WG Alternative: Empower Special Council To Fill Key Essential Service Positions

Sword, the entire purpose of the handbook (housed in the Help and Resources section on Discourse) is purely educational. It’s to help people understand our existing org chart and how the entire DAO works together in tandem with the Foundation. There is often a lot of confusion, rightfully so, around how our DAO functions specifically because there is no educational content being produced by anyone because no one is being paid to produce these documents.

1 Like

I’ve recently produced a fast guide to how communities can setup delegate wallets. It’s available in the help and resource section. I see the value in these things. Again, I’m generally concerned about government overreach and the idea of governors. I prefer conservative approaches. I think this idea blended w/ the community forum moderators proposal would adequately cover short terms needs without creating larger structures like the ape assembly and gov working group.

I just don’t…feel comfortable with it all. And talk of ape assembly having the ability to spin up things like ethics committees & whatever else…I personally don’t vibe with that. Everytime I ask for alternative to the gov working group method, this proposal here is what I get, and vice versa. I prefer a conservative approach.I just want to put up some sample aip templates, make them easy to fill out. It’s amazing what my AI assistant can do now too. The suggestions for greater working groups, to me is…uncertainty…It’ll be like learning a new process I feel.

If special council, or the stewards, are at least willing to look at this direction, and consider how it could be implemented with the smaller Community Forum Moderstors proposal(expand that to discord and the website obviously) that would be my ideal scenario. Again, this proposal suggestion in this thread cannot move forward to even be reviewed by legal unless the WG0 initiative is delayed or rejected by token holders. So I’d rather see some conservative approaches adopted there.


Be careful what you wish for Sword. Bringing on hiring committees and independent contractors to compete with qualified - grass roots - members of the DAO isn’t what all of this was set up for. This entire treasury was made possible because of successes that building outstanding community awarded.

Don’t get me wrong, knowing when to hire out will be critical for the DAO moving forward, and I am often the loudest in the room saying we need to bring on more professional service providers. But those selections should be made by us, the people who are actually a part of this—like you.

I’m also concerned that the gatekeeping word keeps getting thrown around. I don’t see it like this, whatsoever. That being said, do I think that the best person on paper always wins—or should? No, because different people have different levels of fight in them, or other skillsets that may make them more effective at the job and/or getting the job. The same goes for the physical world and there will never be a perfect solution. But given the current state we are in, I do not agree that we should be removing and/or making our current team compete with anyone else until at the very least, our operations goals have been met.

That being said, I do expect anyone in a position to effect hiring makes the best possible selections they can without prejudice, favourtism or reckless judgement.



The WG suggestions for elections is much like a hiring committee that reviews and votes on candidates for positions. Stewards then hire leaders to manage additional working groups. Ideas submitted to the DAO might be turned into proposals or funded directly, and this may change over time.

For example, imagine someone brings a small business proposal, like a magazine, to the DAO. If they share their idea with the working groups, there’s a chance these groups might adopt the idea themselves. This could leave the original entrepreneur, who may have already started the magazine, in a tough spot.

In such a case, the entrepreneur might be turned away. If they try to seek funding on their own, they could face questions about why the working groups didn’t handle the project. The outcome could be that the working groups decide to create their own ApeCoin-branded magazine in-house instead.

I have worked alongside the people creating the alternative for a long time. Even you all city, we spent a dozen hours in discord as you went over proposals. I think them, and you, and about 25 others, are the best people to fill many of these essential services. I think current stewards will sweep Ape Assembly elections.

Instead of doing that, I would like to present the above proposal as an alternative. I believe it will be legally compliant. And if integrated into the smaller Community Discourse Moderators proposal put forward by the WG stewards, it would then empower special council with 25k monthly apecoin to power many of us.

And truly, I’m fine w/ sending a one page simple proposal, without all the details written. I trust them to work w/ legal and run a tight ship. SC elections happen every 6 months, and some of them are very community facing. It’s not hard to talk w/ SC. This is compatible with another AIP for regular foundation reporting.

Maybe I’ve misinterprated some of this. Are you proposing a third party hiring committee or creating one from within?

