Halt Changes To Core Process & Voting Mechanics for One Year

“Halt Changes To Core Process & Voting Mechanics for One Year”

This proposal is an informational indication that the ApeCoin DAO token holders will refrain from implementing changes to the core processes or voting mechanics for the duration of one year. Rather than establishing hard rules, this proposition acts as a cautionary statement against potential risks associated with changes advocated by individuals frustrated with or possessing limited understanding of the principles of a truly decentralized organization.

The catalyst for this proposal is the rising inclination among certain DAO participants towards changing the voting process, particularly favoring quadratic voting. By advising against incendiary topics or emotionally charged conversations, this proposal promotes stability and advocates for proposals that align with the collective interests of the DAO. It underscores the importance of researching the snapshot voting history and engaging with experienced individuals or new entities like the Ape Assembly before putting forward a proposal.

The proposal’s justification lies in the belief that DAO’s democratic structure, where each voter has distinct interests and reasons for participation, should not be hastily modified. Changes such as implementing 2/3 majorities or quadratic voting, altering AIP-1, or mandating terms on new participants like milestone funding or redirection to a working group or proposed small grant program, may not necessarily enhance the organization’s functionality. This proposal seeks to foster stability and discourage contentious discussions like vote shaming or negative sentiment against large delegates and voters.

The specifications of this proposal recommend a complete halt on major changes to ApeCoin DAO’s core processes and voting mechanics for one year. The implementation of this proposal doesn’t entail introducing new rules but rather creating an environment that dissuades alterations that might disrupt the established order.

Upon reaching consensus, this proposal will be put into effect immediately, halting all major changes to the core processes and voting mechanics for a period of one year. Following this term, an evaluation and reconsideration of any possible changes can be carried out based on a more informed and comprehensive understanding of the organization.

Overall Cost
This proposal doesn’t directly involve any financial expenditure as it calls for preserving the current system rather than implementing new features or changes. However, the indirect cost lies in the potential stagnation of the system and the delay in possibly beneficial updates. Nevertheless, the intention is to prevent hasty, uninformed decisions that could potentially incur higher costs, both financially and operationally, in the long run.

Hello, we are the writersclub. Inspired by some of @0xSword recent posts, we’d like to put forward a few ideas for the DAO to weigh in on. You can contact our small group @ writersclub33@gmail.com with proposal ideas or inquiries. We do not always respond to messages but are recruiting.

1 Like

Prohibiting changes to the Status Quo for an entire year sounds like technological stagnation to me. We can’t afford to fall behind the technological curve at this stage.

Also, no major changes can be made without overwhelming buy in from the community itself. Much less of it happening hastily.

But ultimately, we’re subservient to the will of the DAO and I’d love to see what the community thinks of this. I’d also love to know your opinion on this, do you think any proposal to change the Status Quo can be made hastily cause even the Process for Getting AIPs up for vote.

Although our approaches with this are fundamentally incompatible, I wish you the best of luck with this proposal.


Our decentralized club does not offer opinions. We have voted 3-1 in favor of posting this proposal.

1 Like

Good Luck with this proposal :saluting_face:

Have a Good Day !!

While I totally agree with you that the DAO’s democratic status must not be hastily changed and we must discourage contentious discussion, but locking in through a complete halt on major changes and voting mechanics for a whole year may be stifling for the growth of the DAO in these early stages.
I agree with @CEOofWeb3.0 that changes to the voting procedure will only happen with the community buy in, if and when they do.
While there is no cost in Apecoin for this proposal, but the complete halt to changes to the DAO core processes, may extract a price.
Maybe if you could split it into two parts for voting separately on both, one for the Core Processes and other for the Voting, it may give a better idea of the community views on this.
Best of luck with the proposal.

1 Like

I understand your concern, I think, and where you’re coming from. But guys, please consider that disagreeing with others’ ideas is one thing; blocking those ideas from even coming to the table can come off as hostility towards those you disagree with. It’s a slam on free speech and, imho, antithetical to the very idea of a DAO. I would frankly quit the DAO if this passed Administrative Review.

