RFC - Working Group Elections Clarity


I just reviewed the working group elections announcement and noticed a discrepancy.

According to AIP-239 and the Ape Assembly mandate guidelines, the AA is the only entity that should be doing these votes - not the ApeCoin community as a whole. Says so, right here:

The $APE Assembly was formed to facilitate Steward elections for all Working Groups except for Governance. This shrewdness also gathers to discuss and address some of the more conceptual Meta-Governance issues facing our DAO.”

If the announcement is deficient in making this clear, please update the announcement accordingly so that it’s clear that these elections are exclusively via the Ape Assembly.

ATTN: @bigbull @BojangleGuy @AllCityBAYC


Hi Smart Ape!

Currently the Governance Working Group has grown increasingly concerned over the legitimacy of some of the accounts associated with the Ape Assembly and are working feverishly to formally ratify a robust proof-of-personhood that will be required for a reliable, trusted AA membership. And although we are aware that the process up to this point has been less than perfect, I can give you my personal guarantee that moving forward, once we have our soon-to-be-determined system in-place, we will be leaving no chances for any sort of misinterpretations with our messaging, or decision making.

For your transparency, dialogue regarding the situation involves key personnel from our current service provider Karma, and internal conversations using external authentication middleware like GitHub Passport.



@AllCityBAYC Thanks for the insight.

So, to be clear, the elections are going to be done via the AA - as was mandated - once those safeguards are put in place ahead of the Nov elections?

Also, until your post, I wasn’t aware of any such concerns regarding the legitimacy of the AA memberships - especially given the barrier to entry. @bigbull @BojangleGuy were you guys aware of this?

Regardless, I am glad to see that my idea of adopting Gitcoin Passport - first mentioned in my voting reform RFC and subsequently suggested in my voting reform AIP-318 - is being seriously considered for use in this manner. I believe that it’s not only best use case, but also simple to implement within the scope of the DAO’s pre-existing Snapshot voting system.

Outside of ensuring that all governance and day-to-day operations are taken care of for the ApeCoin DAO community, the Governance Working Group’s primary focus is to ensure that the integrity of community’s DAO is upheld and the processes put into place are what’s best for the DAOs constituents at large — regardless of other current and/or planned initiatives.

Keeping this in mind, ratifying a reliable proof-of-personhood for the Ape Assembly alongside adequate participation levels to reasonably determine such critical elements, roles and other relevant responsibilities on behalf of a much broader scope of community is being meticulously combed over and discussed.


I just need a simple yes or no answer to a simple question. So, let me ask it another way:

Are these working group elections going to be handled via AA or not?

Culled from AIP-239. Clearly, the working groups are to be elected via the Ape Assembly. There’s no getting around that.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.