License for DAO to use BAYC #5569

[Balou]

Hi All,

I’ve been mulling this idea over for a while now and have decided to submit for feedback. I’ve used the template to try and ensure I cover most aspects. Please let me know what you think!

Proposal Name: License for DAO to use BAYC asset #5569

Proposal Category: Licensing

Abstract

I would like to offer the DAO the use of BAYC asset #5569. I believe this ape would be a superb representation for the Apecoin DAO, he’s a blue, perfectly bored four trait ape. The basic idea would be that proposals which want to incorporate the ape within their idea, can do. Could be for a game, merchendise, a derivative NFT, marketing etc, being a four trait he’s perfectly flexible!

Author Description

I’m Balou, I was fortunate enough to spot the mint of BAYC back in April 2021 and have been around ever since. I’m a huge advocate of Apecoin and the Yuga ecosystem and my goal for 2023 is to become more involved within the DAO itself. You can find me on Twitter using the handle @BalouBAYC.

Motivation
It’s great that Yuga Labs have given the DAO use of the Apecoin logo - which brilliantly represents the Bored Ape Yacht Club, their first child! I think the added use of an actual Bored Ape, which mirrors the cool blue and bored-ness of the logo itself will give people some additional creative license when coming up with proposals for the DAO.

Rationale

The DAO mission statement is all about empowering the community to build - I beleive my idea only helps further that empowerment.

Key Terms

If approved, this proposal would grant the Apecoin DAO a non-exclusive license for BAYC asset #5569.

Proposals would be able to incorporate BAYC #5569 into their idea. Some possible examples:

• Creation of Apecoin DAO merchendise which could incorporate BAYC #5569
• Use of BAYC #5569 within NFT artwork distributed to holders of Apecoin
• Use of BAYC #5569 on products produced for the DAO
• Incorporating BAYC #5569 as a gaming asset

Agreement length - 12 months from approval of the proposal by DAO members, at which point we could appoint a new DAO BAYC from the community as a new AIP.

Cost to the DAO - Zero upfront. 750 $APE for each proposal that passes that utilises BAYC #5569. There will be zero cost to the DAO if BAYC #5569 either isn’t incorporated in any AIP’s or the proposals it is included within do not get approved.

The asset will remain within my custody throughout the term of the agreement.

If a proposal utilises BAYC #5569 but is not approved, any use of the asset must then cease. Payment and use of the asset can only be acheived through an approved proposal.

The official Apecoin DAO administing team will be allowed to use BAYC #5569 in marketing campaigns / twitter posts at zero cost for the term of the agreement.

Steps to Implement

• Creation of a licensing agreement between me and the Apecoin DAO / future AIP proposers.

• Proposal put to vote

• If approved, AIP’s can then incorporate the asset within their proposals if desired.

Timeline

If initial feedback is positive I will start work on a draft licensing agreement.
If the AIP is approved by the DAO it can commence straight away.

Overall Cost

Zero $APE upfront
750 $APE payable to me as the holder of BAYC #5569 for each proposal which seeks to incorporate the asset and is approved by the DAO.

[CryptoLogically]

Very interesting proposal. I have several thoughts on this.

On the one hand, the DAO in its current state is sorely lacking in brand-building, as we really have nothing aside from the ApeCoin skull logo gifted by Yuga. Having a sort of mascot, to this end, makes sense and this IS an aesthetically on-brand Ape.

On the other hand, I believe the common perception remains that Yuga and ApeCoin fall under the same umbrella, when in reality are two legally distinct entities. This may only add to the confusion, despite the Skull Logo already hearkening to this association. I’d prefer to see ApeCoin create something brand new and continue to distance itself from Yuga as a brand, rather than pull in closer.

Further, on the point of creating something new: I’m not a fan of administering the requested royalties to the tune of 750 $APE per approved AIP that uses the image. I believe once we better establish a Marketing/Comms unit we can develop an IP that’s wholly ours, and not one that would depend not only upon a contingent fee per usage but one that wouldn’t necessarily require yearly renewal.

You bring up an excellent point: we need a mascot of sorts, a symbol (besides the Skull Logo) that anyone can see and immediately associate with ApeCoin. I just don’t believe that this is it, or that strengthening our association with Yuga is the way we should be going about it.

[Balou]

Thanks for the feedback, I do understand your point regarding distancing - given the DAO should be seen as totally independent. Looking forward to more feedback!

[CryptoLogically]

Right, it’s “ApeCoin” DAO, not “BAYC” DAO. Many people feel the Ape image lends itself to a sense of exclusivity, which is the opposite of what we are trying to foster here. I’d like to make as many people feel welcome to join, especially those without Apes. Enough people seem to (erroneously) think that you need to have an “Ape” rather than an “$APE” to participate here, and this further blurs that line in my opinion.

