ApeChain: Request for Proposals

1. Introduction

The ApeCoin community seeks a proponent to build ApeChain, a dedicated ApeCoin blockchain that scales $APE and supports the growth of the ApeCoin ecosystem.

Over community discussions in recent weeks and months, it has become clear that the ApeCoin community would like a Request for Proposals (RFP) process for ApeChain. In order to assist with this process, the APE Foundation is announcing this RFP to select a proponent to build ApeChain.

2. Background

ApeCoin is a fungible ERC-20 token on the Ethereum blockchain that serves as a means of network governance and as a utility token for Web3 projects.

ApeCoin is a token made to support what’s next, controlled and built on by the community. It serves as a decentralized protocol layer for community-led initiatives that drive culture forward into the metaverse.

The ApeCoin community governs itself via the ApeCoin DAO, the decentralized framework that governs the APE Foundation and, in turn, the ApeCoin Ecosystem Fund. The DAO utilizes a proposal process to vote on how the Ecosystem Fund will be distributed by the APE Foundation to promote a diverse and self-sustaining ecosystem.

3. Purpose of this Request for Proposals

To serve the vision of the ApeCoin DAO, this RFP is intended to streamline the ApeCoin DAO’s consideration of ApeChain proposals.

This RFP outlines a timeline for the RFP process, and provides suggestions to proponents on features and characteristics which they may wish to include in their proposals and questions that proponents may wish to answer in their proposals. These features, characteristics, and questions/answers, are all factors which ApeCoin DAO community members may in turn wish to consider when ultimately casting their votes on the proposals.

4. ApeChain Features and Characteristics

The following are some potential features and characteristics ApeChain proponents may wish to highlight in their proposals, and questions that ApeChain proponents may wish to answer:


  • Throughput (transactions per second)
  • Transaction fees

Upgradeability & Extensibility

  • What is the path to upgrading the proposed blockchain? (e.g. are upgrades forkless, or require network participants to coordinate a fork?)
  • What is the path to extending features?

Security & Decentralization

  • Consensus model
  • Block validation
  • Account abstraction
  • Data availability
  • Finality
  • $APE use case (e.g. can $APE be used to secure the chain and/or what are other use cases for $APE in the proposed blockchain?)


  • Will $APE be used to incentivize network participants (e.g. validators or miners)?
  • Will $APE be used as a gas token?
  • Is there a proposed update to the existing $APE tokenomics? (e.g. changes to on-chain treasury management)

Ecosystem Development

  • Account abstraction, including ability to incorporate custom gasless transactions
  • Composability
  • Portability
  • Liquidity
  • Support of precompiles that facilitate gaming or other use-cases as the community and ecosystem deems it fit
  • Support for modern smart contracts languages and approaches that expand developer adoption (e.g. Web Assembly (WASM) support)
  • Availability of funding to build public goods and stimulate growth of ApeChain and the ApeCoin ecosystem

Gaming Support & Discussion

  • Can the proposed blockchain architecture be optimized for high-performance gaming transactions and interactions, with minimal latency and maximum security? If so, you may elaborate.
  • Robust support for Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) to represent unique in-game items and assets, providing true digital ownership to players. This is not limited to the support of established EVM non-fungible token standards such as ERC-721 or ERC 1155; but also open to
  • Ethereum improvement proposals (EIPs) related to NFTs and gaming,
  • Support for native on-chain game engines such as Mud, Dojo, Paima game engine and others
  • Cross-platform compatibility and interoperability, allowing for a unified gaming experience across various games and platforms.
  • User-centric design, ensuring ease of use for gamers of all levels, with intuitive interfaces and straightforward navigation. This is not limited to supporting concepts such as account abstraction, but also refers to custom mechanisms that lead to faster onboarding or tailored gaming experiences.


  • Are there any limitations on making upgrades to the chain, forking parts of the software and/or making it customizable?
  • Can ApeChain be spun out under a different technology stack in the future?

