Requiring super majority or a fee on certain proposals

The vote for new Admins did not include the Abstain option, so there’s a precedent for what you’ve suggested.

Much could (should?) be discussed and maybe amended re: Abstain now that it’s been tried awhile. I doubt most who voted In Favor for it are happy with major initiatives passing with a very small percentage of the overall vote.

Idea: AIP authors allowed to choose if they wish to have an Abstain option.

1 Like

A very relevant and timely example…

Voting on “AIP-239: Working Group Guidelines & The Governance Working Group Charter” is currently “In Favor” with only 16% of the votes actually in favor.

240 voters so far, which is about half what an AIP normally gets.

Here’s the kicker: a full 36% of In Favor votes are by a single Steward and co-author who stands to gain considerably if it passes ($9k / mo for 2 years +++) since statistically incumbents win re-election a large amount of the time.

There are probably others in similar position that have also voted in favor. I haven’t checked.

No suggestion here that person doesn’t deserve re-election, if we get there - I’d be inclined to vote for that person as of today - and choosing to recuse or not is their own business.

The point here is that once a large group of people is making that much $APE they can individually or collectively swing whatever vote they want.

Even as the vote stands now that may be exactly what’s happening, as without just that one Steward-voter the proposal would pass today with only 8% of the total vote: 8% In Favor vs. 5% Against.

Not a good look, to say the least.

Hello @secengjeff,

Why do you consider a qualified majority of 2/3 necessary for proposals involving significant cost or changes to the structure or voting rules of the DAO? This question aims to better understand the man’s thinking behind this proposal. By asking for explanations on the need for this qualified majority, you can better evaluate the pros and cons of this measure, as well as its potential impact on the DAO’s future decisions.
And how will you determine which projects require additional fees to be proposed? This question aims to clarify the decision-making process regarding the setting of additional fees for proposals requiring significant costs. By asking for details on how these fees will be determined, you can better understand how the man plans to implement this measure and how it could affect the future participation of DAO members.


This is off the topic of super majorities, but I also voted for the Abstain option, and I like having the option to participate in voting without affecting the outcome of the vote, as well as seeing the data on others who Abstain but participate. I don’t consider those votes as counting towards or against a vote. It’s just additional data in my mind. If people didn’t have the Abstain option, they would just not vote like before (that’s what I did), and there’d just be lower voter turnout.

What I do think is a problem is if people are thinking about Abstain as similar to an Against vote. That would defeat the purpose of it and then maybe it’s usefulness should be revisited.


Why is it important to vote if you don’t have an opinion about the proposal?

My intent is to make it very difficult to pass any AIP that has a large cost associated. For those particular cases it should be the clear intent of the community and not just a simple majority that the treasury funds be spent in this way. This is especially crucial where the writer of the proposal is direct or indirect recipient of the treasury funds.

To put it more bluntly, there is a risk of the DAO’s treasury being treated as a slush fund for pet projects that do not have a proportionate ROI.

1 Like

My thoughts on 2/3: 2/3 "Supermajority" Requirement to Alter Fundamental Tenets of ApeCoin DAO - #15 by Sasha

I disagree with a fee as it’s an easy requirement to meet (esp for companies who already raised a seed, like ApeWater from your example). Any suggestion that separates applicants by economic class instead of quality of idea/proposal I would be against.

I do agree that better governance process and DAO segregation should be implemented. See here: Ape16z - an Angel/Seed Fund managed by professional VCs - #25 by Sasha. In my evaluations, I treat treasury money like my own (well, better even, ha), and I think being careful (but not unreasonably harsh) is important.

Right now we’re trying to push everything through a process that’s really only optimal for small-to-medium grants. We need some due diligence team that can work with authors offline to interview/gather info and then report back, maybe, if proposal is over $X amount?

Agree on this for large projects. I would say however that “ROI” is subjective and isn’t just money. Art has ROI. Events. Shows. Other entertainment. Hackathons. None may result in any $ape sink, but must remain one of categories DAO invests is (just question is how much). The DAO is not a venture fund and has no imperative to only prioritize monetary returns. I’d argue it’s very far from that. Not sure if you meant it that way, but I’ve seen a few people talk about it that way.


welcome to the forums, @Barbapapa !

