Proposal to Designate Staking Rewards for Otherside NFT Holders

There is currently no staking pool available to Otherside deed holders, other than the public pool. As such, Othersider holders receive the same staking benefits as the general public. This staking structure does not acknowledge or align with the important role the Otherside plays within the ApeCoin ecosystem. Providing higher reward yields to Othersider holders would be mutually beneficial to ApeCoin and the Otherside: ApeCoin holders would be encouraged to hold Otherside deeds, and Othersider holders would be encouraged to hold ApeCoin. This proposal outlines how this problem can be addressed without negatively impacting other stakeholders.


  • Otherside NFT holders will be able to stake their deed within the public staking pool and receive double the staking rewards as compared to non-deed holders (the general public).
  • The distribution of staking rewards from the public pool will be recalculated using a weighted average where the weight of deed holders shall be twice that of the general public.
  • No further ApeCoin will need to be allocated for staking rewards since we are only recalculating how rewards are emitted from the public pool.
  • BAYC/MAYC/BAKC holders would not be negatively impacted since their pools would remain unchanged and no further ApeCoin emissions would occur.

Motivation and Rationale

Should Otherside land owners be given preferential staking rewards over to the general public?
Yes. ApeCoin is the native currency of the Otherside. In the years to come, the Otherside will certainly play a critical role as the primary marketplace where ApeCoin is regularly exchanged for digital goods and services. Preferential staking rewards acknowledges the important role Otherside land owners play within the ApeCoin ecosystem and helps cement this special relationship.

How much additional staking rewards should Otherside deed holders receive?
While an exact number might be a point for discussion, most would agree the yield should be higher than received by the general public, and lower than the yield received by BAYC/MAYC/BAKC. The proposed yield (2 times the general public yield) attempts to balance acknowledging Otherside holders, while still keeping staking rewards enticing for non-deed holders.

Should Otherside deed holders be given their own staking pool?
We argue against this approach. Creating a new staking pool would require a large allocation of ApeCoin to service the 100k Otherdeeds that exist. This allocation would either need to be diverted from an existing pool, or require a large new emission of coins. Both of these approaches would negatively impact current stakeholders and as such would likely be opposed.

Send a request to Horizen Labs to update the staking interface with the following features:

  • Allow Otherside deed holders to stake their deeds in the public staking pool.
  • Recalculate the distribution of staking rewards in the public pool to provide double the yield to staked deed holders as compared to non-deed holders.
  • Establish staking limits for staked deeds (possibly 100 to 500 ApeCoins per deed)

Overall Costs
Expected cost is zero (or close thereto). No additional ApeCoin will need to be allocated for staking rewards.

The only possible cost will come from implementing the new reward distribution structure for the public pool. As part of this proposal, we would ask Horizen Labs to provide an estimate as to the time and cost (if any) needed to integrate these changes.

1 Like

I agree in theory that Otherdeed holders should have a chance to participate in the rewards program in an incentivized way. My main question would be to find out from the APE Foundation if there was a legal / regulatory reason for not including them.

Also, at 2x public pool they’d be the highest incentivized pool – this would receive significant pushback from the community. Current emissions are:

  • ApeCoin Pool - .00432 $APE / 24h
  • BAYC Pool - .00621 $APE / 24h
  • MAYC Pool - .00683 $APE / 24h
  • BAKY Pool - .00685 $APE / 24h


If there aren’t regulatory issues I’d suggest potentially reallocating some of the rewards from other pools – specifically the ApeCoin pool since it’s less that 8% full. And look at setting a staking limit somewhere around the average gas fees we paid during mint (only halfway joking).

Source: $APE Staking Tracker

Thanks for bringing this discussion to light.


Thanks for this feedback.

I agree that Otherdeed staking yield should not be greater than BAYC/MAYC/BAKC yield. My guess is that the yield would greatly decrease if this proposal was passed given the size of the Otherside NFT collection. With 100k plots, utilization for the public pool would likely increase greatly which would in turn lower the yields.

That being said, I’m still open to a pool reallocation as part of this proposal if deemed desirable by the community.


My pleasure. Would love to see some more people weigh in here. @Gerry @ARavingApe @BoredApeG @RedVulkan any other DeFi / tokenomics / data heads?


cc: @Amplify @Mantis


I agree with you here - 2x Ape Only pool rate would not be the appropriate way to balance this.

I personally do not see a way this gets implemented. It would require a rework of the Staking Contract and that would then need to be re-audited, re-deployed and everyone would have to move their positions over etc. So it’s not an easy thing to pull off.

