Limit AIPs to a certain requested cost level OR define an other process for these ones

Lately, I was quite surprised at the amount requested for an AIP…
(In no way do I judge or denigrate this project, in this case ApeWater)

What shocks me is not really the amount requested, but the fact that this proposal was treated like any other.

Basically, whether the cost requested for an AIP is $0, $1,000 or $2,000,000, the process is exactly the same.

I can understand it through the different stages of the AIP, from IDEA to LIVE… BUT maybe, should we not establish different criteria for the vote, including the duration for example depending of the requested cost ?

OR, another idea: create a new category of AIP: AIP Pre-Live (for example)

Allowing to highlight an AIP before it is Live.

Often, an AIP is submitted several months after collecting community feedback.

At this moment, some discover, others rediscover this proposal…

As the ApeCoin DAO tries to onboard more and more members, there will be more and more cases where newcomers will discover “only” proposal when voting.

In the case of votes involving such a large part of ApeCoin DAO funds, it can be dangerous in my opinion.

I am curious to see your opinions or ideas.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to read me.

My name is Dyorjadore alias DrJDR

1 Like

Bonjour DrJDR,

You bring up great points, many of which we’ve been struggling with since day one.

The good news is that the Stewies, the Council and possibly the Working Group(s) are attempting to put some aspects of tiered grants/asks into the process, which could help mitigate some of the points above.

Allow me to share how we at ApeCoinIRL approached some of these challenges:


As part of the French Apes, you are also part of the Decentralized Events Network (AIP-226), which was partly created to minimize this issue:

So if AIP-226 passes, a local BAYC group such as FAYC can hold a small (sub $10k), local event for educational and onboarding purposes, without having to create a proposal and go through the 3-4 week period for processing to Snapshot, waiting for the voting outcome and another week or more for funding. They would have funding before their calendar of events!

Just an example of how we’ve been thinking about these issues for the past several months.

Back to your notes:

I’m hopeful having Working Groups will resolve much of the challenges you bring up but I’m also hopeful that we as a DAO take more swings at home-runs, support and vote ambitious ideas with bigger budgets, and be bold:

  • Boldness: We don’t shy away from the weird, the hard, or the new.

Anyway, great thoughts. Don’t forget to invite your fellow FAYC’ers to our Twitter Spaces when AIP-226 goes live and to rally the troops when it comes to voting.

Congrats on being a leading contributor on ThankApe - I got some catching up to do :laughing:!

SSP :fist:t4:


Hi Dyorjdr,

Think this is certainly the way forward - “tiered ask system” - and agree with SSP totally - WG0 agenda will address some of this to an extent along with AIP ideas like prop house, irlevents, and hopefully sooner rather than later we’ll see on-chain automated solutions perhaps for the smaller/nominal amounts.

TLDR - agree, hopefully already incoming. LFG (I’m at my limit on VOTES.)


Thanks for your messages @ssp1111 @furiousanger !

I totally understand what you are saying.

Some AIPs should be able to be handled more flexibly with the tools you’re talking about that might be put in place.

BUT in what I’m talking about, it’s rather the opposite that I want to mention: Shouldn’t certain AIPs requiring large budgets (amount to be defined, eg > $500,000) follow a different treatment process ?

As indicated in my initial message: voting duration, pre-vote highlighting, etc…

For memory, Ape Water asked for 3 750 000 $ few days ago.


Makes sense, the much more (let’s say) ‘complex’ and often higher funding requests could possibly benefit from a much more longer, involved and maybe even different vetting & voting system altogether - you make a very good point actually. Would love to hear what others think and/or suggest. I’m defo not against the idea, makes sense to me tbh, stages, extra time, added votes etc etc along the way - more process in essence.


Hi DrJDR! Thanks for submitting this Idea!

While I hope that the WG0 structure will make it easier for smaller grants to get funding more easily, it doesn’t address people being surprised when these more expensive proposals go up to vote or that the AIP process is pretty much the same for all of them, (though, depending on their risk or complexity, they can take longer to go through the AIP process).

Do you think the problem stems from lack of awareness of when these big proposals will go to vote rather than the amount of time they are in the process?

1 Like

Hi @adventurousape and thanks for your message.

I think this stems from the lack of knowledge at the time these “expensive” proposals will be submitted.

These proposals, as suggested in my initial post, deserve to be put forward before being put to the vote.

Or another alternative that one could imagine for this type of proposal:

  • Define a minimum quorum of voters
  • a need for a vote in favor > 50%

The idea here is to collect as many ideas as possible.

(Yes I agree for the WG0 and the flexibility for more intimate project requests)


The Ape Water proposal was absolutely asinine. I’m very suspicious of any proposal with a large implementation cost, especially if it looks like a solicitation (eg the company involved is the one running the proposal).

@br00no has an idea that would require a super majority for high cost AIPs. I would like to see this put to vote ASAP.


