AIP-361 is a general temperature-check proposal designed to gauge community sentiment regarding reducing/eliminating $APE staking emissions as a whole.
This proposal, however, seeks to determine if the community would be open to reallocating 10m ApeCoin from the $APE-only staking pool into the BAYC, MAYC and BAKC pools, making it a more pointed and action-oriented proposal.
AIP-361 would serve as purely a survey, with a follow-up AIP to come later.
And of course, the actual Draft stage of this proposal could very well take on an entirely different form once all community feedback is received. But it is important to note that these discussions are being had in various topics here on the forum, so thank you for raising this.
Great saying The Ape-only pool is the heart of ApeCoin, and I fully support the proposal to slash the NFT staking pools. This will not only enhance the demand for ApeCoin but also make it more attractive. The current statistics clearly show the dominance and importance of the Ape-only pool over the NFT pools
Thanks for sharing this idea @Gerry ! Learning a lot from our lively discussion
For those who may be lacking some context on ApeCoin staking, I’m going to share a chart as well as some quotes & links to refer to (source: AIP-22):
In this chart, I believe the “Period 2” mentioned in this Proposal Idea refers to the rows in “Year 2” on the chart.
Period 2 running from December 12th of 2023 through December 11th 2024
The 66% or 10 Million ApeCoin mentioned refers to the portion of the Year 2 pool that is dedicated to ApeCoin only, as opposed to BAYC/MAYC/BAKC. Per AIP-22:
Staking Pool Allocations:
Initial Staking Period:
* ApeCoin Staking Pool: 30,000,000 ApeCoin Tokens
* BAYC Staking Pool: 47,105,000 ApeCoin Tokens
* MAYC Staking Pool: 19,060,000 ApeCoin Tokens
* BAKC Staking Pool: 3,835,000 ApeCoin Tokens
Note: The combined Staking Pool Allocations for the Initial Staking Period adds up to 100,000,000 ApeCoin tokens, or 10% of total ApeCoin Supply.
The Staking Pool Allocations for Staking Periods following the Initial Staking Period will be determined by the market prices of the BAYC, MAYC, and BAKC NFTs. An average price during Q4 of the previous Staking Period will determine the ratio allocated to each of the Staking Pool types. The ApeCoin Staking Pool will remain constant at 30%.
Note: The BAKC Staking pool can only be utilized if a BAKC NFT is being paired 1:1 with a BAYC or MAYC NFT.
Would love for anyone to pitch in with any other context that may be missing! Thanks all!
I concur that the $APE-only pool is currently not contributing significant value to the APE ecosystem. Redirecting this supply to the BAYC, MAYC, and BAKC pools appears to be a more viable solution, prompting my vote for option A. However, it’s crucial to recognize that this serves as a short-term fix rather than a sustainable long-term value proposition.
Shifting gears to a broader discussion, I am of the opinion that, in the long run, it would be more beneficial to allocate $APE inflation through ApeChain. I’ve outlined a brief summary detailing how we could enhance the value for $APE and BAYC/MAYC/BAKC holders by allowing them to stake and actively participate in securing the network, as opposed to merely distributing $APE through LM incentives here: #ApeChain with bayc/mayc/bakc & $ape validators
Let’s make $ape great again. We can do this. #Apestogetherstrong
In favour of a lock-up requirement (with incentives) for staking. Without a mechanism to lock tokens, temporarily restricting supply, staking is fundamentally broken and all it does is create sell pressure.
I agree that the current system does nothing of value. But what additional value does a lock-up provide to the ecosystem beyond artificially reducing the supply? These sorts of systems in crypto usually go to 0 over time, as at their core, they’re not sustainable. They’re not actually contributing anything positive to the ecosystem.
I think we should end all staking until there’s a point-in-time where the act of “staking” actually provides value. E.g. the equivalent to running an ETH validator or a BTC mining rig. These have proven to be successful, and they actually provide value to the core ecosystem outside of an attempt to make number go up.
to be clear, i’m not a big fan of staking. Was just saying that without some kind of mechanism for balancing the constant sell pressure that staking naturally produces we will always struggle to lift the value of apecoin. I think it might be interesting to have other non-Yuga collections commit to being staking partners essentially creating one pool with a list of qualifying NFTs (not just apes) who earn yield based on some calculations that I haven’t really thought through.
Maybe said collections acquire a stake in Apecoin and lock that… maybe the yield on their collection increases based on the size of position locked… i’m spit balling but there are probably some inventive ways of making it interesting.
Certainly! I think I’m just tired of crypto’s many attempts to make number go up while not actually considering how to build long-term sustainable ecosystems. I’d agree that lockup periods would probably be better than the current money drip system. I just don’t think at their core, either system does anything good for $APE. We see Yuga asset holders arguing for more benefit to them. People with only $APE arguing for more benefit for them. Not surprising as we’re going to look out for our own best interests, just tiresome.
maybe there is cause for a complete re-write of the staking program and have it ‘pay out’ reward points instead of tokens. You can accrue reward points based on your inventory (ape only, ape+$ape, $ape only etc) and those reward points translate into prizes / experiences funded via a reward pool / grant
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.
@Gerry 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.