Another Staking Proposal (Single NFT pool and no "safety deposit key" method)

Two or three sentences that summarize the proposal.

This AIP proposes a staking system for ApeCoin and the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFT ecosystem: Bored Ape Yacht Club, Mutant Ape Yacht Club (MAYC), and Bored Ape Kennel Club (BAKC). Staking participants will be able to stake ApeCoin and use the Bored Ape Yacht Club ecosystem NFTs to receive ApeCoin from a preset pool over a set period of time.

A statement on why the APE Community should implement the proposal.

Last thing I wanted to do was add another staking proposal to the mix but I don’t think we have the right solution yet. The goal of this proposal is to take the best pieces of what we have seen so far while aiming to be practical, fully functional and fair for all parties involved.

Staking models should seed the growth of the related token and NFT ecosystem. They can do this by expanding the audience while incentivizing early adopters and existing ecosystem participants.

One core goal of this AIP is to ensure that the staked BAYC ecosystem NFTs remain tradable regardless of a specific NFT’s status in relation to a stake, so that the growth of the ecosystem isn’t constrained by the lockup of staked assets. This allows new users to always have the opportunity to participate in staking after the launch of any staking period (each, a “Period”), by continuing to grant access to any BAYC ecosystem NFTs.

Another core goal of this AIP is to simply the staking process for the end user. This proposal will utilize a single NFT pool with the same minimum APR of the originally intended pools (~46%). This proposal also will avoid having to “attach” your ape coin stake to your NFT and will allow users to capture all of the pool benefits with a single stake.

An explanation of how the proposal aligns with the APE Community’s mission and guiding values.

As a first step to ApeCoin becoming the preferred token of web3, early NFT adopters and existing and potential ecosystem participants should be incentivized.

This proposal is built around incentivizing existing and potential holders to engage in the ecosystem, one of several ways additional utility will be added to ApeCoin and BAYC ecosystem NFTs.

Key Terms (optional)
Definitions of any terms within the proposal that are unique to the proposal, new to the APE Community, and/or industry-specific.

[Start typing here]

A detailed breakdown of the platforms and technologies that will be used.

  • Total ApeCoin Staking Pool: 17.5% of the total ApeCoin supply to be distributed over the Total Staking Period of three (3) years. This will be funded by the Ecosystem Fund.
  • Staking Pool Periods:
    • Year One: 100,000,000 ApeCoin tokens (10.0% of the total ApeCoin supply)
    • Year Two: 50,000,000 ApeCoin tokens (5.0% of the total ApeCoin supply)
    • Year Three: 25,000,000 ApeCoin tokens (2.5% of the total ApeCoin supply)

Note: Unclaimed ApeCoin remains in the contract indefinitely until it is claimed. It cannot be recalled by the contract owner.

  • Staking Pool Types:
    • ApeCoin Staking Pool
    • NFT Staking Pool
  • Staking Pool Allocations:
    • Initial Staking Period:
      • ApeCoin Staking Pool: 30,000,000 ApeCoin Tokens
      • NFT Staking Pool: 70,000,000 ApeCoin Tokens

Note: The combined Staking Pool Allocations for the Initial Staking Period adds up to 100,000,000 ApeCoin tokens, or 10% of total ApeCoin Supply.

** Initial Caps **
-BAYC NFT: 10,094 ApeCoin
- MAYC NFT: 2,042 ApeCoin
- BAKC NFT: 856 ApeCoin

These caps will be adjusted In order to allow for each NFT in the ecosystem to provide the most benefit to its owner, the $ape cap should adjust on a monthly basis. The formula for adjusting this cap will be as follows:

12,992 $APE x (the NFT’s Cap %)

BAYC Average Floor Price + BACK Average Floor Price + MAYC Average Floor Price = Total Floor Price

BAYC Average Floor Price/Total Floor Price = BAYC Cap %

MAYC Average Floor Price/Total Floor Price = MAYC Cap %

BACK Average Floor Price/Total Floor Price = BAKC Cap %

Average floor prices are to be taken daily (at the same time) via an automated process and Opensea is to be used as the marketplace of record. If possible & easy enough it would provide the most clarity to the DAO to publish this data regularly & autonomously. Floor prices are to be valued in ETH terms.

