Ensuring Impartiality and Integrity: Conflict of Interest Policy for SC Members in ApeCoin DAO


Ensuring Impartiality and Integrity: Conflict of Interest Policy for SC Members in ApeCoin DAO




Name: Uzair Osman PMP® MRICS (Uzi) - Uzi is a seasoned Corporate Director and Consults on Professional Ethics, and is accredited as a Project Management Professional (PMP®) and a Chartered Surveyor (MRICS) bound by strict professional ethics.He is recognized for his strong commitment to ethical conduct in business and governance, bringing these principles to the forefront in the decentralized Web3 space.


This Ape Improvement Proposal (AIP) introduces a policy with tailored guidelines for the involvement of Special Council (SC) members in the initiation and implementation of various proposal types within the ApeCoin DAO. It aims to delineate clear and ethical roles for SC members in “Brand Decision,” “Ecosystem Fund Allocation,” “Informational,” and “Process” proposals, with an emphasis on preventing conflicts of interest and maintaining the integrity of the DAO’s decision-making processes.


The rationale for this proposal stems from the need to balance the valuable insights and leadership roles of SC members with the imperative to uphold governance integrity and prevent conflicts of interest within the ApeCoin DAO. Recognizing the distinct nature of different proposal types, this policy sets specific guidelines for SC member involvement:

  • In “Brand Decision” proposals, there is a higher risk of conflict of interest due to potential personal gains. Therefore, while SC members may initiate such proposals, their direct implementation role should be limited.
  • “Ecosystem Fund Allocation” proposals benefit from SC members’ strategic insights. Here, SC members are encouraged to initiate proposals but should maintain an oversight role in implementation to avoid direct financial conflicts.
  • “Informational” and “Process” proposals, typically less prone to conflicts of interest, are suitable for both initiation and implementation by SC members, given their nature and impact on the DAO’s operations.


1. General Conflict of Interest Definition:
Define what a conflict of interest may include any situation where SC members have personal interests that could improperly influence their decisions or actions within the DAO.

2. Proposal Type-Specific Guidelines:

  • Brand Decision Proposals:

    • Initiaition: SC members can initiate these proposals, but must exercise caution and fully
      disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
    • Implementation: SC members should generally not be involved in the direct implementation to
      avoid conflicts of interest, especially where there could be financial or reputational gains.
  • Ecosystem Fund Allocation Proposals:

    • Initiation: SC members are encouraged to initiate these proposals given their strategic insight
      into the DAO’s financial needs.
    • Implementation: Involvement in implementation should be primarily in an oversight role. Direct
      control or benefit from fund allocation should be avoided to maintain impartiality.
  • Informational Proposals:

    • Initiation and Implementation: SC members are well-suited to both initiate and implement
      these proposals, as they typically involve sharing information or suggesting changes to
      guidelines, posing minimal conflict of interest risks.
  • Process Proposals:

    • Initiation: SC members can initiate these proposals, leveraging their understanding of the DAO’s processes.

    • Implementation: SC members should limit their involvement to oversight roles to ensure fairness and neutrality in the implementation of process changes.

3. Disclosure and Recusal Protocols:

  • Require SC members to disclose any potential conflicts of interest in any proposal they are involved with.
  • Establish clear recusal protocols for SC members from decision-making in proposals where they have a personal interest.

4. Oversight and Compliance:

  • Set up a monitoring mechanism to oversee SC members’ adherence to these guidelines.
  • Ensure transparency in all stages of the proposal process, from initiation to implementation.


  • Enhanced Trust and Governance Integrity: By preventing potential conflicts of interest, this policy will reinforce community trust in the ApeCoin DAO’s decision-making and enhance the overall integrity of the DAO’s governance processes.

  • Focused Stewardship: Restricting SC members from being involved in the implementation of proposals allows them to dedicate their full attention and resources to their primary role as stewards of the DAO. This focused approach ensures that the SC can provide more effective oversight and strategic guidance, essential for the DAO’s success.

  • Optimized Operational Efficiency: By delineating the roles of SC members and implementers, this policy encourages the involvement of individuals or teams specifically skilled in executing proposals. This separation of governance and execution roles allows for a more efficient allocation of tasks, where those best suited for implementation can focus on creating value for the DAO without governance-related distractions.

