New ApeCoin Non-Staking Distribution Proposal


ApeCoin Non-Staking Distribution proposal with a “cap” added, keeping the existing AIP-4/5 pool quantities to claim APE tokens to ApeCoin, BAYC, MAYC, and BAKC holders, auto-compounding on a weekly basis.

Staking generally requires users to send their tokens into smart contract locks in order to earn rewards for locking up their tokens for an allotted time. AIP-4/5 required users to stake their tokens but without a timelock. This proposal recommends a simple ApeCoin claim process to ApeCoin, BAYC, MAYC, and BAKC holders by allowing them to simply hold these tokens in their Ethereum wallets and claim ApeCoins.

Goal of this proposal is to simplify the program so that:

  1. ApeCoin community members are not mired with the complexities of staking and additional smart contract interactions.
  2. Users only need to claim when they want, allowing convenience and choice for when ApeCoin distribution is claimed, while auto-compounding.
  3. Add value to the ApeCoin community and NFT ecosystem per AIP-4/5.


Staking proposals in AIP-4 and AIP-5 did not pass due to the community expressing their desire to have caps for the NFTs. After much discussion, the consensus settled around having caps equal to the amount of ApeCoins each NFTs originally received. This proposal is a community-driven proposal, co-authored by @machibigbrother and @lumbergdoteth.


175-million ApeCoin tokens, or 17.5% of total token supply, to be distributed over 3 years to holders of ApeCoin, BAYC, MAYC, and BAKC, on a weekly basis. Rewards are halved at the start of Year 2 and Year 3, starting at 100-million ApeCoin for year 1, 50-million for year 2, and 25-million for year 3. No pairing requirement for BAKC NFT holders. Claim site will be the existing one at Claim ApeCoin. Addresses that will not claim ApeCoins on behalf of their users such as AMM liquidity pools and centralized exchange wallets will be excluded from the calculation. Only ApeCoin tokens in circulation will be counted toward the distribution. Unvested or locked tokens are also excluded from this distribution.

Year 1 Distributions:
ApeCoin Pool: 30,000,000 ApeCoin Tokens
BAYC Pool: 47,105,000 ApeCoin Tokens
MAYC Pool: 19,060,000 ApeCoin Tokens
BAKC Pool: 3,835,000 ApeCoin Tokens

Year 2 Distributions:
ApeCoin Pool: 15,000,000 ApeCoin Tokens
BAYC Pool: 23,552,500 ApeCoin Tokens
MAYC Pool: 9,530,000 ApeCoin Tokens
BAKC Pool: 1,917,500 ApeCoin Tokens

Year 3 Distributions:
ApeCoin Pool: 7,500,000 ApeCoin Tokens
BAYC Pool: 11,776,250 ApeCoin Tokens
MAYC Pool: 4,765,000 ApeCoin Tokens
BAKC Pool: 958,750 ApeCoin Tokens

Weekly Snapshots

Snapshots are taken weekly, based on the pro-rata amount of ApeCoin tokens and BAYC/MAYC/BAKC NFTs held in each Ethereum wallet. Wallets must have at least 1 ApeCoin token to receive distribution. NFTs held in wallets with less than 1 ApeCoin balance will receive no distribution. ApeCoin tokens held in wallets on other networks will not be eligible. Earned ApeCoins will carry over between weeks and auto-compound, taking wallet ApeCoin balance plus unclaimed balance. Any ApeCoins over the NFT cap will be counted towards the ApeCoin-Only pool.


Alice has 1 BAYC and 7000 ApeCoin tokens in the wallet during week 1, earning hypothetically 65 ApeCoins.

For week 2, Alice’s ApeCoin balance would be 7065 (7000 in wallet + 65 unclaimed ApeCoins), earning her more ApeCoins, giving her new ApeCoin balance for week 3 at 7065 + week 2 distribution.

Once Alice’s ApeCoin balance reaches the cap, the remaining ApeCoin balance over the cap will count toward the ApeCoin-Only pool and earn from there.


Caps are the maximum number of ApeCoin that can be paired with each NFT. There is no cap per address for the ApeCoin-Only pool. NFT caps increase at the start of years 2 and 3 along with each annual distribution halving to adjust for ApeCoin supply increase.

Year 1
BAYC: 10,094
MAYC: 2,042
BAKC: 856

Year 2
BAYC: 14,805
MAYC: 2,995
BAKC: 1,255

Year 3
BAYC: 17,160
MAYC: 3,472
BAKC: 1,455

Proposed Schedule and Estimated Costs

We estimate the buildout to take 3 weeks and $30,000 USD.


I like the idea of this proposal.


Much love and thanks to the ApeCoin community for the great feedback so far on the New ApeCoin Non-Staking Distribution Proposal. @machibigbrother and I have consolidated the feedback and proposed solutions in this thread:

  1. Change Snapshot process to time-weighted average to avoid botting/gaming for ApeCoins and account for partial week earnings.

  2. BAYC/MAYC/BAKC pools combine into 1 NFT pool with 70,000,000 for year 1, 35,000,000 for year 2, and 17,500,000 for year 3. Pool shares between BAYC/MAYC/BAKC will be dynamically determined weekly, based on quarterly rolling average price (last 13 weeks combined). Distribution will be based on the pro-rata amount of ApeCoin tokens and BAYC/MAYC/BAKC NFTs held in each Ethereum wallet, and optimizing yields for wallets that are under the cap. (wallets at cap need no optimization)

  3. Caps for each NFT will start at airdrop figures, and the community can assess potential changes to the cap in Q4 via the AIP process.


