New ApeCoin Non-Staking Distribution Proposal

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

Ahh! Metamask on iPhone to Ledger. Got it. Thanks for the heads up

Hi @river - following up on the process to move this down as an official AIP. Apologies if I missed something in the docs, but seems the process at this point requires a mod to close the thread and move down the process as described here: ApeCoin DAO Governance


Once the seven-day feedback window has passed and a moderator closes the Discourse topic, a moderator will send the author the proposal template and next steps for submission and voting. They may also suggest a proposal category, if not already specified in Discourse.

I’m happy to wait but wanted to make sure that we’re not missing anything here per the process.

You would more then likely need this to be re proposed fully in the correct category, had it been a proper proposal following the guidelines of AIP-1 a mod would of surely contacted you by now, as it stands there is many problems with the proposal just in the organizational factors alone.

For one this is not a process proposal, it is an ecosystem fund allocation proposal.

1 Like