  • Qualifications to Stake:
    • The eligible ecosystem assets for staking or committing to the staking pools are ApeCoin, BAYC, MAYC, and BAKC NFTs.
    • ApeCoin can be staked directly up to any amount during the Period, but for the NFT pool rewards the cap will be increased by the following amounts for each NFT:
      - BAYC NFT: 10,094 ApeCoin
      - MAYC NFT: 2,042 ApeCoin
      - BAKC NFT: 856 ApeCoin
    • Users can commit any number of BAYC, MAYC, and/or BAKC NFTs to the incentive pool during the Period. Committing an NFT is the act of attaching that NFT to your stake, which then allows that stake to attribute an increased amount of ape coin towards the NFT pool based on the caps above.
    • A BAKC cannot be committed on its own to a stake. It must always be paired 1:1 with a BAYC or MAYC NFT in order to be committed.
  • ApeCoin Token Lock and Claim:
    • Accumulated ApeCoin can be claimed at any time without the need to also claim staked ApeCoin and without affecting the commitment status of an NFT.
    • All accrued ApeCoin generated from a stake is claimed at once, when initiating a claim.
    • The staked ApeCoin can be claimed, along with its accrued ApeCoin, directly by the original staking wallet. However, these are two separate transactions.
    • Staked ApeCoin is still valid to be used to vote in the ApeCoin DAO.
    • Users can stake ApeCoin and commit NFTs to the staking pool at any point during the Period, but the duration of an active stake directly affects the accrued ApeCoin, due to the time-weight combination incentive structure.
    • The NFTs can be uncommitted from the staking pool by the NFT holder at any point in time.
  • ApeCoin Accrual:
    • The ApeCoin that can be accumulated from staked ApeCoin, or any ApeCoin attributed to NFTs, is dependent on the amount of ApeCoin staked by the user, the duration of the stake, and the total amount of staked ApeCoin in the relevant staking pool.
    • Any ApeCoin that is unclaimed as well as any ApeCoin in the NFT pool that are above the allowed cap will automatically be considered a part of the ape coin pool.
  • Maintained NFT Tradability:
    • Only ApeCoin is ever staked. The NFTs themselves are never staked.
    • If an NFT is used for a stake that isn’t the original stakers wallet that NFT will be committed to the newly initiated stake and will be uncommitted from the original stake and the cap will be readjusted for that original staker based on the NFT being uncommitted.


I own Bored Ape 1000, Mutant Ape 1000 and BAKC 1000. I go to the staking section of the ape coin site and scroll to the NFT Pool. When I connect my wallet it will show me all eligible NFTs in my wallet. Every time I select an NFT my cap allowance will increase and when I select all 3 I will have a cap allowance of 12,992. I can then stake up to that amount of ape coin into the NFT pool. When I stake, those NFT token ids will be attached to my stake. After a few weeks I decide to sell my mutant. Upon selling the mutant my stake isn’t altered at all, however if the new buyer decides they want to stake and use that mutant then the contract will find my stake that is currently using that mutant and remove that token id from my stake and add it to the new buyers stake. This will lower my cap from 12,992 to 10,950. My stake is still active and collecting rewards but only the 10,950 is going towards the NFT rewards. Anything above that amount (including unclaimed rewards) is considered a part of the ape coin pool.

Key Benefits

One NFT pool makes it much more simple for users because they only need to manage one stake. The rewards are exactly the same as they were in the individual pools. This also makes it much easier to do the monthly rebalance for the NFT cap ratio because everyone is using the same pool so the rewards don’t have to change at all, only thing that needs to change is how much each NFT is able to put towards the rewards pool. Another major benefit is that you aren’t attaching your NFT to the ape coin. This means you can do whatever you want with the NFTs without having to worry about losing the ape coin. This also means that you don’t need to do a separate stake for every single NFT (which it appears all current proposals based on the original “key” method do require).

Steps to Implement
The steps to implement the proposal, including associated costs, manpower, and other resources for each step where applicable.

    • Smart Contract:
      • Development of the Staking Process smart contract
      • Smart contract security audit and QA
    • A proposal to be drafted and approved via the ApeCoin DAO for the allocation of ApeCoin for Staking Process, and the duration of the Period.
    • Website (Design and Implementation):
      • Staking and unstaking UI, for both direct ApeCoin stake and commitment of NFTs to stake
      • Status of staking pools: amount remaining
      • Accrual rate: current accrued, current weight
      • Claim: unclaimed ApeCoin balance

Relevant timing details, including but not limited to start date, milestones, and completion dates.

The estimated time frame is 10-12 weeks.

Overall Cost
The total cost to implement the proposal.

$200,000 – $300,000
Estimate includes smart contract engineering, full stack engineering, UI/UX design, Project Management, QA, and auditing services.



This is the cleanest proposals that I have read. Great effort and thought was given. I have a couple questions.

  1. How/why did you choose 17.5%? I am just wondering why that number was choosen as the three year total…

  2. What is your reasoning for an 30mil/70mil, coinpool/NFT split? My initial thought was a 50/50 split would be more beneficial to the DAO…

Regardless of your answers to these questions, I think your proposal is the best and I have read them all. I would support it.