  • Positive Reputation and Leadership in Ethical Practices: The adoption of this policy positions the ApeCoin DAO as a leader in ethical governance practices within Web 3.0 and DAO communities, setting a precedent for transparency and operational excellence.


  • Policy Development: Collaborate with legal and governance experts to draft the policy.
  • Community Feedback: Open the policy draft for community review and suggestions.
  • Revision and Finalization: Incorporate community feedback and finalize the policy.
  • Implementation and Training: Officially adopt the policy and provide training to SC members.
  • Monitoring and Enforcement: Establish a system to monitor compliance and address any violations.

Timescales for each step are to be confirmed.


  • Total Estimated Time for Completion: To be confirmed


  • Estimated Cost: To be confirmed
  • Funding Source: To be confirmed

Send it!

While we cannot remove Conflicts of Interest entirely from an organization (people gonna people), we ought to be looking at putting some policies in place around ethics and codes of conduct. So congrats on drafting this AIP.

A major instigation for my SINGLE ISSUE Campaign was to reduce the role of the Special Council along with an expected code of conduct to ensure impartiality and integrity.


Okay, here’s where things are gonna get rocky:

The one place where I disagree with you is that the SC/BOARD should not be allowed to have any sway on any AIPs across the board – which in my opinion means they should not be allowed to author or co-author or directly contribute to or benefit from any AIPs themselves while on the DAO payroll. This is the core of impartiality and COI!

Sure, it’s a hard line, but one that might be easier to explain and maybe even enforce. After their terms have ended, well they can do whatever they’re gonna do.

I also encourage you to consider expanding this policy to anyone in a paid role within the DAO.

There are hundreds of creatives in our membership that have thousands of ideas and projects that would bring great value to the DAO, I don’t believe that the handful of paid staff hold a monopoly on them. As a matter of fact I would suggest that it’s part of their role and responsibility to assist fellow ApeCoin token holders to get these ideas up and running via the AIP process.

Anyway, enough talking to the bubble – look forward to constructive discussion about this on Spaces or in the Socials.

SSP :call_me_hand:t4:


Love this - it’s needed - many of us have been asking for something similar for a while now. :muscle::handshake::clap::clap:

As a side note, afaik, the working groups appoint a secretary, I think this needs reviewing (relates to what you are trying to do I think), as part of the secretary’s job description is:

  • DAO Secretary: Acts as an oversight and accountability role to enhance inter-DAO communications amongst Working Groups, the Special Council, and with the DAO as a whole. The DAO Secretary role is an Initiative to be established within the scope of the Governance Working Group.

Either we need to remove/transfer this responsibility as it’s not fit for purpose imo, or the DAO could determine the secretary via an election, this would make the oversight credible.

1 Like

Really makes sense to me. Second this. :muscle:


When it comes to finance, eliminating self-interest risks seems like an idea worth implementing. It is not for nothing that in many countries a lot of attention is given to the anti-corruption area of law. I think this idea deserves development and implementation.


This policy will definitely ensure fairness💯


Hi @Uzi,

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

Thank you for all your feedback. I plan to move to draft and consider your points in the update.

Just for info: Special Council have confirmed that there is a Conflict of Interest Policy for SC (I am not permitted to see it at the moment). The current policy permits dual roles for SC. That is, it allows a SC member to be a beneficiary of the DAO for an AIP as long as they recuse themsleves from all matters relating to it.

The view is that it is a DAO decision on whether to approve/reject the AIP.

I plan to knit this into the AIP and to be clear that the policy that will result from this AIP will become an addendum to the current COI policy and that if there is any conflict, this AIP policy addendum will take precedence.

I also plan to make it clear that SC can not initiate or implement into a proposal that falls into the “Brand Decision” category and only initiate a proposal for a “Relocation of Ecosystem Funds”. I think that it is important that SC are still able to initiate and implement AIPs for the other AIP types during this transition phase of the SC role.

I trust that this all makes sense.

Please feel free to ask any questions.

1 Like

Hello thanks, let’s move to draft please.


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

Hi @Uzi,

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.
  • @Uzi 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.


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

This Topic has been rejected based on the DAO-approved guidelines due to no response in the last 30 days. The Topic may be submitted again by any user and upon approval, will be open for 7 days for community discussions.

This Topic will move and remain in the Withdrawn AIPs category.