Replace NFT-based APE Staking

Do you have any concerns over what a massive one-time payment like that might do to the $APE markets? How it will influence the actual NFT markets when people know they can get a large lump payment for minimal staking time?

1 Like

Hey, thanks for the idea!

So I’m clear, you’re proposing the one time claim would be for all BAYC/MAYC/BAKC holders? If so I’d struggle with that, long term believers in apecoin have been staking and many intend to be patient - if there is a one time ‘buy out’ it should go to that group? Maybe I’m misunderstanding.



The proposal provides a insightful solution to the challenges in Yuga Labs’ NFTs by suggesting the separation of APE distributions from the NFTs. The distribution strategy and incentive for long-term APE locking are promising, and the clarity in the timeline, along with the absence of additional costs, enhances the proposal’s viability. Very well done.

Yes, so NFT holders take a discount to the amount they were allowed to claim, but they “pay forward” that discount to the rest of the APE holders for a) present valuing the distribution, b) ensuring redistribution back to the original APE holders, c) helps with incentivizing re-lockup and ensuring the APE distributions are servicing APE holders across a longer duration and d) wider distribution should also help with the concetnration issue of the airdrop-claim delivery event

1 Like

Originally I wanted to explore an accelerated vesting period by looking into the Horizen contracts, but that carried a lot of coordination issues - so its a logistical matter / devil was in the details.

First off, if we do continue with the top-off (where APE is sent to the contracts which automatically distributes it) it needs to modified, and would take months (next top off is March 21st I believe). Secondly, this also affects a lot of the community coordination across multiple staking contracts and platforms (even dormant NFTs held in some escrow platforms). Having the original claims (per NFT) was rather well received by the community, and is the least disruptive seperation of the ERC721s to ERC20s, which is the ultimate goal. There is long-term value creation in its separation, and I believe this is the locally best solution (least development time as these are proven delivery methods, and least problematic economically as we redistribute the rewards to the APE holders over time).

Pre-event market expectations: I think knowing that a one-time payment in fact raises the value of the NFT themselves since it actually acts as a proper ex-dividend (single event, so the price should increase knowing it goes up). This should also positively affect APE as well as the NFT raises in price in that anticipation.

Post-event market expectations: there is naturally short term post effect, but long term value alignment. We recommend introducing APE locking to help absorb the supply, but we expect that the run up in NFT prices leading up to the event should help with the reflexive APE pricing, along with the supply sink being created with APE lock-up.

Long-term alignment: a number of catalysts are coming up with Otherside, but the fact is that APE is never ever mentioned in any GameFi narrative in the public forum. The narrative is heavily muddled (am I buying an NFT narrative… or a GameFi?). APE has a chance to reenter into the scene with a clear identity. A clear separation between the NFT and APE is the 1st path toward getting index into bigger narratives.

1 Like

It’s more an accelerated vesting not a buy out, and that vesting is being discounted at a rather high rate, (average 29% per annum, or 40% across two years). Only 60% is given to the NFT holders as a method to proper separate the two assets.

That held value (remaining 40%) is being redistributed to long term APEcoin holders so they can have exponentially higher returns if they continue to believe in the asset via lock staking.

1 Like

Yes that’s the idea. It was one of the more welcomed methods of distribution (as the 1st distribution) - far better reception than the current staking, and the least disruptive method that wont break contracts / require modifications of existing contracts.

Because its reallocated to ALL holders, the seemingly higher “unlock” is damped by a) the far broader distribution and b) discount rate and c) APE locking.

A timely process is necessary for positioning both assets in preparation for whats to come - otherwise we keep on letting value leak from both assets. #plugtheleak


Carrying over a discussion from Twitter:

Staking proof-of-work-weighted distribution

Do you think that a time-weighted average staking period of your NFTs as a “proof of work” is the correct metric for present-value distributing the remaining APE? Instead of just a flat distribution to just the NFT holders who are not all fully staked

It does make sense from your perspective as not all NFTs are staked/havent been staked. It would also allocate the most rewards to those who are least likely to sell.

