Enhancing Working Group Transparency

PROPOSAL NAME: Enhance Working Group Transparency


ALL CITY is an elected ApeCoin DAO Governance Working Group Lead Steward.


With the Working Group structure nearing eleven Stewards and ApeChain on the horizon, ensuring streamlined communication between Working Groups and other critical DAO bodies will be essential for developing the infrastructure and ecosystem needed for a sustainable future.

Furthermore, clear communication and transparency regarding initiative progress to other Working Groups and the community as a whole are essential to remaining aligned with established goals and ensuring that resources are being allocated appropriately.

To address these challenges, this no-cost proposal seeks to take a proactive approach by making initiative and personnel reporting a requirement in all Working Group quarterly transparency reports. Initiative reporting should encompass key personnel and their involvement, milestones, expenditure tracking, risk management and mitigation strategies, performance metrics, and community impact. Personnel reporting should highlight key achievements, including any professional development steps taken to enhance their abilities within ApeCoin DAO, and what their involvement is within initiatives.

To streamline effective communication and help mitigate potential challenges among eleven diverse Stewards, each Working Group Lead should be collectively voted on by Stewards from all Working Groups every six months. In cases where there is an even number of Stewards voting, the DAO Secretary will be provided with an equal vote.

Working Group Steward Leads will continue meeting with the DAO Secretary and other Leads, every two weeks, as stated in AIP-239 Working Group Guidelines & the Governance Working Group Charter, and also serve as a point of contact for their Working Group for any ongoing communication with Special Council and the APE Foundation.

In Working Groups with three or more Stewards, the Lead should not be granted any additional veto power, and all internal decision-making should continue to be determined by a majority vote as-needed. Each Working Group should remain free to distribute compensation among Stewards as they see fit, with no requirement to provide Working Group Leads any additional amounts.


  • Improved Collaboration and Communication: Clear communication on goals, progress, and resource allocation ensures all Working Groups work towards the shared objectives of the ApeCoin DAO and the progression of ApeChain.

  • Increased Accountability: Mandatory initiative and personnel reporting creates transparency and holds Working Groups and their members accountable for their actions and resource allocation.

  • Community Confidence: Clear communication about progress and resource utilization will build an additional layer of trust with the ApeCoin DAO community.

  • Reduced Risk: Proactive risk management and mitigation strategies outlined in initiative reports can help identify and address potential issues before they escalate. This promotes a more collaborative effort, where other Working Groups and the broader ApeCoin DAO community can offer solutions and support.

  • Improved Resource Allocation: Clear reporting on expenditures will enable a more conscientious approach to resource allocation across Working Groups, ensuring efficient use of community funds and a more sustainable future for the ApeCoin DAO.

  • Attract Talent: A well-coordinated and transparent Working Group structure can help attract and retain top talent, thereby contributing to the overall success of the ApeCoin ecosystem.


There are no new terms introduced to the ApeCoin DAO community in this proposal.


These reporting requirements will be incorporated into each Working Group’s next quarterly transparency report following proposal approval. Any changes related to Lead Steward roles and responsibilities will take effect immediately.

Voting may take place on a platform of the Stewards choosing, and the proposal should apply to all existing Working Groups as well as any new Working Groups that are formed by a DAO-wide vote while these requirements are mandated.

In Working Groups with two Stewards, the Lead will retain the right to make the final decision when a consensus cannot be reached.


There is no cost to implement this proposal.

For me this shows a high level of awareness - what’s lacking, what’s needed and what’s expected. Potentially these changes will build trust & confidence & quell a lot of the noise once in full swing. Support :handshake:


Agreed… And quite deliberately wanting to leave things flexible for the Working Groups to go as granular as they wish — so long as something is there, in writing for the community to go by.

A little formal accountability goes a long way.

PS still not in its final form so feedback welcomed. I’m also going to draft up a sample template to show how simple this level of reporting can be.



I’m not sure that any WG proposals should be entertained, at all. Especially because each one resets the clock of a 3 month timer, where conflicting proposals cannot be put forward. Stuck in a loop. Many talented recruits have been lost in elections. From the facilitators election and forward, dozens of great contributors instead have to go through a gauntlet…for what? It happens again, and again, and again. Pretty damn sure that these silly cycles are harming more than helping.

My two-cents is that the cost of WGs (as setup) has become too high. There are a lot of good people who’ve entered elections. They got rekt. Read their names. A lot of good people. Told to “hold my beer” by whoever gets in. Respectfully, I feel the WG initiatives will not adequately a) recruit and retain talent, and b) help grow a network of communities, apps, games, and experiences on ApeChain. At some point its necessary to reflect. Each time we push any proposal through, it cant be changed for 3 months. By that time…elections again!