For example, imagine someone brings a small business proposal, like a magazine, to the DAO. If they share their idea with the working groups, there’s a chance these groups might adopt the idea themselves. This could leave the original entrepreneur, who may have already started the magazine, in a tough spot.

^^ This is actually a concern I raised myself… And even though I don’t believe that it would be a problem with the current group, it’s definitely something that should have some sort of policy in place to protect authors.

I dont want to issued a handbook by anyone.

This feels like madness fam. Operational and/or governance structures are like bylaws. These need to be rigid and leave no room for misinterpretation with readily available written frameworks for participants to read, and understand. Think of it like an FAQ but more granular.



I think it would be better for a Special Council to manage this issue with a simple one-page proposal. We already have accountability measures in place, such as regular town halls and elections every six months, and even budget reporting through an addtl aip.

I’m not happy with how authors have been treated recently, as they’re mostly introduced to the concept of “working groups.” They’re encouraged to share their ideas in detail but receive little support in writing proposals. Providing templates could be helpful.

At this point, I’m considering creating five high-quality articles like this one (Ape Community Guide to Creating a Multi-Sig Wallet for ApeCoin Delegation and DAO Discussion) and asking, “Why do we need working groups?”

There are questions of who handles legal ownership of things like the discord. In trying to solve for that, its expanded greatly. I dont like the results and suggested path put forward by the WG stewards, and request that a conservative approach be considered by stewards and SC.

1 Like

When looking over a pool of applicants, it’s appropriate to call it an “election” when it is large enough, and equally appropriate to call it a “hiring committee” when it is small enough. They are fundamentally the same thing. An election with 2 candidates with an electorate of 5 people is still the same concept as running an election with 20 candidates and an electorate of 100k people. It’s still an election/vote/hiring decision being made by more than 1 person.

This is not true, or present anywhere in the proposal. Stewards do not hire “leaders” or other stewards of other working groups.

I don’t know if this is a problem?

I agree with you this is a possibility, no matter how small. I don’t know how anyone can possibly solve for intellectual property theft at this scale. Besides, if a Steward(s) of a Working Group(s) ever allowed this to happen, don’t you think we would throw up a Process Proposal to Remove and Replace the Steward or at the very least, not reelect them in 6 months?

This is the misunderstanding, I think. “Empower the SC” = Empower the APE Foundation. Do we really think the Foundation is lacking for power or oversight and needs more of it? The Special Council already has a discretionary budget they can use to pay for service providers if they have to, the whole point is they don’t have to because we’re proposing an alternative in the form of Working Groups.

Again, the whole point of all of this is to further decentralize and operationalize the DAO away from the Foundation and into the hands of the community.


1 Like

Sword, there are templates available. And although I completely agree that there needs to be far more guidance in place for Discourse, we are issuing the equivielent of money to people to essentially operate businesses producing products and/or services. At some point candidates need to stand on their own feet with this stuff. I would also suggest that being able to complete these requirements can be viewed as somewhat of a stress test.

All of that being said, I have talked about potentially opening discussions with Stewards about the possibility of creating a mentorship program for anyone writing their first AIP to be paired with others who have… Might help.


1 Like

Hi @AllCityBAYC, providing templates isn’t always easy. I recall sending you several proposal examples to help you with your own. I’ve been doing this for many people in the community for quite some time and continue to do so. As one of the few writers in the Help & Resources section and having high user stats, I feel like I shouldn’t need to mention this here.

@Amplify Ser, I appreciate your idea and thread, and I understand it’s now heading to a snapshot vote. I’d like to propose a streamlined approach in this discussion. I won’t go into the details of the ever-changing other thread, but I’ve reviewed it and identified issues with the proposed structure.

I have extensive experience and an AI assistant that has found many flaws in the other suggested structure. I’d like to see this alternative approach evaluated.

The community has delved deep into the foundation and its mechanics. I’m suggesting a simple, legally compliant solution: a one-page proposal granting the Special Council more authority. This would prevent working group overreach and promote a thriving proposal culture. Token holders might enjoy reviewing grant requests, making the process more enjoyable without working groups.

