Raise DAO membership to 10 ApeCoin

I dont think its good idea, because sybil always those whom have alot money, if they can make profit via DAO, the value cannot restrict them.
And as you know, reward only add for the value task, so sybil cant do that.
But if minium request to entry DAO too high, may be we make some PEOPLE behind us bro, its not friendly style

Thanks for putting up this idea @Feld. It’s an interesting discussion and I can see the reasoning to both sides.

Sybil attacks are annoying and combatting them takes up the Facilitators and Stewards time where they could be doing more productive things. But I have also heard of quite a few people who became involved with the DAO with less than 10 ApeCoin. Often people will send someone 1 ApeCoin to help them get started in the DAO. I wonder if it is increased to 10 if that would occur less often.

Love the discussion and think @bigbull’s suggestion is interesting, though that might decrease wanted participation through ThankApe, depending on who is onboarded through there. It would be best to look at the data.


!exactly. You get my point.
You can already probably find wallets from participants here pretending to be a multiple people, yes that includes those mentioned by someone shark and other animal kingdoms.
Im at a lot of DEFI communities with actual serious builders & there is no “hate”, just most of peope dont even have NFTs or Tweeter, they don’t care, but some have lots of ApeCoin and they DO NOT EVEN STAKE IT TO THE CONTRACT.


If you idea is to lock people out - those will not be your mentioned “whales”, it will be a little man, the smart people versus chill people, those who have no time to chill here every post will phrases “AW MY GOD its so amazing you even posting here…”, holders generally don’t care about whales, companies and MAJOR holders and VCs care about the little guy, what 1 ApeCoin holder wants - because thats the power of the community and that whats counts here. And if community don’t like something - no whales mini group can beat it, no important how much useless rewards promised or spaces shilled with 500 bots vs just 33 listeners (some of them are triple profiles).

If we talk about animal kingdom here again - There is a funny children song for piano players starters - '33 cows". you can sing about them, but cows can BUILD a piano and community are the ones pushing all the buttons. You tell those inspiring token holders to pay 10 times and they will eat all cows.

I agree @evil.
The language barrier is indeed a factor, but little by little it is being broken, through the work of the members here at the DAO who are always disseminating knowledge and information.

1 Like

Hi @Feld,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.

  • If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.

  • A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.

  • Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

We look forward to hearing from you.


On that note, one interesting thing I noticed CityDAO introduce is a sliding scale mechanism, based on the amount of treasury funds being asked for, and then a support threshold change for charter changes which have the equivalent impact as like you mentioned with process proposals that impact the fundamental processes of the DAO

So, just for community discussion purposes, it could be something like this;

Re Funding related proposals;
1 $APE for any proposal up to a max of $5,000
10 $APE for any proposal up to a max of $20,000
100 $APE for any proposal up to a max of $100,000
1,000 $APE for any proposal up to $500,000
10,000 $APE for any proposal up to $1M

I’m not suggesting these exact number be used, needs more thought, but consider the above as ‘fill-in-the-blank’ to marinate on

Then re process change proposals
Instead of requiring 50% support, moving it up to like 75% support requirement threshold. So basically, requiring a ‘super majority’ type of support in order to change a fundamental process. This is parallel to item #3 in the ENS ‘Types of Proposals’ doc you shared.

Just food for discussion and though, curious what sort of comments or brainstorming this brings up with everyone


I also propose this idea, which would be optional to have AIPs suggest they will match funds.

Three choices:

1.They could match by saying they will invest x and we will grant x
2.They will lock x APE and we will grant x APE. E.g. I want 10,000 APE but I will put 10,000 APE locked into a contract for x period of time. They would still get the 10k APE back in say 12 months with rewards.
3. Deposit to a Liquidity Pool (though risk reward and potential impermanent loss needs to be considered) for x period of time.



This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@Feld 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.


Hmmm, this is tricky.

I joined the DAO with 1 ApeCoin after the EthGlobal Scaling Ethereum event in March, still hold it.