To be fair the hold my beer line was iconic.

And quite likely nearing close to one year ago today… Memories aside, we must always be striving to do better, so by providing more transparency to the community while keeping elected roles and associated Working Groups held a little more accountable – we can be.

:apecoin: :apecoin:



Thank you for receiving my input without getting frustrated. Buuveis and Racs and MsNfts and others in our ecosystem are not replacable, and must be leveled up. Can try to find people from the outside but native talent is…important. I have a personal chip on my shoulders with the WGs. Would’ve liked to see them be open workshops, from the beginning, on tuesdays and thursdays. Something everyone can join. Leaders wouldve risen from there. And the name facilitator is dumb. Should be forum moderators and made WAY simpler. Thanks again for reading my perspective. Have a good day!


Always got room for you brother… Still pouring a little foundation over here but once the new initiatives are dialled in I would love to chat about getting you out there and community building. Also super excited to have you on board with APE_U :ape_u: :ape_u:

Going to be such a great fit for you with a really awesome long-term vision.

Miss ya buddy!! Catch-up call soon!!!


1 Like

@AllCityBAYC Great starting a conversation about Working Group Transparency. It is a topic much discussed in the forum. Good that you have put up an Idea left open for feedback from the community.

A reminder to all the Idea phase is important, so authors can get valuable feedback from the community before moving on to the Draft phase.

Firstly, this could be legally challenged, as people choose to be elected with amount of compensation clearly stated in the application.

Secondly, this should be put as a separate AIP as changing AIP agreed compensation is not in the scope of the title - Enhancing Working Group Transparency.

Thirdly, each Working Group, once they have had an AIP approved, we cannot tell them how to use the funding of that AIP.

Fourthly, with two Stewards there is no rule yet for the Lead to have the veto power.

Working Group Leads: Currently, even with two Stewards the Lead does not have Veto power. As this was not included in the description of the Working Group Leads in AIP-239.

Finally, these issues show the importance of OKR1 on AIP-408 is to revise the Working Group Charter. Once the elections are completed and the new Stewards are all onboarded we should look to complete the this before August 1st, 2024, as stated in the AIP.


Love transparency and I think the benefits of this proposal are well thought out.

Quesiton: What mechanisms are in place to ensure the WGs follow through with this?

Said another way, how do we drive accountability to ensure all WGs follow this process and don’t “forget or get bored with it” after the first 1-2 reports?


Thank you for writing this out AC. This will help the DAO’s stewards performance A LOT! Love to see it.


No one probably can ensure anything. Same with what happened with the SC Weekly Reports, most of them didn’t fill them and if they did they either copy pasted the description of the role of what a SC does or on a few rare occasions filled them with valuable info.

I believe it will be up to the individual or the group to take the initiative to be more accountable and transparent, but it’s great that we have an AIP to reinforce that, and then, if the parties involved don’t do it at least the community can look back and have an idea if they wanna fund future initiatives.


Like taxes in many jurisdictions, self-reporting is always a tricky thing.

Furthermore, because Working Groups are grant recipients, we can’t actually take anything back once it’s been distributed. This is why creating more social awareness is key. Also, quarterly reports are already mandated for the GWG, as shown in the AIP-239: Working Group Guidelines & The Governance Working Group Charter; however, given that we are community-funded with a general lack of clarity on what we do, making these reports more robust will elevate them beyond standard accounting, and into comprehensive guides for the community.

They’ll also help voters make more informed decisions on candidates up for re-election and subsequent Working Group budget proposals.



I believe we need to take action now, ahead of the new Stewards and Web3 Development Working Group formation, to ensure a solid foundation. Transparency and efficient communication among Stewards are crucial, and with up to six new Stewards joining, which represents a 100% increase in both members and salaries, we must not risk slowing down this process.

Regarding salary expectations, there is no standardized rate specified on any application, except in AIP-239 for the Governance Working Group. This document, written over a year ago, has since been followed by two budget proposals, neither of which provides detailed breakdowns outside of the DAO Secretary.

For example, AIP-408: Q2/Q3 2024 Governance Working Group Budget includes the following table:

It should be noted that Working Group Stewards control their initiatives and overall grant funds, allowing for adjustments as deemed necessary. AIP-408 addresses this with the following statement:

“It should also be reinforced that Working Group initiatives may be adjusted, and in some cases terminated, due to unforeseen circumstances or at the Stewards’ discretion within reasonable grounds. Examples of reasons that adjustments might be made related to this particular proposal could include, but are not limited to, team member changes, initiative performance, or technical adaptations necessitated by the transition to ApeChain. Any modifications, along with the rationale and details of funding adjustments, will be communicated on a public ApeCoin DAO, or in this case, an ApeCoin DAO Governance Working Group channel along with rationale.”