I’m a believer in digital governance and rights, and I’m not a fan of the current proposal. I think my suggestion deserves consideration, legal review, and due process. Even if accepted as a simple one-page proposal, the Special Council and foundation can still make changes as needed.

The current Steward election model hasn’t been well-received, and many candidates haven’t engaged much since. I don’t think people enjoyed the WG0 Steward election or would enjoy the Ape Assembly elections, which could be dominated by existing stewards. Let’s consider an alternative approach from the beginning.

1 Like

In all fairness, the Help and Resources section in here is a mess. And probably creates more confusion than it does help :sweat_smile:

Needs work for sure. Anyways, I’m out for a while. Happy to pick this up via DM or jump on that call we keep talking about.

Peace brotha,



Thank you @AllCityBAYC The WG0 discord could use an overhaul too. Different discussions but quick fixes.I’m around to hop onto discord calls or w/e quite often. You know I’m around. Its easy to hop into VC

1 Like

No one EVER has said “I was elected to play in the NFL” or “I was elected to be this family’s lawyer”, etc.

It is semantically correct perhaps, but untrue that it’s “appropriate” to use the term that way in any real-life idiomatic sense.

Further, knowledgeable people with relevant experience appointing or hiring someone into a role is the exact opposite of what any responsible person calls an “election” in which people with no real interest or knowledge - or in our case whales - can negate or overwhelm the votes of those with relevant knowledge or experience.

An extra issue and unique issue in our voting system is that before long those in power (not “the community”) will accumulate so much $APE that they can control any vote they collectively want. Long before the proposed 2-year term limit is up.

That’s not being addressed. Proper oversight would raise big red flags on that point alone.

I’ve nothing against whales running the vote as the system stands now. If the proposed politicized system is put in place though, then it’ll be whales in government too.

1 Like

You’re right in that “appropriate” may not have been the correct term here, but we agree this is semantics.

At the proposed compensation and an ApeCoin price of $4.2, Stewards will be compensated on average 2142 APE per month for 1 year. Assuming they are reelected once, serve up to their limit, and have no IRL obligations in which they are required to sell APE to meet, they will have (in theory) “accumulated” ~51,408 APE. If we compare this to recent Snapshot voting, this is far below what can be considered “a whale.” This scenario is highly unlikely, as most people applying to perform this work full-time will likely have IRL obligations they must meet.

I have attempted over and over to illustrate the many layers of constant compromise, oversight, accountability, reflection periods, integrity and turn over that have been presented in the Working Group Guidelines proposal. I’m sorry if we cannot manage to find any alignment on solutions for your concerns, although the beauty of our DAO is that anyone is welcome to propose an AIP. I would implore you to explore writing a proposal to address these more systemic DAO-wide issues we’ve been discussing, just as I hope the Ape Assembly would do if ratified.


1 Like

The fifth and final component of the WG0 Mandate, as ratified in AIP-196 was:

WG0 will propose future Official ApeCoin DAO Working Group guidelines and objectives via AIP that will also delegate all WG0 responsibilities to said working groups by the end of the 3-month term and dissolve.

The ApeCoin DAO has voted for WG0 to do this work, and the Working Group Guidelines proposal is the result of this work.

The Working Group proposal has been incredibly well researched, iterated on extensively with the community in the most transparent AIP proposal process to date, takes into account the input of the Special Council, Ape Foundation, some of the best attorneys in the DAO space, along with many DAO professionals. It further decentralizes the operations of the DAO, empowers our community, and by doing so strengthens our ecosystem.

Your proposal does none of these things. It advocates for complete centralization of all DAO operations under the Ape Foundation – to a group of people who aren’t employees of the Ape Foundation. It is both practically and legally impossible.

Hello @badteeth.

I’ve attended many twitter spaces & WG workshops that were hosted by you during both the steward elections & prior. Including your special council run. We’ve met twice in person as well. We’ve come to different conclusions, after both having looked at the WG suggestions, working with AI & team members, and gathering feedback from the community. Important to me, is that in this thread, this idea is judged on it’s merits. Shouldthisforward to token holders, they will look at these comments to make a decision.

