Removing/Impeaching Elected Candidates

Question, hypothetical…

Is it possible for an AIP to be written up to remove and or impeach elected folks from positions? Hypothetically speaking of course.

I was curious about this. It came up for discussion IRL about a totally different thing.

1 Like

Here’s a recent example of exactly what you’re asking about: Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups

Here’s a previous example of a different proposal aimed at the Special Council, which was subsequently Returned for Reconstruction:

Generally, it’s okay to discuss most topics. Moving forward to a vote does involve various aspects of due diligence in regards to the DAO’s guidelines and the mission/values of the APE Foundation.

Hope this helps !



Lost! Thanks for this. I will definitely dive into it. Much appreciated!

1 Like

Doesn’t solve the problem Apewhale is trying to discuss though. It’s not the working groups that are the problem.

I believe that there are underqualified individuals in high paid positions and it stinks a little. Would be interesting to discuss an option to impeach individuals in paid positions.


I haven’t read up on what Lost posted. I was simply posting a hypothetical. I’m not saying any specific individual is underqualified or overqualified for any specific position.

1 Like

Oh ok sorry, I misunderstood.

It’s my personal opinion.


Np, was just making it clear and open for discussion. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I just looked at it and I think you are right. It doesn’t seem to address the removal of elected candidates from a working group or position.

My Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups isn’t about impeaching anyone. It’s about closing working groups which have proven to be ineffective and inefficient while costing the DAO money. It’s why the AIP isn’t specifically about “removing” people because it offers suggestions on how we can do things better and more efficiently using experienced and qualified third-parties.

My AIP-359 Special Council Vote of No Confidence was specifically about trimming the Special Council by two members, while making accountability and transparency related requests.

In Feb 2024, though I had the opportunity to resubmit it with revisions, I didn’t go through with it because, aside from timing, following my temp-ban (10/12/2023 - 01/12/2024) over the 0xPolygon AIP fiasco, I had imposed a boycott of any/all DAO related social activities (Discourse, ApeComms etc) and simply couldn’t be bothered. Plus, as they were working on the AIP with me over email, I felt that it was inefficient and I didn’t find it fair to burden the GwG with having to deal with the back and forth associated with that expansive AIP. And so, I just dropped it and moved on.

It’s not private (because all of this could have been conducted on Discourse if I had chosen to do so), below is the disposition of that AIP.

I do not intend to revisit that particular AIP nor its original intent because I believe that it would just be a waste of my time. Let someone else deal with it. Regardless, in the last 24 hrs I have authored 8 AIPs, one of them is for the Ape Foundation to clarify its ability to terminate contracts.


I saw all of those AIPs!

That one you linked is more in line with what I was thinking about. Clarification is definitely needed.

1 Like

@Apewhale, the hypothetical question that you posed seems to be asking whether or not it would be possible for someone to simply create a proposal suggesting to remove or impeach members of the DAO who have been elected into the various roles.

There is a some room for interpretation with your question, and I should have clarified what you’re asking. My first response was meant to address the fact that members of the DAO have previously submitted proposals aiming to remove or impeach certain elected members.

Are you asking for more information about the exact process for removing, or impeaching, a member from a particular role?

Or something else?

@SmartAPE, quoted from Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups :

This seems to indicate the “termination”, or removal, of several currently elected Stewards. I’ll be interested to see the final Draft.

Yup. And you can’t close the WGs without terminating the contracts (if any) of the people associated with it.

Also, as per the proposal, if someone thought it was a good idea to create a WG and it turns out that it wasn’t a good idea/plan after all, another member (that being me) can similarly write up a proposal to close it. Then it’s up to the voters to make the final decision.

This is no different from what happened to the Ape Assembly some months ago. Someone created it, amid much fanfare, we did a LOT of work with it. Then Amplify wrote up AIP-347 that essentially killed it, thus side-stepping an AIP-358 which I written to try and save it.

  1. Dissolution of Working Groups
  • A Working Group can be dissolved or removed by passing a Process Proposal requesting the dissolution or removal of a Working Group.
  • Upon the dissolution of a Working Group, any and all unspent Working Group funds from that Working Group, at the time of dissolution, must be immediately returned to the DAO.

To clarify terminating someone is different from dissolving a working group.


This is a really important question. In my experience, many DAOs suffer from a lack of basic human resource management. As someone who taught HRM for many years, organizations that can’t penalize or terminate people and that can’t enforce accountability have a critical flaw. Sometimes someone with impeccable qualifications just doesn’t work out.

We had issues like this in CityDAO. Without HRM, the only real way to penalize or terminate someone’s paid position is an AIP that countermands a previous AIP, since no AIP can say that a future AIP isn’t valid. However, whoever posts the AIP gets their name out there as untrustworthy or a backstabber. I’m not sure what the answer is, but I’m confident that DAOs can’t be successful business orgs until people are held accountable and not paid if they aren’t measurably performing.


Correct. And that’s why item #4 exists the Steps To Implement section of my proposal. For clarity, I should probably add this note there because most people may not be aware of this procedure despite people noting that terminating people is different from closing a working group.

Well yes - that’s the gist of it. And most DAOs suffer from this exact problem that you’re outlining here. Some people tend to make decisions based on emotions and feelings instead of with practical reasoning.

For example, I queried our MwG and MarComms folks several times asking what they had
actually achieved. No response. None. And then, in one such instance, this is the response that I received from DavidCrypto and which led to this response.