I’ve kinda been on a 1 man 1 ApeCoin mission this year to be truthful, test the theory if that makes sense. I hope I have contributed enough to bring value in other ways be it ideas, different solutions and the like.

I have managed to complete various ThankApe tasks and quests which have gained me additional ApeCoin through the year, but have used them to fund IRL costs.

I think it would deter others like me to join and contribute but understand measures need to be put in place to prevent those pesky farmers :tractor: and dodgy characters just taking up valuable resources.

1 ApeCoin 1 Vote is the selling point of the DAO.

Food for thought:

A suggestion would be to work more around the trust levels so that you need to be at least level 2 or even 3 to do anything within the geek-o-system and perhaps add additional levels of trust.

Currently level 3 is obtainable but requires some effort so perhaps that is a better way to tackle the issues at hand.

A solution that could be cool is after obtaining a certain trust level you are then able to mint an ApeCoin NFT, using $APE or ETH and these can serve as proof of commitment to the cause.

By doing this we could generate revenue for the DAO as well and use them to token gate certain initiatives and creation of AIPs, joining in the ThankApe fun, etc.

I would proudly display my ApeCoin soulbound NFTs, Gitcoin did this a while back for completing different quizzes and it almost became a fun challenge to get the full collection.

After getting all levels and NFTs, maybe there can be a small reward or get a cool T-Shirt to wear IRL and show your love and support for the ApeCoin community and DAO.

Some Examples of my Gitcoin Tokens


Lots of good ideas and thoughts. There is something to think about and take into work :+1:

1 Like

Honestly I don’t think 10 ape would cut it though, it should be a minimum of 50 ape. Why I say this is because the more you actually trust and have vision for a project the more you’d be willing to invest in it. IMO though

Leave the entry threshold as it is - 1 APE. I think there are more technological ways to deal with Sybil. Do not restrict access to users because of this, for many it will be a significant barrier


I think higher is better, but unfortunately you start to get into gate-keepy territory at that point.

10 just makes repetitive farming very hard.


I think that maybe 5 would be more reasonable, especially in case $APE goes up in price

I agree that sticking to the origins of the DAO narrative, 1 APE = 1 Vote is important. That’s been a core part of the messaging for a long time and could be a negative to change it this far in.

Combining that with either the sliding scale for funding as noted above, or some of these other good ideas here also seems to have benefits, all build from the foundation of the 1 APE 1 Vote starting point.

This is interesting…maybe the trust levels could be a filter for ‘proposing’ something to the community. So 1 APE to vote, but tust level N in order to do certain other types of posts.

Question: What’s was the bot/Sybil attack history for the DAO during 2021, 2022? What were the major occurrences to date from the past and how much (if any) damage did they cause?

One of the benefits of having a manual/human process for final funds release is that it prevents would be attackers from capitalizing on automated treasury movements. So really we’re only talking about protecting the Discourse, which makes me curious to hear what the attack history has been historically.


Thanks all for the lively discussions.

It seems that the overall impressions of the discussions thus far are:

A) We need to do something about sybil, all-up.
B) Probably raising the limit is a weak solution, and affects the 1 ApeCoin = you’re in, narrative, more than it helps the sybil problem.

One thing we do for BSec is require that a wallet have some other activity, other than just a Zsync bridge, a ThankApe claim, and a funding tx. Those who have partner NFTs in their wallet get priority on classes, and other benefits in our system. I wonder if we can implement something like that, where it makes sybil more expensive per wallet, but doesn’t actually dissuade or limit actual meaningful DAO participation.


What this quote suggests to me is that one becomes ‘qualified’ to talk about changing a process if they have about £12.5k spare.

Our processes are far from perfect and we need to encourage people to make these suggestions rn - not stifle them by implementing high monetary thresholds imo.

One could also argue that copying ENS DAO has not been that beneficial to “us” so far.

1 Like