Working Group Zero Mandated AIP-1 Recommendations

Working Group Zero (WG0) Stewards: @adventurousape @Amplify @badteeth @Halina.eth @Lost @Vulkan @Waabam


AIP-1 helped the DAO get off the ground, but as we have experienced this process for the past year it’s evident there are improvements that can be made to increase the efficiency of the proposal process. The recommendations below aim to do just that. The goal here isn’t to significantly alter AIP-1; we know it works. Instead, the goal is to fine-tune it and make it more efficient.

These are just the Working Group Zero (WG0) Stewards’ recommendations based on our experience with the AIP process. These are not set in stone but rather require much more thought and feedback from the community. The idea here is to allow the Governance Working Group to continue leading this discussion to see if anything should be added/removed/altered.

The WG0 Stewards are not proposing any official changes at this time. These recommendations stem from our Working Group Zero mandate in AIP-196.


Additions From Previously Approved AIPs

  1. Addition of “Author Description” and “Team Description” to the Draft Template from approved AIP-121
  2. Addition of “Abstain” voting choice from approved AIP-200 and clarity on what its purpose is


  1. The Community Discourse Facilitators will be responsible for the Discourse Moderation process. The Cayman Administrators will still facilitate Snapshot, perform KYC and manage grant agreements / disbursements for grant recipients and contractors.

AIP Idea

  1. The AIP Idea Phase would no longer be a mandatory seven day period. Anytime during the AIP Idea Phase, the author may request a Facilitator to have their proposal sent to the Draft phase and begin the rest of the AIP process.
  2. Topics would no longer close when they are between the Idea and Draft phases. This was deemed an unnecessary step that did not add value to the process. The AIP topic on Discourse would only be closed after the AIP has found resolution through the DAO process, either being labeled as: “Withdrawn AIPs”, “Implemented AIPs”, “Accepted AIPs”, or “Rejected AIPs”.

AIP Draft

  1. The AIP Draft Template would no longer require Authors to include a Proposal Category. The Discourse Facilitators will assign AIPs a Proposal Category when they are assigned an AIP number, after the Draft Phase.
  2. The Abstract, Motivation and Rationale sections in the current AIP Draft Template always felt similar with a decent amount of overlap between the three so we are proposing the Motivation section should be removed. The Abstract would include motivation for the proposal and the Rationale would include details on how the proposal aligns with the Vision and Guiding Values of the DAO.
  3. OKR & Reporting Schedule - Proposal authors should include Objectives and Key Results for their proposal, in addition to the schedule and mediums by which this information will be reported to the ApeCoin DAO. This would increase transparency to the community.
  4. If an author has not responded to Facilitators within 14 days (originally 30), the AIP would be recategorized as a “Withdrawn Idea” AIP. This would help clear up the backlog as it develops.


  1. Discourse Facilitators provide AIP DAR packages to the Ape Foundation, which may highlight risks to the Foundation, but they do not “approve or disapprove” DARs. This would be a change to the wording of AIP-1.


  1. AIPs should be posted to Snapshot during the same day/time window each week.
  2. Drafts that have been processed and published on Snapshot during the Weekly AIP Release, cannot be edited, but can be removed.
  3. Discourse Administrators, not Facilitators, are the only ones that would be able to post AIPs to Snapshot because they must ensure that each one has gone through the correct approvals process.

These changes look great! I like the shorter timelines and the removal of the topic closing between stages. I like that the process is going through iteration based on learning the pain points.


All makes sense!

Don’t we already have Author/Team Description? Or do you mean add it to all templates, not just ones that request money?

Also Abstain voting is already in place so not sure I understand 2 either as a new addition.


Yes, those two you referenced here are things we already have via past AIPs. These recommendations for those are just to include them in AIP-1.


Some of these would be really good updates. I’ve also seen some convo about adjusting time or voting windows, or even talk of making the votes not occur weekly. One thing I’d like to see are the proposal streamlined, with maybe a few attachment documents, whether by author or made for release.

What I’ll do is go ahead and withdraw my backlog proposals. They’re kinda worthless now anyways, even for things like the DAR packages, so that everything can be comprehensively updated in a greater Governance Working Group strategy. Digging into topicsupdated AIP templates could be a lot of fun!


Adding @capetaintrippy’s suggestion to this thread for reference.


Fam… Happy to see changes being proposed. A few thoughts:


Would love to see adjustments made to how props are shown on Snapshot. Not displaying full proposals is problematic for many reasons, none greater than forcing redundant and/or repetitive text, graphics or charts that should otherwise be found in separate sections but forced into the Abstract so authors know the reader will see them — if they are even aware how formatting for Snapshot works.

At the very least, it should be made very clear to authors that all voters will see are these “two or three sentences” that summarize their entire AIP.

Taken from the official AIP Draft Template

Last point I’ll make is that even if the reader still only chooses to read the Abstract before voting, it will still remain the first thing they see — but even those voters will find occasional value after coming across content they are forced to see when scrolling through the rest.

PS in my opinion, the entire Help & Resources area needs to be stripped down and recreated with easy to understand, step-by-step pinned threads at the top.



These are great points, AC! I believe the idea behind having just the Abstract and Overall Cost sections is because Snapshot limits how many characters can be displayed so I don’t believe full proposal text would appear. Regardless, it’s something we can look into.

Agree 100% about the Help & Resources section. It’s currently cluttered, disorganized and hard to decipher for both new and old users. Cleaning up and organizing that section (and potentially better utilizing the #start-here section) would be good projects to work on.


Ahhhhhhh… Good to know on the character limit.

CopyCopy. Mebbe we opt for a note on the Draft Template to mention what will and won’t be shown :pray: :pray:



It’s great to see that the community is actively working on improving the AIP process to make it more efficient. I think the addition of “Author Description” and “Team Description” to the Draft Template and the inclusion of “Abstain” voting choice are great additions that would improve the clarity of proposals. I also appreciate the idea of adding Objectives and Key Results for proposals, which would increase transparency to the community.

One suggestion I have is that instead of having Discourse Administrators as the only ones who can post AIPs to Snapshot, it might be worth exploring the possibility of having both Discourse Facilitators and Administrators be able to do so. This could potentially help streamline the process and reduce the workload on Discourse Administrators.

Overall, I think these recommendations are a step in the right direction and I look forward to seeing how they are further refined and implemented.

  • Mr. Hype

cross-posting this in here for reference


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