Our DAO seemingly lacks important things like transparency and accountability despite the fact that most of those clamoring for it, do so behind-the-scenes because nobody wants to put their name out there. Why? Because at the end of the day, most people in this DAO want something from it. And so, they know that the best way to get anything is to just be quiet, don’t rock the status quo etc. The end result is that very little goes challenged. And even when they do, we all know that there is really no recourse. There are very few of us who tend to speak up, and much to the chagrin of those who otherwise like things they way they are. Then we get branded as spreading FUD.

And yet still, all wonder why the DAO remains stagnant like a deer in headlights. We have to change this; and while the onus isn’t on the GwG because their role is limited - and they do specifically what they’re tasked to do - it’s squarely on the Special Council who, as “advisors” who work at the behest of the DAO, are tasked with health and security of the DAO. And that means ensuring that the community isn’t splintered and/or displeased with how they run the DAO.

But I’m sure ApeChain will fix it, tho. :roll_eyes:

ps. There are lots of things that we need to address. I’ve done my part since I’ve been back. Now I wait to see the disposition of those proposals and whether or not they will in fact amount to anything other than wasted time.


Lack of transparency and accountability are good keywords here. And an election process that is more based on popularity rather than skill and experience. It’s nepotism.

And I’m not afraid to say it out loud.
Anyone with an ape pfp and a big following can get a ridiculously high paid position within the DAO without even being qualified for the role. It’s sad. And very few people care about this. Makes it even more sad to watch.

From the outside it really looks like barely anything is happening around the DAO. What the f*** are some of those individuals that get paid thousands a month actually doing all day while I work my a**
s off in my 9to5 30k/year job? It’s so frustrating… Makes me wanna walk away from the DAO but I want to contribute so much more so I stay quiet like Smartape said. It’s just hard to ignore sometimes.

So yeh. Transparency and accountability.

And if then someone proudly says that they made 2 graphics this week which I could have made while commuting, then something really needs to happen.

The problem is that this is a DAO and there is no CEO who oversees things. Everything is the result of long voting processes (or shall we just call it popularity contests). It’s so easy to take adventage and not having to do much.


The issue with transparency is that it goes hand in hand with accountability. Without the ability to hold leadership accountable, there is no impetus for anyone to be transparent about anything because the question becomes "Yeah, I did this wrong thing. So, what are you going to do about it?

The other issue with transparency & accountability is that in the DAO, we have no idea who is doing what, when, how. We apparently have Webslingers + Special Council as the Ape Foundation, yet if there’s something dodgy we don’t know who to hold accountable. It’s why whenever I am wailing against our cabal, I use collective attribution because it’s unfair to single out any one person. The downside of that is we end up blaming people for something they probably didn’t even have a hand in. e.g. I like all our GwG guys. They’ve always been good to me, and I see the work the put in. But if GwG takes action about something, I can’t go blame Lost or AllCity because that’s unfair. Even Gerry, we communicated almost every day, even as I was being rebellious against the SC. And to this day, we still have a cordial relationship, we chat from time to time etc. All that even after I stood up and rallied against what I thought was wrong with the 0xPolygon AIP and funding. Look at BoredApeG, CaptainTrippy, we use to argue all the time on Spaces - mostly during the 0xPolygon fiasco (which people hold me responsible for its failure; but I have no regrets), but still, that doesn’t prevent me from being overly supportive of ThankApe and such.

Often times, we all tend to let our emotions get the better of us; but at 61, even with my acute anxiety issues which tends to get in the way, taking the emotion out of decisions and actions always leads to beneficial outcomes. To that end, as a community, we must be able to communicate displeasure and angst without being vilified (quietly or otherwise) for it. If we can’t do that either because we fear reprisals or because we know that there may be ramifications, then this community will continue to decline. For my part, I will always strive to speak up because being bullied at a young age taught me to stand up even if there is still the possibility that I would just get struck down again.

We have an Ape Foundation that we can’t hold accountable and which consistently flaunts things like transparency because they know that we can’t do anything about it. I mean, seriously, why on Earth are we unable to fire (via votes) people we - the DAO - voted for? Why can’t we - the DAO - request documents related to our DAO, from the people we voted/hired to run our DAO? It’s just absolutely crazy to me. Take for example the F1 fiasco. In RL, that sort of thing gets people fired. No question. And yet we have no idea how that deal even came together. $5.5M. Gone. And we can’t even get money to make a game or fund things that benefit the community.

Since I have been back, all the 9 proposals that I put up, are geared to address some pressing issues. And there are more coming. I have little hope that they will even go to vote in a timely fashion - if at all; but at least I get to say that I tried. It’s going to be interesting to see who votes down clean proposals which are designed to improve the DAO ops, bring transparency and accountability etc.

We MUST try to fix our DAO - somehow.


Hats Protocol is pretty much designed to solve for the problem of decentralized accountability. If anyone likes, I can set up some intros with the team there, they’re a great bunch, absolutely brilliant team tbh.

FYI it is pretty clear.

This is in AIP-239 @Apewhale

FYI this is related specifically to Steward roles.

Also this will be updated in the new charter which is one of our OKRs in the GWG. For example the Ape Assembly Initiative was shut down by the GWG, so we are unable to completely follow the process above.

Hope this helps clarify things.