I’d love to see:

  1. Longer voting period by 1 week and min 55% vote requirement for proposals above $1M
  2. Min 60% for $5M+
  3. Min 66% for $25M+ (should be very few of such proposals as anything above that can be broken down into smaller ones/milestones). But this also helps prevent from a possible attack by a group of whales.
  4. Shorter draft window for proposals below $50K (1 week instead of 2)

This is a good point that you brought to attention and I do think needs to be worked on. Thank you!


This is way too generous. Anything over a nominal amount should require a supermajority (2/3).

It does sound good in principle, but consider that it also indirectly concentrates power in whales’ hands b/c if a few whales say no, you now can’t get enough votes.

It’s bad enough that we have a money-based voting system in a DAO that isn’t just about money (some of it is about providing entertainment/experiences/utility/culture), once power concentrates in a few hands we’ll simply have an oligarchy, which always leads to corruption. You should be able to anger some whales on personal/political/whatever basis and still have your AIP passed on its merits - that is an indicator of a healthy system.

For that reason I’m not even sure 66% for 25M+ is a good idea, maybe I’d actually suggest 60% for 25M+ and 55% for 5M+. W/e numbers we pick, they won’t be perfect. I’m curious if other DAOs tackled this/their experience. But, to me, 2/3 is an extreme edge that will create new significant problems.


2/3 is not radical. Plus I would love it if a whale shutdown a wasteful proposal.

Speaking of whales, I’ve noticed some recent AIPs decided by only a few wallets. Are those actual whales or have they concentrated power through delegations?

Ok, sure, but what if a whale is biased? Or doesn’t like the person on personal level? Or didn’t read/understand properly? Or has religious, political, or other bias. You’re presenting only the good side of the coin here.

Then, are you saying that non-whales aren’t smart enough to recognize what’s wasteful? The moment we move away from “every vote is as valid as any other” I think we open a can of worms. The idea of whales having so much influence defeats the “decentralized” part of DAO, as it makes it centralized to a few people. Isn’t that the very thing we’re trying to run away from here?

Thinking out loud.


Hi @dyorjdr,

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.


Thanks for your message, I would like to get more comments and suggestions.

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@dyorjdr 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.



I carefully read your idea @br00no which does not resemble, but assimilates to mine.

I would like to have your opinion on this notion of different treatment of an AIP vote according to the cost requested ?

Hi @dyorjdr

I think you mean this thread - 2/3 "Supermajority" Requirement to Alter Fundamental Tenets of ApeCoin DAO

Last night I changed the title and added the AIP template format to the OP to prepare it for Draft stage. The original OP and discussion remains in that thread, some of which pertains to various pass thresholds for different reasons.

I intend it to be “a” proposal rather than “my” proposal, so will continue to incorporate feedback prior to the final AIP stage.

I’m not entirely comfortable treating people or ideas differently based on ask amounts. I’m also not opposed to it, and I certainly understand the intent; I just don’t think that’s the root of the problem or the full solution.

IMO the root of the problem is uninformed voting. This has perhaps increased as an unintended consequence of the Abstain option. Ideas to reward DAO participation and reward voting just for the sake of it will only increase uninformed voting, in addition to crossing ethical and probably legal boundaries.

I do not see how leaving AIPs open still longer would help - people have far more than enough time to evaluate all the ideas I’ve seen.

Those with relevant domain expertise wouldn’t need more than 5-15 minutes. Those without the relevant expertise probably made up their minds before even reading the full AIP. It’s human nature.

There’ll be over 500 votes on an AIP yet only 8 clicks on relevant links in the OP. We balk at a given figure like $2 million for an AIP yet do not demand any neutral qualified oversight or auditing of proposals for multiple WGs or the Foundation itself, which are far greater in scope, cost, impact, and “danger” as you put it. Hmmmm.

An equal concern to overall initial costs for an AIP, is costs that add up and up by coming back for additional funding before even launching the original promise or vision. So too open-ended ideas that have small nominal amounts of funding but roll over forever without end, which adds up.

That brings us to milestones, and partner funding.

What I’ve seen work IRL - as an employer, by launching or funding many start-ups, and as a judge of a major arts grants foundation - is milestones: fund one step at a time, fully knowing up front the idea is to add funding at subsequent stages (or pull the plug), and/or have those asking bring in partner funding. If it works IRL across such a variety of endeavors as I’ve experienced, it’ll work here.

Partner funding has in particular been missing in AIPs. Sometimes we see claims of great interest from VCs and such, but IRL if people with cash in hand are truly excited about a project they seek to lock up their share as soon as possible and as early in the development of the idea as possible. They do not sit on their wallets while the weeks and months tick by and others - including ApeCoin, or competitors in the idea’s sector - have a chance to step ahead in line.

Circling back to the idea of informed voting, we could consider a mandate that above a certain amount an AIP must have a brief opinion issued by a qualified neutral 3rd party. That opinion could be paid for by ApeCoin and it should then be added to the AIP. This would be similar to the Stewards’ opinion attached to the vote for new Administrators.

Having all info in one place - here, in the AIP - would also help a great deal, rather than having it spread across various and unofficial platforms and formats.

1 Like

Hi @dyorjdr,

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.