I have been inspired by recent posts by PPman on twitter. I think they are funny. He made a drawing!
I’ve just finished doing my own drawing. I’ve come to a different conclusion than you, and I’d like it evaluated fairly in this thread. I do not think that the proposed Gov working groups & additional roadmaps are what the community will enjoy. I also think that the Ape Assembly will have a lot of unwritten power. Those conversations have been core to the whole setup of the WG model, its all based around the stewards.

I now include the picture I’ve drawn. This is based on a lot of same data & convos you’ve had.
And I request that my idea & vision, after meeting many, be able to go through the process of evaluation.

Thank you. Happy to discuss why the foundation should keep a low footprint both here & elsewhere.

1 Like

Hi Sword,

I appreciate you putting forth an alternative proposal. While it would definitely be easier and more efficient to do things this way, I do have some questions and concerns.

My concerns with it are similar to those I had when Cartan wanted to expand and take over communications. It centralizes the DAO further and puts more power into the hands of the Foundation which goes against the DAO’s goals of further decentralization.

According to the website, The Foundation is not an overseer and is designed to become more decentralized over time.

Have you spoken to any members of the Special Council to see if this plan is even viable and they are able to take on these additional responsibilities? The Stewards changed the process in our Community Discourse Facilitators proposal to a vote instead of having the Special Council engage them after feedback from them.

Also, you keep saying that you believe this proposal is legally compliant, on what basis do you make those assumptions? Have you spoken to a lawyer about this?

Thank you for this proposal, I look forward to your reply.

1 Like

The current proposal is for $9000 / mo each with a 2-year term limit (for now), according to what you’d detailed. Then there’s forum moderating, Thank Ape (while posting / participating as already paid to do), Spaces, newsletters … some persons are already (or will be, as proposed) enjoying multiple (all?) of these streams. Multiplied by staking. All with no real oversight or even a one-stop accounting of who/what/when or for how long. Not begrudging here, just observing.

I’d clearly stated “control any vote they collectively want” (emphasis added), while you responded with an individual example that doesn’t reflect current reality or proposals.

Truth is that it adds up, especially if voting as a block to keep themselves entrenched or usher in other initiatives that effectively do so, with added very high incentive of otherwise having to go out looking for an IRL job when the terms are done. (I’m making a big presumption that to add $9000+++ / mo value one would be working full time for the DAO, but with no real oversight proposed who knows?)

Yet with zero neutral 3rd-party oversight. Curious - what type of law do those lawyers specialize in?

In any case, just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right or transparent. Self-reporting, without neutral external oversight / audit, is NOT transparency.

AA, re: “community-led governance designed to become more decentralized over time”.

  1. There is no such design. Maybe they meant “intended”. A bit semantic, but also matters, because…

  2. Wouldn’t we first need to determine what the DAO’s purpose and focus, and limits if any, is?

In the past week or so I’ve had two Stewards tell me very different options/understandings/visions of what the DAO is even fundamentally about.

A “grants DAO” is very different - I think - than an “Anything We Want It To Be DAO”.

So how is it we’re proposing adding various highly-paid layers of governance even though the fundamental purpose and scope isn’t widely known or agreed upon?

1 Like

The current proposal is for forum moderating, not in addition to.

First, “posting and participating” is both not “Discourse moderation or facilitation,” nor is it a contribution type on thankape.com. Second, our DAO has no control over grant recipients and what they do with their projects / initiatives after they receive funding.

I don’t see how someone’s personal assets, and the yield on those assets, are relevant to the discussion of compensating individuals for work performed.

The DAO secretary will attend these meetings and relay this progress. I apologize we are not providing the level of scrutiny you desire. Should Stewards clock in and clock out every day or just continue to do an excellent job day in and day out like they have in the past? If the work is being completed to satisfaction, does it make any difference how long it takes?

:pray: Instead of going back and forth on this, I again would implore you to please write an AIP to engage a third party auditor to audit not only the Working Groups, but the entirety of our DAO because you seem to think it’s a systemic issue.

Thank you for your consistent feedback on the issues we all struggle with as a community.


1 Like