Foreseeable Limitations, Constraints & Assumptions

As research and innovation related to blockchain technology rapidly advance, existing approaches are likely to become outdated and/ or lose preference. To this end, you may elaborate on any foreseeable limitations, constraints and working assumptions under which the proposed ApeChain architecture is presented under. This is not limited to technology considerations, but also relates to business and user adoption considerations.

5. RFP Timeline

6. Instructions

This RFP will go live on December 28, 2023. The APE Foundation will correspond with proponents to assist with drafting proposals, as needed.

Proponents should follow the AIP Draft Template when preparing their proposals.

When completing the “Platforms & Technologies” section of the AIP Draft Template, proponents are encouraged to consider including the “Potential ApeChain features and characteristics” outlined in Section 4 of this RFP.

Proponents applying for the RFP will be required to submit their proposal via the ApeCoin DAO Discourse no later than January 11, 2024, 8pm EST and must clear Administrative Review prior to the start of Voting Period Round 1. Proposals received outside of this channel, or after this date and time, may not qualify for this RFP and may not be eligible to go to vote at the same time as the qualifying proposals.

There will be a Community Feedback period from January 11, 2024, to January 31, 2024, during which ApeCoin DAO members can reply to the Discourse posts of the proposals, in order to ask questions and seek feedback.

On February 1, 2024, an ApeCoin DAO-wide vote to select the successful ApeChain proposal will go live on Snapshot. The vote will close on February 14, 2024 which is in alignment with AIP-362 - AIP-362: Establish bi-monthly AIP voting periods

There will not be a second round of voting

7. Disclaimers

When approved by the ApeCoin DAO via the passage of an AIP, this ApeChain will be supported by the DAO. While this ApeChain can be supported by the DAO, the DAO may in the future decide to change the nature of its support or rescind it entirely.

The APE Foundation reserves the right to make future updates and enhancements to this RFP document as it sees fit, and to incorporate any feedback from the community.


An objective step in the right direction.


About time we have this among all the chaos. Hope this time the people proposing these RFPs would be welcoming to community’s feedback and concerns


thank you!

let’s get this done asap


This is leaning towards what the community wanted.


IMO, this is how this should have been handled from the onset.


While I appreciate the efforts to streamline this process, I do have some questions and comments about the Foundation putting up an RFP for this without there being an AIP first to gauge the voter’s interest in:

  1. Whether they want an ApeChain
  2. If so, whether they want to support a singular ApeChain

Could you elaborate on where and how these discussions took place? Since this was not presented on the forum as an AIP, these discussions were not transparent and the entire community did not have access to them or get a chance to share their thoughts.

Can a “none of the above” option be added, in case the community doesn’t wish to have an ApeChain at this point in time or doesn’t feel like the proposals presented are right at this time?

How was it determined that the ApeCoin community wants to support a singular ApeChain?

I am also concerned about the Ape Foundation putting up an RFP without the prior approval of a successful AIP that would legitimize such decision-making authority. I worry that this could be a slippery slope and this is setting a precedent giving the Foundation more power than it needs to have.

Once again, I appreciate your attention to the community’s needs and the efforts to streamline the proposal process. However, I believe it’s important that major decisions like the DAO’s support of an ApeChain are in alignment with the community’s wishes and are conducted with transparency. Thank you and I look forward to your reply.


Tottaly agree with AA’s comments. You’re skipping fundamental parts of our processes without authority or community approval. Very dangerous precedent to set.


Totally agree that a none of the above option is a hard requirement.


there must be L2 for ETH with native Ape token, we are waiting for that to get a real utility for tokens


I’m very excited about this, we will be a very robust ecosystem given today’s developments and constructions in the crypto market as a whole.


Who decided apechian was a GO - not the community via a vote that’s for sure. They keep referencing ‘the apecoin community seeks’, but this is a blatant deception because the community has not decided in any form that an apechain or multiple etc should be built.

This is the biggest decision we will make so far and yet we have not and will not vote on it?