I like this proposal but correct me if I’m wrong $ape isn’t supported on ledger yet right so if we have our ape on our ledger we would have to put it back in a hot wallet for the snapshot no?which seems problematic. That’s my only issue everything else seems great.

I am curious about what is the rationale for fixing the pool allocation structure for the next 3 years, this is an issue which is apparent in this new proposal and which the community had, at least in my understanding, no problem with and which will have deep consequences. As your proposal states “Staking proposals in AIP-4 and AIP-5 did not pass due to the community expressing their desire to have caps for the NFTs”, with no mention given to the update of the stacking pool.

When making this proposal you must consider the market implications it will have for the underlying assets, and this proposal will undoubtedly LOCK the mayc/bayc/bakc pricing ratios for the next 3 years which I do not find desirable for the ecosystem as a whole.

I would rather have the free market decide what the ratio should be between collections instead of a gravitational force set by a DAO proposal.

Staking pools should be updated yearly or quartely.

1 Like

The only thing that is locked in is the amount of $ape coin that is going towards the staking for the next 3 years. The ratio will be based on the weighted average of the previous 13 weeks. What will happen is if the MAYC floor moves up then their cap will move up and BAYC cap will move down (ex. 3k for mutants and 9k for apes).

I will say I am concerned about how much impact people think these proposals will have on the NFT floors. It feels like we are tying the NFTs way too closely with ape coin and it can get dangerous. The beauty of the apes is that there is no tangible way to value them and if people start using this for their tangible value we could be in some trouble down the road.


My major concerns with this proposal:

  • List item Regulatory uncertainty, which should be vetted by Cartan Group in their legal review of said proposal & subsequent report they issue.

  • List item With the prior proposal costing about 10x to 16x what this one is projected to cost, I wonder how realistic the budget listed is, again this will be reviewed by Cartan Group, but if the budget given by Cartan Group comes back way lower than the $30k listed I don’t think that looks good at all on the proposal writers

  • List item 3 weeks seems very quick for implementation, audit, etc of said proposal, I think it may be unrealistic, but again Cartan Group review should flesh that out if it is.

  • List item There is no audit time or audit mentioned to ensure safety. We are dealing with very large assets, we need to prioritize safety here.

  • List item 3 years is way too long of a time frame to set the allocations for, I really think we need more like 1 year, then an annual vote.

1 Like

@Lumberg, can I confirm that if the 13-week rolling price pool adjustments are made, that the caps for each NFT will also be adjusted automatically to equalize the APRs across BAYC/MAYC/BAKC such that the APRs for the entire pool will always be the same for a given period, regardless of NFT held?

@Lumberg Clarification on the above as I can’t seem to edit my post. By APRs above I mean minimum attainable APRs. I acknowledge that yields for a particular pool can be higher if not everyone stakes up to the max cap.

1 Like

The goal is ultimately to have rewards adjust based on NFT prices, so that we do not lock in the ratio between NFT prices via this proposal.

Initially we wanted to start with dynamically adjusting pool shares only and not add an additional component in adjusting caps, leaving that to a future proposal. Given feedback so far, we do want to also make caps dynamically adjustable.

Agree that we should not lock the future NFT prices by passing a reward program. See answer here: New ApeCoin Non-Staking Distribution Proposal - #10 by Lumberg

yes rewards pools and related caps should move dynamically based on NFT prices. See further response here: New ApeCoin Non-Staking Distribution Proposal - #10 by Lumberg

Thank you!

I hold my BAYC, MAYC, BAKC, and $APE all on a ledger. Can simply configure it to work with your Metamask. I recommend checking out this post from Ledger:

Yeah I don’t have a computer only on mobile and you can’t connect them via ledger live only on computer.

thanks for clarifying. yes, caps should adjust with pool allocations to prevent the APR on one NFT getting out of whack and becoming much higher than the other NFTs, unfairly favoring it, maybe even causing a circular reflexive loop of upward price pressure for that NFT vs the others.

Not a bad idea.

One question I have would be regarding how the pool divisions would take place between my 3 NFTs.

To clarify, I have a 1 BAYC, 1 MAYC, and 1 BAKC, plus ~10800 $ape in my wallet. Clearly, I’d want to fill the cap of the BAYC pool, leaving me with ~700 $ape tokens. Would this method auto-designate that 700 to either MAYC or BAKC pools, or divide them between both, or switch between the two? The MAYC pool provides a greater share of apecoin, but I will only reach about 1/3 of the cap. While the BAKC pool provides a lesser share of apecoin, but I’d almost reach the cap. To summarize, would this method automatically stake my remaining apecoin to the pool that provides the most return?

Shouldn’t this proposal be in the Eco System Fund Allocation category? Do you plan to update this proposal to fit within the guidelines of AIP-1 and submit to the proper category? As it stands you are weeks behind in getting this to a potential vote.

Yes, you can integrate Ledger with Metamask as Lumberg says. It works well.

You should be able to connect via Bluetooth with a Ledger Nano X. Ledger Nano X | Ledger

Nope the metamask app won’t connect via Bluetooth I wish it would