[Balou]

Yep totally fair, hadn’t looked at it from that angle.

[likkee.eth]

It would be nice if you can let ApeCoin DAO use it for “free”, all the revenue generated go to DAO as well

[Balou]

Appreciate your input likkee - I think it’s okay to set a precedent that the DAO pays for IP usage of assets but maybe 750 $APE is too high.

[CryptoLogically]

How did you arrive at the 750 $APE figure?

[Balou]

Previous IP deals (e.g coinbase movie) were paying $10k - we are obviously not near that so I thought something under $3k was reasonable given bored ape cost and the market we are in. It’s not so much about the money though, I think it’s acceptable to be paid for IP use - but not stuck on the amount.

[SeraStargirl]

Tbh I think this idea is dope. It’s aesthetically the perfect match for the dao

My only question is if Yuga legal would be cool with this since they have been trying to keep the dao generally a separate entity, so I would run it past them before pursuing it further (lmk if you need help with that contact).

[furiousanger]

Hi mate,

Maybe change it into a pool?

Several assets, from differing collections, that have the same options re IP licensing, and maybe even add in more apes too?

I agree with @CryptoLogically points, (which is somewhat rare ngl), just worry re creating a dedictaed “DAO BAYC FACE” because of continued confusion and mix up we already struggle with as mentioned, and the overall YUGA/BAYC dominance and ‘ownership’ would be even more confirmed, although untrue in parts.

TL;DR love the input, maybe tweak a little to bypass valid concerns raised.

GL fam

[Balou]

Thanks Sera! A couple of people have raised concerns regarding separation so that contact would be great if you don’t mind, thank you! Easiest to reach me on Twitter.

[Balou]

Thanks @furiousanger - I agree with the concern regarding making it look too BAYC centric when we are trying to give the DAO its own identity. However a pool of assets is a nice thought, thanks for the feedback!

[justzb]

Hey @Balou this sounds like an interesting idea . Having a mascot for $ApeCoin Dao is brilliant or interlinking with the $ApeCoin logo to create more possibilities. I see the pure blue ape matches closely with the $ApeCoin logo . The idea that only if the approval passes thru and using it will get charged sounds fair. But the figure of 750 $APE it may sound a little compared to other BAYC Ape licensing deals but it might be heavy for those just starting out (trying to get the AIP approved) Maybe on a case to case basis how vast the IP of your ape is being used but with a minimum base entry.

[Zoopie]

I think the idea is great, but I do have concerns about the DAO being completely separate from Yuga Labs. There might be regulatory issues, but always open to see how we can make this happen. Nonetheless, licensing Apes has become increasingly popular lately, so it’s an intriguing topic. Perhaps we could consider funding something similar to Bored Jobs?

[Halina.eth]

Thanks so much for putting forward this idea @Balou! Love the fresh concept, and I agree with @SeraStargirl that the ape is a perfect aesthetic match

Would like to echo some of @CryptoLogically’s concerns about amplifying the misconception that ApeCoin DAO is for BAYC or Yuga Labs holders only though. Also, it may put the DAO in an uncomfortable position if we build brand equity & visibility around this specific ape, and it ends up changing hands after a couple of years or expiration of the contract.

Overall, really love the place this idea came from! We definitely need a recognizable and iconic mascot for the DAO, sharing Spork DAO’s mascot “Bufficorn” from ETHDenver for inspiration:

[Balou]

Thanks for the feedback @justzb - I accept the 750 $APE is likely too high in hindsight. The main aim would be to encourage more creativity - so I’ll be looking at the IP charge.

[Balou]

Thanks @Halina.eth - everyone seems to be in agreement that a mascot type IP would be a good idea for the DAO, maybe we should be running a contest for artists to come up with a design we can vote on. Top 3 designs get paid some Apecoin!

[Sasha]

@CryptoLogically

I’d prefer to see ApeCoin create something brand new and continue to distance itself from Yuga as a brand, rather than pull in closer.

This.

Fixed pricing is hard - prohibitively expensive for a book (like my project) while okay for a mascot and cheap for a main character in a AA+ game. 1-year guarantee may be short, too… similar issue there - a book is permanent, a game may take longer than that to develop, and a mascot you normally want for at least a few years.

Just throwing these out there as potential wrinkles, not sure what solutions are though, I’m not a licensing expert. Good discussion to have, glad you started it!

[dyorjdr]

Thanks for this good idea.

I share the point of view of all the comments seen above, in the sense that it can be confusing.

Despite everything, your proposal has the merit of asking the question of creating a more inclusive visual identity.