Lets do an assumption here:
of the 100% left to stake per NFT-tied allocation, I recommend discounting to the present 60% (in the proposal)

Now within that 60%, I’m also all ears for the distribution - which is why i have a public forum for it

Perhaps it could be
Address-tied: (time-weighted staking per NFT across history) * 70% of the remaining amount
NFT-tied: 30% to all NFT holders

The reason why the latter (30%) is because I still want to help elevate the value of ALL apes leading up to the event as the ex-dividend concept still applies


Hi @david_metastreet - loved your writeup, agree with your thesis in theory.

Drawing from your experience and background, are there any potential adverse effects that you (& team) are aware of that may come about from this de-tethering? - I know its probably a tired mental exercise but humor me with a scenario (if any) that you deem to be the most probable even if the chances of it happening are low

Would there be a window to claim?

How do we solve the use case of users who are away and/or unaware of this claim but have their assets collateralized in a lending protocol? - could this scenario be gamed? if yes, is there an elegant solution to prevent this?



While I think $APE was one of Yuga’s single largest mistakes (alongside The Otherside), I do not see a massive buyout being a positive event. It will flood the market with liquidity which will be dumped and moved into other, better performing assets. At least IMO.

Just end the staking. There is no need for a complex, expensive buyout.

1 Like

I see. How about just ending staking for the NFTs and re-allocate all to the Ape only pool with locking periods of x amount of months/years? That way NFTs and Ape get “separated” and their value is on it’s own as you suggest.

1 Like

NFT assets only accumulate apecoin if they are staked - non staked assets have no tie to the coin so I think that aspect would need some work.


Your perspective on rewarding long-term NFT and $APE holders, especially those who fully stake or co-stake on platforms like benddao, makes sense. Emphasizing incentives for sustained commitment could indeed contribute to a more stable and loyal community. Suggesting a higher allocation of $APE rewards for these specific holders aligns with your goal of encouraging long-term engagement and discouraging quick flips. Additionally, proposing a one-time unlock with a substantial allocation for those who have committed to long-term strategies could further enhance the overall effectiveness of the proposed changes.

1 Like

With all due respect but It’s kinda funny that this idea of “simply removing all rewards for bayc / mayc / makc holders” mostly comes from people that don’t hold any, or atleast no significant amount, of these nfts. While I see the merit in the proposal to separate NFTs and $APE values, it’s crucial to consider the expectations of our community members who invested in these NFTs with the anticipation of receiving $APE rewards for a period of at least 3 years.

Abruptly removing these rewards entirely may be perceived as backstabbing our loyal community members, and it raises moral concerns. Personally, I would find it challenging to continue supporting the club and DAO if such changes were implemented without taking into account the impact on existing holders.

I believe we can find a middle ground that benefits all of us, and this proposal is not a bad start. Perhaps we can explore adjustments to the proposed idea to better accommodate the loyalty and commitment of our existing community members as outligned in my post above.

I do believe max leverage and blur farming has contributed to the current situation we are in, and we could, together with the help of yugalabs, act as a counterweight by providing extra utility/value to our loyal and longterm members.

As outligned in the proposal, these are also the members that are least likely to simply dump their $ape allocation onto the market.


The interest rates given are too high and are ruining the token economy. We must reduce these rates or these rates should be given for locking for at least 4 years. Unless the DAO treasury can generate income for itself, it will have a token that is constantly sold and eventually there will be nothing left to sell. Because what you have will be worth nothing.

1 Like

Yo bavi! I’m with you. Finding middle ground that benefits all (coin & nft holders) might be the best solution if any.


Hi @david_metastreet ,

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.


1 Like

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

Hi @david_metastreet

Thank you for your ideas [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the insightful discussions].

A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft using the appropriate template.

  • Once the AIP Draft is confirmed by the author and meets all DAO-approved guidelines, it will receive an AIP ID number and move forward for Draft Analysis Review.
  • @david_metastreet please see your messages for the next steps.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. In accordance with DAO-approved guidelines, if the author does not respond within 30 days, the proposal will be automatically transferred to the Withdrawn category, and the author can re-submit the idea.


1 Like

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

This Topic has been rejected based on the DAO-approved guidelines due to no response in the last 30 days. The Topic may be submitted again by any user and upon approval, will be open for 7 days for community discussions.

This Topic will move and remain in the Withdrawn AIPs category.


1 Like