For me, it’s a way to show participation without affecting the outcome. I read all of the proposals. Some of the reasons I vote Abstain are because I don’t feel strongly either way, think it’s not a bad idea, but just not the right time for it, or disagree with some details, but not the basic concept. As a WG0 Steward, I started voting Abstain to stay neutral.

Voting participation is also something that affects a person’s Karma score, the tool the DAO approved through AIP-132: Karma - Reputation system for ApeCoin governance contributors.


It’s a terrible idea to reward people in any way for disinterested / uninformed voting.

That’s not participation, it’s noise. It’s also turns it all into a grab-bag shill fest MLM / pyramid type of thing, as does other similar initiatives, plus gives regulators easy ammo.

The Foundation has zero true oversight and no auditing. So too the slew of Working group proposals. It’s arguably the textbook definition of a slush fund.

Just want to clarify, no one’s being rewarded for voting right now. There was a proposal that passed, AIP-106: POAP Voting Rewards, but it hasn’t been implemented and was passed before the Abstain option, so I’m not sure how it will work with that. I’m of the opinion that there are no rewards for Abstaining.

I think it’s a big assumption that Abstain voters are disinterested/uninformed. While that may make up a portion of them, there are many other reasons people Abstain.

I also believe there’s probably plenty of uniformed votes that vote for or against a proposal as well. Undereducated voters is not a problem exclusive to the Abstain button imo.

Regarding your other comment, sent you a message to discuss further.


It would be interesting to include a link on the snapshot page to a poll, which asks “If you voted abstain, please indicate why:”

  • Disinterested in this proposal, it could pass or not, I don’t care
  • Uninformed, I don’t know know enough about it to form an opinion and not willing to learn at this time
  • Have a conflict of interest, I should not be voting for/against
  • Other ______

The abstainers probably won’t fill out the form though. But I’d still like to see some data.


I’m huge on data myself. However, I highly doubt anyone will out themselves as being uninformed or disinterested, so the results will likely be skewed anyway.

I’ve been giving voting a lot of thought lately, even going so far as to reach out to specific voters in DMs and ask why they chose to Abstain. In the end, I’ve come to the conclusion that voters should be able to freely choose what they choose, and not be obligated to explain themselves or their decisions. There’s already an optional comment box for those who choose to use it. Let’s not add additional layers to the process for the sake of extracting potentially misleading data.


I also believe they are free to choose whatever they want to vote for. I’m not saying they should feel obligated to fill out the poll either. Where I work we constantly poll our user base, and they are happy to tell us things through the polls they often do not through our feedback form which is readily available. The anonymous polls can help somewhat where the comment box on snapshot is tied to their account.

I’m just looking for more data, and this is one way to get it. It isn’t perfect.


Hi AA. I agree. I meant disinterested / uninformed voting in all categories.

When a vote, especially a crucial one, has more Abstain than In Favor and still passes, that looks terrible. If enough people show up and vote but not definitively for or against, that’s a fundamentally flawed proposal on some or several levels no matter the reasons for the Abstains.

One SC member, on Discord, openly stated (after the vote) that they’d delegated their $APE to vote on the Working Group Charter to another group, stating that group is neutral. Yet that group is part of the in crowd, has received AIP funds in the past, hopes to in the future, and has current AIPs in progress. While that group could be unbiased, the preceding sentence is the very definition of a biased and compromised vote.

While it seems voting was done within the rules here - however few, if any, there are - and presumably with best intentions, it totally stank given the importance and impact of that particular proposal and who stands to gain most from it.

Re: rewarding, there has been, and almost certainly will be, ideas floated to reward people for all kinds of participation including voting - and that was part of Abstain discussions - and that too is fundamentally flawed ethically, legally and otherwise. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t, and such a thing should be a total non-starter rather than something floated and voted down (or not).

Rewards programs already in place are enough of a slippery slope.

1 Like

most people don’t vote, so requirements for super majority could be challenging, but agreed it is needed on the big ticket items. I think a nominal fee would be a good barrier to entry. It does make me think though about incentives to encourage voting. has that been talked about previously? I assume so.

1 Like

Against FEE
You can choose how your proposal can be voted:

Always was 2 options: Majority wallets or Majority apecoins - first one is the right way in best scenarios I believe.

Cross-posting from the other super-majority thread to share some of the data:

1 Like

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

This Topic has been Withdrawn 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