Incentivised voting in the Ape Assembly?

Q. Should we incentivise voting in the Ape Assembly?

Mocaverse does this with XP if they vote on their dao mocana which impacts apecoin aips. (As long as they meet min Quorum numbers)

We could incentivise 1 APE per vote up to a limit. If we have 100 vote every 2 weeks x 5 votes that is 500 every 2 weeks or 1000 APE per month approx.

We could also make this valid only after a quorum level is met?

We would have to cap it though at probably 2000 a month?

So basically for up to 2k APE a month we could 10x voting levels.

That said even just putting things to vote is increasing sign up levels and there will be a delay from signing up to voting.

If you have spent many hours in here, or discord go share your voting retweets/reposts. Just own it.

If we all share the numbers will grow. Many say they want more decentralisation, including big players like @Machibigbrother (to the point of automation of DAO actions, based on voting) but this is more decentralised than say just GWG making all the choices. We have to ask ourselves do we really want more decentralisation?

Are you willing to help make it a reality?


People aren’t voting because they don’t like the Ape Assembly and it’s environment. Unless that changes, we can bring people in all we want, but they won’t stick around.

Incentivizing voting results in more uneducated voting because people will do it just for the rewards. It’s not the right type of engagement.

Also, maybe I misunderstand your point, but the Ape Assembly wasn’t created to make decisions that the GWG is empowered to make. It would need to collectively write AIPs to address changes. Decentralization comes from more people participating in general; it doesn’t need to be through the Ape Assembly.


Hey @bigbull,

That sounds like an interesting idea. Incentivizing voting can definitely encourage more participation in the Ape Assembly. At least it’s worth a best test (we can use Ape Assembly budget to test and compare it).

Offering 1 $APE per vote, could be a good way to boost engagement and decision-making (I don’t think it will motivate core holders with big held as you mentioned). As well tying the incentive to meeting a quorum level makes sense to ensure participation.

I’ll patiently wait to execute the best test at the beginning of 2024. This will provide us with a more substantial data to analyze.

-Mr. Hype :fire:

I agree it will increase participation, but at what cost? You will have people who don’t even read the proposals or care about the outcome. They’ll vote for the reward alone. And that will lead to more frustration and people who care leaving.

The atmosphere in the Ape Assembly needs to change or no one will stay for the right reasons. It’s already down to only 22 people voting last time. I think there were more people at the last meeting, but my guess is some of them were there because they thought they’d get rewarded by Thank Ape.

The arguing and nitpicking in the Discord needs to stop. Many people, especially women, don’t feel comfortable sharing their ideas and have pretty much written it off.


No. It accomplishes nothing needed, useful or important, further compromises voting (ppl only doing it for rewards), and would make the DAO look beyond desperate and embarrassing.

Can we please stop adopting the worst, most corrupt inefficient decision making processes found IRL?


Tho this is a tried and tested idea in few projects in my knowledge, I doubt this will work with Ape Assembly. Whole reason why there are quite a number of eligible wallets who hold Trust level 2 on discourse is due to the rewards around Thank Ape. Many still dont bother verifying themself to be a part of AA. So people dont wanna deep dive into the DAO by being part of the assembly shouldnt be given a bait like 1 $ape for voting. It would just end up voting randomly like we have seen people commenting all around discourse just to get that level 2 badge and the $ape reward around it.


Offering 1 APE per vote, with a reasonable cap, seems like it could boost engagement. The quorum requirement adds responsibility, but do you think it’s a step towards the decentralization we want?

I do not believe that paying people to vote is the appropriate action. If people are not currently participating, that’s hinting to a much larger problem. When you financially incentivize people, the quality of interactions may become exceedingly low as they’re just satisficing the requirement to get paid. Plus, it incentivizes bad actors to figure out a way to game the system.

IMO the focus should be on stopping the amount of organizational creep that the ApeCoin DAO has going on. It’s being run like a massive corporation, but without any meaningful interconnected plans across all of these various orgs within the DAO. There’s too much going on without proper leadership and communication. From my point-of-view, it’s all clearly unsustainable.


I am not in favor of paying $APE for voting.

I’d favor building a voting leaderboard that resets weekly, monthly, yearly based on voting activity.

Or you could reward with something like poaps, which I think was already voted on, but hasn’t been implemented yet.


Hi, @bigbull

These incentives could also be part of ThriveCoin missions, so members would pay more attention to assembly votes.


tbh i love incentivised voting in a bear market. plus why not make it into a game or more interactive

I’ve been in this space long enough and I’ve seen early projects incentivize voting. However, if we are honest with ourselves, we’d agree that this model is not sustainable. What’s happens when the incentives stop?

Most people (myself inclusive) don’t care enough to vote on certain things that don’t directly concern us. The issue of voter apathy is still very much at play in traditional systems. That’s just the way it is.

people keep saying that but put forth one that does. Why spin negativity without positivity

There’s no negativity is saying a system is not sustainable. Like I said, voter apathy exists in centralized governance. Why do we thing DAOs will magically fix this problem.

A more appropriate step to take would be to educate members of how and why they should vote. And of course, it is impossible to rule out the fact that some people are here for the gains and rewards, and nothing more. They don’t care enough about governance.


i like and hear your opinion. I think it is very much due to market conditions right now as well

Of course, the funds are not really there to burn as well.

Well AA has 84 signed up now to snapshot. If this number in the future is 1000 then we only need 10% to vote each time to have a decent quorum. FYI only about 500 wallets qualify right now.

Also most people like to join things that are already running smoothly. Hence awards are a method to reach the initial critical mass. There is of course a risk if people are only voting for the reward as opposed to the reward is a nice bonus for early adopters.


Bigbull with the assist thank you for being more knowledgeable than me. I am trying to get there myself. Just starting out. Inspiration.

1 Like

GM I just want to share my thoughts on this.
In general, I think it is very interesting to create incentives for voting.
Could be in form of $APE or XP. My suggestion would be that you get various high XP for voting etc., which can be exchanged for things IRL in the “APE store”. For example, tickets for APE Festival discounts at other events and APE merchandising items.

in my opinion the idea of ​​encouraging voting is very important. I would have different solutions depending on the funds allocated to this scope.