We should all immediately demand they cease and desist with this RFP and follow our processes.

A “none of the above option”, I’d argue still suggests apechain was approved at some stage.

What happens if down the line one of the participants/losers legally challenges the validity of this RFP? @Waabam - is this a concern or?

I’ve made/documented my reservations. For me it’s not rocket science - we should first approve apechain and only if this happened would we proceed to a request for proposal.


Well written. I hope the Apechain proponents will submit proposals addressing all the points given under 4. ApeChain Features and Characteristics section

CC: @Omar_zkSync @SandeepNailwal @ben-chain @ninarong

I am looking forward to these proposals


i totally agree, apecoin should have it own blockchain and build an entire ecosystem around it. in my opinion the best would be an appchain within cosmos ecosystem


I agree that an initial AIP to determine whether or not to move forward with a formal AIP process would be ideal. Good points. From there we can field proposals and still have a none of the above / reject option on any subsequent AIPs (assuming the RFP AIP passes) if none of the options are deemed acceptable.


My thoughts about this proposal:
Covers a comprehensive range of topics and considerations, providing a solid foundation for potential proponents to understand the community’s expectations and requirements. Here are some thoughts and suggestions:


  1. Clear Vision: The proposal effectively communicates the vision of ApeCoin and the purpose of ApeChain, making it easier for potential proponents to align their proposals with community goals.
  2. Community Involvement: The involvement of the ApeCoin DAO and the decentralized governance model ensures that the community has a say in the decision-making process, fostering a sense of ownership and participation.
  3. Thorough Technical Specifications: The detailed features and characteristics outlined for ApeChain provide a comprehensive guide for proponents. This ensures that proposals are not only aligned with the community’s vision but also technically robust.
  4. Focus on Gaming: The emphasis on high-performance gaming transactions, NFT support, and user-centric design reflects an understanding of the current trends and demands in the blockchain space, particularly in the context of gaming and NFTs.
  5. Licensing and Future Flexibility: The inclusion of questions related to licensing and the ability to spin out ApeChain under a different technology stack demonstrates forward-thinking and an awareness of the evolving nature of blockchain technology.

Suggestions for Enhancement:

  1. Incentive Alignment: Consider adding more details about how the proposed ApeChain aligns with the overall incentive structure of the ApeCoin ecosystem. This could include specific mechanisms for rewarding participants and contributors.
  2. Environmental Sustainability: Given the growing importance of environmental considerations in blockchain projects, you might want to address how ApeChain plans to mitigate environmental impact, especially if it involves Proof-of-Work or energy-intensive consensus mechanisms.
  3. Interoperability: While you touch on cross-platform compatibility, you could expand on how ApeChain aims to achieve broader interoperability with other blockchain networks, ensuring seamless interaction with the wider blockchain ecosystem.
  4. Documentation and Education: Include a section in the proposal that discusses plans for documentation and education. Ensuring that developers and users have access to comprehensive guides and educational resources will contribute to the success and adoption of ApeChain.
  5. Timeline and Milestones: Consider adding a section that outlines the expected timeline for ApeChain development and key milestones. This can help the community understand the proposed project’s roadmap and development progress.
  6. Risk Mitigation: Address potential risks and provide strategies for mitigating them. This could include regulatory risks, technological challenges, or other factors that may impact the successful implementation of ApeChain.

Never did the communtiy decide on any of this so please stop using those terms. If I’m wrong please link me to where this was all decided upon as I must have missed it all. Thanks.


We have rules and processes, and “they” are suppose to ensure these are implemented, however, apparently the rules do not apply to them.

Now we are being told we have decided to build apechain - which is an absolute lie - polygon and three members of special council decided this, it’s that simple.

I’ve asked for legal clarity on the RFP matter and have been ignored.

Apechain is the biggest decision “we” will make - yet there’s been no real dicussion on what “we” want, when “we” want it and why. Instead we are being told all of this by the same special council members who worked with polygon and have been drivers in this whole debacle.