Stagnation doesn’t help, as CEO mentioned. To add to that, how can any one of us even have the right to define any specific process change as “bad” when it’s up to the DAO? And how can DAO know what’s good or bad without seeing the specific details of a suggested implementation?

Let’s say there is an AIP that suggests new voting process but the implementation is unlike anything you’ve seen so far and it takes care of many downsides associated with, say, quadratic implementation? This would reject the idea without even reading it’s specific implementation. Rejecting things ahead of time seems more like ideological posturing than a discussion of merits. Which is your right, of course; but this proposal isn’t about expressing that right, it’s about restricting others from having the same right.

This is also very wide-sweeping… There’s currently a draft that seemingly everyone agrees with, to add the question of “How this proposal benefits the ApeCoin ecosystem” (on mobile so hard to look up exact wording) to the AIP template. Do you really want to restrict great, small improvements like that?

Civil discussion is a separate topic. I’d keep in mind that the more you attempt to restrict others’ opinions, the less civil it will get. This has been proven by history countless times. So consider the fury this proposal will generate on the side of those who will feel muzzled by a wide-sweeping proposal to force them to be quiet about ideas they’re passionate about.

Express any opinion you want; just consider here that you’re restricting others from doing the same.


I was thinking the same thing about the AIP on how proposals benefit the ApeCoin ecosystem. I don’t think this is what the OP means of course, but I feel like some things should be able to be changed. A change for the worse would hopefully be voted down, but if there are proposals that would improve the DAO, not being able to vote on them seems counterproductive.
I get where OP is coming from, and I don’t think hasty decisions should be made, but a ban on change seems a bit to extreme to me personally.
Of course I’m fairly new to the forum so please take my comments with a grain of salt.


I don’t think we should avoid/block changes in this ever-changing world of web3.


There are probably a couple of lines in the above proposal that could be edited to clarify that no rules will be put into place, instead just acting as a deterrent against poorly written process proposals. There is always a risk that poor proposals could go upto vote on a contentious week, and have unforeseen huge consequences. I am in favor of forwarding this proposal to get an early indication of DAO desire.

A process proposal should be written to the same level and format as AIP 1, 2, 3, etc. It must be amendable with clear language that is not subject to varying interpretation. Historically, these types of proposals are not common because they get stuck in the process. I suspect its because of their format and the writers comprehension or experience with the process to make such changes is insufficient.

Process proposals are the most complex. For most, I recommend seeking a grant approval or brand decision. As far as tinkering with the voting mechanics, topics of special council, or changes to the way the core process work, this proposal above could be updated to just discourage those type of initiatives, which are bound to be contentious should they go to voting. Authors should be forewarned!

1 Like

I’m author of the 2/3 AIP (for changes to fundamental tenets of the DAO not to all votes), though I’m increasingly of the mind that it doesn’t capture the true spirit behind it which is to prevent damaging or hijacking - unintentional or otherwise - core tenets and functions of the DAO.

I am in favor of that spirit. The AIP itself was mostly meant to further discussion on that topic, so I’m neutral on how that may be done, and here we are with a different and possibly better or more effective idea. A major road block has been defining:

How do we define this?

1 Like

Hi @writersclub33 ,

Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.

We look forward to hearing from you.


Hello @12guage. Our club has voted 4-0 to extend this conversation for an additional 7 days. We are interested in collecting feedback on how to soften the language.

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@writersclub33 has requested to extend the community discussion period for this AIP idea. This topic will automatically close a further 7 days from now. We encourage the community to continue to engage in thoughtful discussions through constructive criticism, honest feedback, and helpful suggestions.

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


Hi @writersclub33 ,

Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.

We look forward to hearing from you.


Would appreciate an answer. It’s a key question and major hurdle for this AIP moving forward.

It is related to this other AIP Idea as both are discussing Core Process and Voting Mechanisms.


@12GAUGE.admin Our club has voted 2-2 to withdraw this proposal at this time. @br00o @bigbull there are more proposals that may further destablize the system. We have decided to remove this proposal. Newly-elected SC & Stewards are best for tackling these larger issues.

1 Like

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@writersclub33 has requested to withdraw their application. This AIP will be moved to and remain in the Withdrawn AIPs category.

Kind Regards,