Appreciate the feedback! I went with the 17.5% because it was in the original proposal and seemed reasonable. 100 million the first year gives you the ability to have a strong APR to entice staking and then ideally it becomes less and less necessary as more utility is created in future years so halving each year seems reasonable. In terms of the 30/70 split. It again is the same as the original proposal (all 3 NFT pools added up to 70 million in original proposal). I think the 70/30 for ape coin is solid for the first year because a major chunk of the ape coin in circulation in the first year is going to be held by people that can take advantage of the NFT pools which means less competition within the ape coin pool. I actually believe the ape coin pool will have very similar APR to the NFT pools for the first few months. In future years I would prefer to move it closer to 50/50 split since there will be a ton more ape coin in circulation but that is a 4th quarter concern when we decide those allocations.


I will reiterate, I SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL. I believe this proposal is simple and clean and has addressed most if not all other concerns put forth in this forum. (Maybe impossible to please everyone or solve all issues). I would say imo I am very srutinizing and detail oriented. Indeed I have not endorsed any other proposals about staking, waiting for the culmination of a cumulative simple solution. Here it is.

To ALL other DOA members, read the above and voice your thoughts…I believe this is a winner!


Bravo. Thanks for sharing. I support.


Very well put together, and I appreciate all the work you and others have put into getting this dialed in further. One part that I consistently feel should be reconsidered is the total cap. This is an overall minor point by itself, but we should be making additional space for the expected yields from staking. The overall token allocation, at 17.4%, is light as well.

If we know 100M APE tokens are potentially coming back through staking year one, we should add some portion of that immediately to the pool to further incentivize more lockup from the BAYC community, beyond the standard APE staking option. I understand this would decrease rewards overall in the pool for some who cannot afford the maximum lockup for the full term. If the logic is that our cap for NFT holders is based off the “initial distribution”, then it seems that should include this initial distribution through staking as well.

Increasing the cap would also support token price, in theory, and further align the APE/BAYC communities by creating an “incentivized vesting period”. With that said, I believe the BAYC community is creating value here by committing to build together with the DAO, which is open to anyone. Apes have been rewarded substantially over the past year. We have also proven that we can build successfully throughout the metaverse, including IRL.

The next bit I have slept on, but feel the same. The numbers they provided in the initial proposal are like an offer. BAYC members currently have the majority power to impact decisions and the BAYC is a community we can trust to build for the whole community. The initial majority power feels deliberate. Since we have clearly moved past using our power to impact voting rights in AIP2…
The BAYC community SHOULD be taking at least half of the total $APE supply. 50%, 500,000,000 $APE tokens. That sounds like a hard line to push, but put into perspective, it is not a lot. It is a partnership stake. A 50/50 split with the outside community looking to join or partner with the BAYC network/brand. And an expectation that we will uphold the core values of a token which is the heart of art, gaming, entertainment, and events on the blockchain. This isn’t a beg for more cash, this is a way to further establish value for the token. 30% seems like an extremely reasonable adjustment and still helps to guide everything that I am laying out here.

Members of the BAYC have time and time again proven that they bring value to other projects. True to our nature, the BAYC has aped into many communities over the last year. Often times verifying multiple ape owners in a given project is a signal of value to prospective buyers of that project. Apes have also founded several successful projects/protocols. There is a reasonable expectation that the BAYC community would successfully integrate $APE token into other projects, aside from going through major DAO proposals, using their own allocation or investments.

Increasing the overall staking pool rewards would benefit the entire APE coin community. We move the value and power directly to the community. The final logic ties back to the “incentivized vesting period”. Since more APE tokens would be going to the BAYC/APE community, there would need to be an even greater staking cap to meet the new higher staking reward allocation. More total value locked in by the BAYC/APE community, more APE tokens in the hands of the people. More value for the community.

There maybe some oversights in my logic here, but the intent is that we move more power to the community given that we started with it, and we can see that there is a clear path being proposed here where the community slowly dilutes power to corporate entities.

@Lost, I think you bring up some issues that maybe relevant. However, as I mentioned in my post above, we will not likely be able to achieve every goal and satisfy everyone in the first proposal. I could support a slightly larger cap maybe 25%?? For me, I feel like I represent the smaller more eager investors here(of course not everyone), I am a bit skeptical of something greater to start out. I think many other non ApeNFT holders here, like me, want to get involved with the Ape community and support it (we have/are, that is why we bought ApeCoin and are holding on to them). In my point of view, even though our investments (~$10K-$30K)are much smaller than the ApeNFT holders will/would be, I think we have greater risk…or at least I feel that way…Seeing a 3 month implementaion period required and @yatsiu showing costs of about $1mil to get this going, my opinion is we make the kind of adjustments you are discusisng above after the first three year staking is completed…call me old fashioned but I prefer to know the temperarure of the water before I go for a long swim…and when I get back from a successful swimming session I will have more confidence the next time.