1: TIME - Polygon and SC told us they have been working on apechian for over a year. All sounds great, but not when you realise they sprung this on the community, which made their competitors react and try and produce counters ‘on-the-fly’. These of course could not be as thorough as polygon’s idea imo.

2: FREE VOTE - Polygon was given a free vote. Even though many members within the communtiy were saying how unfair this all was and that we should rethink how we approach our biggest decision ever. Theae calls were ignored and ultimately polygon was afforded a free shot at victory, win or lose didn’t matter as they’d be back in the race.

3: SC ACCESS - Polygon worked closely with special council members to draft their AIP. As we now know this afforded them advantages of all kinds.

4: RFP - The RFP which we’re told we approved or asked for allowed polygon back into the mix. After an AIP fails our rules are the authors must wait three months before resubmission, luckily for polygon SC was able to circumvent that and here we are. Some conspiracy theorists amoung us may say this was decided long ago as a fail safe, but what do I know. It also shut down all other apechain AIPs which would have been up to vote most likely before polygon could resubmit. Imo the only option SC had as they scrambled (RFP).

These are worrying times for sure. I feel as if the dice are loaded, we all know this, but no one can really do anything about it. I’m not against polygon winning, I’m for the best solution for our community, and we will never get this by doing things in ways that elevate one solution over another via dubious practices and disregarding our processes.

One final thing to ponder:

We vote on whether or not to add a tab to our website - and yet when it comes to the creation of a new multi-billion dollar apechain we’re simply told we approved it. :see_no_evil::hear_no_evil::speak_no_evil:


Definitely appreciate all of your thoughts on this. I guess coming into reading this AIP I tried to assume the best intentions from those who submitted it, and I applied my thoughts from there. I initially assumed (it seems incorrectly) that there would be an option to vote down everything and not move forward with the AIP process. I 100% agree that the DAO has not decided to move forward with an Ape Chain and that should not in any way be an assumption moving forward.

I have differing issues with every proposal for a new chain that I’ve seen thus far, and I’ve been disappointed with the general level of transparency and willingness to answer questions from basically every AIP for an Ape Chain thus far as well.

It seems like many are operating on an assumption that if we build Ape Chain, the users will suddenly come. In the strongest possible terms, I disagree with this. Layer 2’s / sidechains are often a real pain to use, especially for people who are not super familiar with crypto. They are often far less reliable than ETH, less secure than ETH, and require using things like bridges that are prime targets for hacks (on top of often being a poor user experience.) While they lower the barrier to entry which is cost to transact on the chain itself, they bring all sorts of new issues that I believe ultimately hurts adoption more than paying a few dollars in ETH to do something.

Plus the way Yuga handled taking $APE for both HV-MTL and LOTM effectively resolved the transaction cost issue without needing people to constantly pay for L1 transactions. One TX which granted server side tokens to use in-game. Tons of web 2 examples of this being done very effectively. Any other company could do the same and in many ways I think that’s superior to an L2. Not everything needs to be on chain. And the harsh reality is that if there was this massive demand to use $APE, we’d be seeing adoption regardless of any hurdles that it being on main net provides. People would find a way. There are people who spend hours modifying their systems to play games from the 90s. The actual product is so damn compelling they’re willing to spend that sort of time and effort. We don’t have any use case like that to facilitate real demand. I think it’s safe to say that after Dookey Dash, Yuga has failed to build compelling software. Other companies building games are requesting generational wealth to build using $APE (fair enough, maybe other chains are offering them as much or more), but the DAO votes those down every time. So we’re in a really tough spot. We have no compelling software or use cases to drive demand, and no one willing to use $APE without being paid to create that compelling software / demand. So we sit here stuck. The only demand at this point is buying or shorting based on pure speculative number go up or number go down, which I think crypto has enough of already. :joy: IMO until we get that killer app or killer game, what chain $APE lives on won’t make much of a difference.


apecoin chain on hedera hashgraph? also would be great if they burn half of the total suply