Finally, as Working Groups are community-funded, the community deserves to know how funds are being spent. If one Steward is working 70 hours per week and another is working only 5-10 hours for the same compensation, the community should be informed for transparency and accountability.

Understanding these nuances will also help them make better decisions on the efficiency of Stewards and our Working Groups as a whole.



Couldn’t agree more with what you’re sharing and I truly appreciate and love the thought you’re putting into it. You ser deserve my support on the upcoming elections :saluting_face:

This. 100%.


This confuses me… The proposal quite clearly states “Each Working Group should remain free to distribute compensation among Stewards as they see fit, with no requirement to provide Working Group Leads any additional amounts.”



Hey, I wanted to chime in again with a couple questions. This proposal looks to be implementing more than just transparency reporting. It looks to be also addressing internal decision making amongst WG Stewards. The ramifications could be significant.

This could affect:

  • Autonomy of new Stewards coming in
  • Chosen direction of the Working Group
  • New initiatives put forward by junior Stewards

I see that bigbull has contributed feedback above. I’m surprised to not see you two presenting this type of proposal in a more unified fashion. Has he contributed to this beyond the forum posts here?

My questions are mostly about how you have worked with bigbull on this, the collaboration to-date you’ve had with Tiger, Amplify, other working group groups, and ultimately am curious to hear about some of the challenges that you’ve encountered as it pertains to consensus building.

A community group is different than a business. Often in business, we can hire, or fire, or set direction as we see fit. It’s different here. When a new steward comes in -will they be expected to fall in line, focus strictly on initiatives put forward by the lead? I’m trying to understand.


As always, love the passion.

A couple of things to note… Firstly, the proposal seeks for Lead Stewards to have no additional abilities, compensation, external recognition, or decision-making outside of Working Groups with two Stewards – where there is no current method for gaining consensus or any perfect solution (this would only apply to Web3 Development if this proposal were to come into play).

This is almost entirely based on streamlining communication between Working Groups, where for certain meetings, there would be four representatives looking to contribute within a 60-minute call versus eleven.

As for how these Stewards would be selected, the proposal seeks to rely on a voting system no different from how they were selected to become Stewards in the first place, with the only difference being a smaller voter pool with votes cast by those who will be dealing with that person the most (Stewards), and with so much at stake in the coming months, risking standstills or counterproductive communication among Working Groups risks not only the Working Group structure but also the integrity and forward progress of ApeCoin DAO as a whole – because let’s be honest, not everyone gets along with everyone all the time. This is common.

Again, to reiterate, no additional abilities, compensation, external recognition, or decision-making outside of Working Groups with two Stewards is being presented.

As far as a more unified approach to proposal writing among Working Groups: yes, I absolutely agree that there needs to be more continuity – but do recognize that there have been three proposals put up by GWG members in recent weeks without adequate consultation, and this was mine.

I would also note that I wish nothing but the best for Stewards that served ApeCoin before and during my time thus far with the Governance Working Group and I have personally cheered both of these important alumni on as they found fantastic roles that align perfectly with some of their strongest skillsets, while the GWG has continued to scale into what we are today.

Net positive all around from my perspective.

In closing, if the proposal feels a little busy, that’s because it is – by design, to make sure that a strong environment for new Stewards and Working Groups has been established from the start. There is a ton of work that needs to get done back here that’s being paid for by the community which I take seriously, so let’s get it right and get everyone firing on all cylinders.

Hope that helps, and as you know, I’m always available for a call to spitball ideas and put our heads together to problem solve – it’s what I do.



I like these changes, AC. This is a step towards more transparency and fairness. With the current system, it’s hard to have the level of accountable for elected DAO officials as you would have in a regular company. This could help close that gap.

All that being said, I think it would be good for the DAO to explore various transparency software providers that can improve these issues with technology. This is a big issue for many DAOs so lots of groups starting up now, trying to solve it.


Love this, and been hearing about some good ones.

We’re also in the process of finalizing a new all-in-one accounts receivable/payable crypto-native accounting platform that will be exciting to unveil. Maybe we see about what other integrations can be made.

Effective tooling is such a critical element not only for transparency but efficiency as well. And always super interesting to see what people are building — definitely a really fun part of being a Governance Steward for anyone reading.

Let me do some digging and circle back on this. Might make for some great additional context on the proposal as it evolves.

Great suggestion by the way Jordan :muscle::muscle:



Would this new platform also provide transparency to when AIPs are funded? I know that has been an issue brought up by some recently.