I am still learning about how all this works and pretty new to this type of investing. It sounds like you are much more familiar and affluent in this realm…for us newbies, we are not as easily separated from our personal bias’s to rely on pure logic…so atleast for me…I feel I need a bit more safety upfront until I am and I can.

I am not afraid per’se, but I want to be as cautious as possible.

How much would it decrease rewards for us poor folks?

The initial supply went completely to NFT holders, those of us who bought those tokens from holders, I would argue, have the greatest commitment to the DAO and have created the value. Ultimately, however the value being created is to be shared,(I think that is likely the whole purpose of this), equally.

Again, I am new to this, however, I have read every post in this DAO, and much of what I hear comming from ApeNFT holders is greed. This does not inspire cart blance trust.

This does not seem reasonable or extremely reasonable to me. It seems like a lot right off the bat…I agree a 50/50 split maybe reasonable…eventually…after trust is established with the DAO non-ApeNFT holders.

I would be willing to compromise a bit as stated in the begining, but as I have said previously, even though ApeCoin and the DAO have started out with a controling power given to ApeNFT holders, if I, as a non-holder feel like this is not striving towards equallity between us, I will just dump my coins and let all the ApeNFT holders do their own thing, because ultimately I will feel disenfranchised through lack of equality.


I appreciate the feedback! Mifune conveyed a lot of my thoughts in their reply but I will add a bit more.

I would like to think the ape coin pool would be enough incentive for BAYC to lock up their extra tokens received from staking. In my proposal they don’t even need to do anything, if they don’t claim anything above the cap will automatically be going towards ape coin pool. It seems a bit contradictory that you think we need to further incentivize BAYC to hold but also that you can trust BAYC to build out the ape coin vision. If they can’t even hold ape coin without being incentivized with extra returns then are we sure they are the best ones to lead ape coin?

I also agree with Mifune in regards to the 50% (or even 30%) suggestion. Maybe down the road we can consider it but it seems way too early to be deciding that BAYC ecosystem deserves 50%. BAYC holders are more than welcome to buy more ape coin and that could get us to that 50% number but giving that out to us in terms of rewards doesn’t feel fair to all the other people involved. I personally feel that ape coin holders that aren’t involved with BAYC are just as important to the longterm ape coin vision. I have seen people with just ape coin be a lot more involved with the DAO compared to a lot of holders.

Another thing I could be open to is giving the NFT themselves voting power if we really feel like it is important for the BAYC ecosystem to have control of the DAO. Giving us voting power in terms of more ape coin feels like a cop out to just try and get us all more ape coin. That would be a separate AIP though.

1 Like

@Mifune @NFTBeliever i appreciate your inputs here. I do not own an NFT and have been struggling to get into this DAO (Chrome issue, not sure why, but Safari works). A few questions to orient myself. In this DAO, when someone refers to an ape, is that a reference to an NFT holder? There are other groups that use that reference for coin holders.

I also would not blindly trust BAYC holders, sorry. I am here because my other groups feel us coin holders only are not well represented. Thank you

1 Like

Yes an ape refers to the NFT and typically means owning a Bored Ape or a Mutant Ape. It is a tricky situation because the NFT holders played a major part in making this ecosystem what it is and what gives it this value. So the NFT holders are over protective (for lack of a better word) of this coin. A lot of NFT holders have good intentions and want to make sure the philosophy that led this ecosystem to be great can continue to hold throughout the ape coin DAO. But it is also very important to look out for the ape coin only holders as well because they are now just as much a part of this journey. The good news is that the vast majority of NFT holders understand this and want to make it a win win for everyone. That is why the best solution we have landed on is that NFT holders can receive a higher staking return but they must 1. hold ape coin themselves and 2. Can only get the increased staking return on X amount of coins (the cap). There will then be an ape coin only staking pool that the rest of the ape coin can be put towards which will still have very strong returns because a lot of the circulating ape coin will be put towards the NFT pools instead which means less is going towards the ape coin pools which means higher return for ape coin only holders that stake.

1 Like

Is there a limit on ape coin holders for staking?

Nope, no limit for ape coin staking pool. Based on this proposal there will be 30 million in rewards given out for the first year and your rewards will be based on the amount you staked compared to the total amount staked. If I had to estimate I would think the first 6 months we see around 60 million in ape coin pool so APR of 50% and that APR will start to head lower as the year goes on and more ape coin is released. Staking is a cool benefit but it shouldn’t be the sole reason to value your investment. Ape coin if executed well has massive potential on its own regardless of any staking.

1 Like

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