Upptic, or Windwalk - all top notch Web3 agencies, and they would do a lot more than whatever it is MarComms was supposed to be doing for the DAO - and a lot more efficiently - and for a whole lot less than we’re currently paying for. Heck, even Yuga hires outside agencies. And Helika (which Yuga also uses) can provide a lot more value than anything either of these two WGs can hope to achieve.

Outside of the SC and GwG, the DAO simply isn’t setup like a corp org which can be managed as such, while holding people accountable. It goes like this:

-We vote them in
-They get paid
-We vote them out

That’s it. Whether or not they were successful is largely immaterial because there’s neither accountability nor transparency. How is that sustainable?

That’s for the AF to figure out; and I will find out soon enough during admin review of this AIP.

The “spirit” of the DAO is immaterial. If that was the case, why then do we even have procedures in place? e.g. the spirit of the DAO is to give away money in grants. However, in the past months, amid the rapidly dwindling treasury, declining token, suddenly we were pivoting to a venture org that can automagically receive revenue after all. So far, afaik, we haven’t taken in one single cent. And that was back in Nov 2023.

If one member of the DAO can put up an AIP to do something, there’s nothing preventing another member from putting up an AIP to undo it. That’s what I’m doing. And the DAO can collectively disagree with me and uphold the original intent by voting my AIP down. That’s of no consequence to me because the intent here is to streamline the DAO ahead of the next era. If the DAO disagrees, that’s OK, but the end result is that, as always, I can say that I tried to do something rather than complaining about it.

The salient point here is that the AF can have third-parties do everything that we’re currently paying over $2M year to these WGs. And those third-parties can be held accountable if they fail to perform.

Heck, most startups, which this DAO is, don’t even have a “marketing dept”, nor do they have an “IT dept”. But here we are - a DAO - with no procedures in place to support any business model, but yet we are paying $2M (!) a year for two depts that are thus far underperforming. And we should keep doing that in the “spirit” of the DAO?

Everyone knows that I am a community minded person; and so, I would ofc much rather see people from the DAO be instrumental in its functionality and success. However, our voting system is such that we don’t usually end up with the best people for the job. Instead, it’s the people who get the most votes - regardless of experience and/or qualifications. How is that sustainable as a business?

We need to streamline the DAO. In the last 24 hrs, I have written up 7 AIPs and have another 4 (maybe 3 if I consolidate one of them) to go. They’re all centered on the DAO ops.


Just adding some points of clarity here, culled from Removing/Impeaching Elected Candidates

  1. This proposal isn’t targeted specifically at removing anyone. It’s about closing the ineffective and inefficient working groups. I explained it here.

  2. You can’t close a working group without first removing (via contract terminations) the people associated with it. I explained it here.

1 Like

I just linked to my post in the discussion about Removing and Impeaching Elected Candidates because I think it holds true in this discussion. I’m too new to comment about the specifics of the working groups you mentioned, but sometimes the line a DAO must walk is whether it is a business or a collectively-funded social organization. If it’s a business, impersonal decisions about efficiency need to be made. If it’s a social organization, decisions can be more community-focused for social sustainability than financial stability.

After years and debates, the best solution might be just shutdown the DAO, burn the treasury.
Treasury already become the money printing machine for some bad actors.
I couldn’t admit that there are still some nice people who really perform well in managing the DAO, but most positions just don’t see their outcome or effect. But only draining the value of APE.


You’re going to want to check out the Banana Bill which is currently up for vote, and due to the way it was set up, is guaranteed to pass. It’s effectively doing what you want. It’s removing $100m from the control of the DAO and moving it into the hands of a select few who will actively manage it to promote ApeChain.

I do not believe a massive burn would accomplish much of anything for $APE currently, as $APE has no tangible use case, and therefore has no reason to exist other than betting on price speculation. On long, this always goes to 0. So the Banana Bill will fight to give $APE a very tangible use case, because if the ApeChain L3 is successful, it’s then comped against other L2s and L3s which are fairly easy to give value to and to estimate the token’s value based on factors like the TVL of the chain.


Maybe add GWG in here as well, compared to that the other working groups are fairly new and havnt had the time to prove themselves.
On the other hand, we’ve seen decline in number of people engaging within the DAO, super amazing people simply leaving the DAO or stepping down from being active, joining some other projects.
Just a suggestion which might come as rude, but this AIP isnt going anywhere.

I don’t have any issues nor concerns with the GwG or the secretary. For as long as I’ve been here (a year this month), I have only seen them do what they’re supposed to do for the DAO. In fact, it’s why prior proposals that I wrote and later withdrew was about putting them in charge and getting rid of some members of the SC.

The DAO has too much bureaucracy; and I personally see no reason for both SC + GwG to exist, alongside WebSlinger admins. We could literally merge them both, trim it to 6 people and call it ApeCoin Leadership, and nobody would notice - or even care.

Hi @SmartAPE ,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in 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.


On point, SC at this point are just leaches who are wasting the community’s time and resources. Not even saying about the salary part. Ape Foundation still doing what they are supposed to do ( I guess, coz honestly who knows, its probably just 2 guys drinking by the beach with laptops) and unnecessary lawyer fees.

As for DAO secretary and GWG, idk what they cooking from the past 2 years. Only facilitators doing what they are supposed to do. Transparency is a joke, no idea about half of the funds and the list can go on and on if someone decide to give this enough time.

Yes - I am ready to proceed! Idea already in AIP draft mode. Standing by.

This is the 2023 version. I keeping forgetting to ask @BojangleGuy.Admin if there is a current version already made. If there is, thus far I am unable to find it.

The Ape Foundation is made up of two entities. WebSlinger (admins), Special Council (overlords).

The question has always been, “What does the Special Council do?”. And this was already clarified in APE Foundation Players – The Special Council [AIP-282]

And I also have a proposal requiring additional clarification in case anything has changed and which the DAO isn’t currently aware of Special Council To Clarify The APE Foundation

For my part, my issue with Ape Foundation has always been along the lines of accountability and transparency. Nothing else. I feel those are vital to the health and wellbeing of the DAO.


Yes‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

Well, I know for a fact that the previous secretary, Vulcan, did quite a bit of work in the DAO. And I am sure that most of that work isn’t something that is visible to the community at large.

Similarly, the stewards oversee the facilitators. And the latter most definitely have been doing what they were required to do. That you don’t think the stewards - who lead the GwG - haven’t done anything these past two years, is a bit surprising.

I believe that your concern is more about what they do not being visible to the community because most of it is in the background. Is that right?

1 Like

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

Hi @SmartAPE ,

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.
  • @SmartAPE - 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,

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

This proposal has been assigned the AIP ID Number 466.

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

Kind Regards,


work in the background isnt making an impact either, thats the issue