Otherdeeds have resources that can be harvest and sold for ApeCoin… their time will come :fire:


Thank you, appreciate the perspective on the contract work - sounds pretty prohibitive. Now can we just get moving on the Obelisk please? Wen next trip?!

1 Like

Thanks for the look on this, @ssp1111

The way the OP describes what he wants to do, namely taking Otherside rewards from an existing pool, leaves very little room for this to work. However, I’d still push the proposal, because there’s no guarantee Ape holders will show up to vote against it depending on the week. :rofl:

By my calculations, 2X puts Otherside above every other pool in terms of percentage yield, but not in terms of total value yielded to individuals. BAYC/MAYC still gets more money out of the deal because 1. you’re not touching their pool, 2. they’re allowed a larger stake, and 3. there are a lot more Otherside deeds than BAYC or MAYC, so if they all staked, they dilute rewards to individuals even more. So that could slide depending on how you worded it.

Overall, I’m neutral on this, but as an Otherside deed holder, I’d stake if it passed, so I voted for it. :upside_down_face: If you see it through to AIP and enough people don’t vote their interests, then it deserves to pass on their heads.


Totally agreed with the idea of this AIP. As an important part of the Ape ecosystem, Otherdeeds should have a $APE staking pool for its holders.


I believe that Otherside deeds weren’t originally included in $APE staking because the staking AIPs predate the Otherdeed mint by a month or two.

In other words, when $APE came out and staking was proposed, there was no Otherside.

For my part, I think staking rewards for Otherdeeds and even Kodas (post-decoupling) makes sense, but I wouldn’t want this to be rushed.

At this time, I would only support an Otherdeed staking proposal if it was a reallocation of $APE emissions from the current public pool, as proposed here.

I would not support adding additional $APE from the treasury for $APE staking. I think we need to be mindful about tokenomics, and not flooding the market with $APE staking emissions before there is real $APE demand via Otherside.

If the plan was to create a new pool of $APE funds from the treasury for Otherdeed staking, I would say to hold off until we get closer to the Otherside becoming a persistent and accessible world, with real $APE utility.


Thank you for the support!

1 Like

Agree with all of this. Appreciate your support.


My opposition to this comes from the fact that the biggest losers here would be the $APE-only stakers, presumably largely comprised of those who don’t hold any Yuga assets to augment their percentage yield. Not only does it disincentivize non-Yuga asset holders even further, but in many cases it would only enrich those who already are staking their BAYC/MAYC/BAKC who would then ALSO add their Otherdeeds to the mix.

I am a proponent of growing this ecosystem to those who don’t hold Yuga assets, clearly the biggest untapped population. Providing value for them should be a priority, and despite the argument that Otherside will be a huge driver of $APE and its in-game utility, I am not in favor of adding Otherdeeds to staking at this time.


I have two things to add to this:

  1. Bored Ape Yacht Club is the club that has access only to BAYC & MAYC NFTs. Also, the BAKC must be paired with BAYC or MAYC to access staking pools. Otherside is not part of the BAYC club - they could stake their $APE in $APE standalone pool.
  2. We don’t know much about Otherside yet. I think that Yuga has a special economy in mind for Otherside lands to harvest resources, build or play. So Otherside owners could probably benefit from Otherside Marketplace with their land resources, artifacts, etc…

I’m also an Otherside land owner, and my strategy is to pick up rare resources to grow them and sell them in the Otherside marketplace in the future. So I’m pretty sure that the benefits for Otherside owners will come and will be unique for Otherside.



Definitely keep in mind here that Otherdeeds may generate $APE without staking. Each has unique resources, sediment, etc. that will be tradeable assets in game (allegedly). You will likely be able to monetize your land by building on it and offering gated experiences. Do I own multiple land and would love to stake them for profit? Sure. Does it make the most sense considering they will have their own $APE earning tokenomics upon game launch? Not really. NFA DYOR.


Would this hypothetical/speculative pool of $APE for Otherdeed resources also be coming from the Ecosystem Fund, presumably?

I believe otherside will have its own apecoin ecosystem within, Yuga have always said it will be powered by apecoin. I’d therefore suggest that staking may become a double up. Could be wrong of course but we will find out through 2023.


Hi @Sergio,

Your topic will be automatically closing in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received, or do you wish to extend community discussion for a further 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.



Hi Escape – with the special council elections happening, let’s leave this open for another 7 days to give others an opportunity to provide feedback.

Appreciate the assistance.


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@Sergio 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.


1 Like