APIP 0: Apwine governance framework proposal

Key words:
Governance structure, Proposal types

I propose to create a governance framework for the Apwine governance, inspired by several other protocols, in order to have qualitative discussions on the governance forum.

Proposal rationale:
This post aims to define a framework for the Apwine governance, by defining several types of proposals depending on the subject discussed,voting on DAO rules, and creating templates that should be helpful for everyone trying to participate.

Posting a proposal on the governance forum and discussing it there and on discord first allow to get a sentiment check and some valuable feedback about the community ideas and upcoming snapshot votes. We could open a channel for each proposal on discord and archive it once voted.

I) Required informations for any proposal:

Governance forum post: Each proposal should be posted on the governance forum for at least 48 hours before posting the snapshot, which allows the community to give some feedback, propose changes, and vote on a community sentiment poll.

Proposal type, number and name: Each proposal must be easily identifiable and correctly classified.

  • Type: APIR - APGP - APIP. This will be detailed in the second part of the proposal
  • Name: The name must be the same on the forum post and snapshot (Max 10 words)
  • Number: Each proposal must have a number that represents the post order on the forum and on snapshot

Summary: Short description of the proposal (1-2 sentences max)

Rationale: Detailed explanation of the proposal and milestones for its execution.

Means: Resources needed for this proposal

  • Human resources: Special skills required (dev or others)

  • Treasury ressources: Proposal cost (in APW and in $), % of the treasury required

Technical implementation: Highlight the technical implementations of this proposal if any

Voting options: Mention the options that will be included on the snapshot vote, including an “Abstain” one.

II) Proposals types and formats:

Inspired by the Paladin framework with different sections, we could define different types of proposals, depending on the subject discussed and the importance for the protocol.
Each type could have different quorums needed, however this requires on-chain voting, which is not live on Apwine yet (there is some parameters propositions, however we might not need it for Snapshot votes).
We could still discuss and vote on different quorums for each type, so even if Snapshot only allowed us to define one quorum, it could show proposals that passed even if they didn’t according to what was previously voted. Another solution would be to remind at the end of every vote “The quorum for this proposal is x” if we really want different quorums using snapshot.

APWine Integration Request (APIR):
Proposal to add a new protocol to Apwine and, and one or several pools in the winelisting voting options. There is a template available on the forum to help projects to easily apply by creating a governance post (and filling a form about the technical requirements): Winelisting template - APwine Integration Request (APIR) - #2

This type of proposal should include, in addition to all the points mentioned in the first part: :

Project Presentation: (After summary)

  • Protocol name
  • Interest Bearing Token (IBT) requested
  • IBT contract address
  • Audit(s) links
  • Supported chain(s): Ethereum / Polygon / Both
  • Twitter/Discord/Telegram links

Project metrics: (After project presentation)

  • Current protocol TVL
  • Current IBT(s) TVL
  • IBT(s) daily volume
  • Community size on Twitter/Discord/Telegram
  • Estimated extra yield for veAPW holders or Winemakers thanks to this proposal if any

Community sentiment poll: (After voting options)

  • A poll on the governance forum post to get a first sentiment at least 48hours before submitting a snapshot proposal

Considering that the integrations proposals can happen quite often, and that the risk for the protocol is lower than other proposal types, we could consider the following parameters:

  • Admin: Team multisig
  • Quorum: 1.5% of the total supply (750K APW).
  • Vote differential: (if available on snapshot): 0.5%
  • Voting duration: 3 days

Apwine Governance Proposal (APGP):
APGPs are about common governance proposals, especially the ones related to the treasury of the protocole and the DAO organization. I’ll publish a template on the forum in the coming days.

This type of proposal should include, in addition to all the points mentioned in the first part:

Context: (After summary)
Comprehensive overview of the proposal,treasury breakdown if needed.

The APGPs would concern but wouldn’t be limited to:

  • Treasury allocation strategy & budgets
  • Liquidity mining votes & winelistings
  • Protocol fees activation
  • Grant program if any
  • Contributors/Dao committees rewards
  • Long term partnerships (i.e Dao Swaps)

APGPs concern the protocol treasury directly, which is why it might be best to define more conservative parameters than APIR ones:

  • Admin: Team multisig
  • Quorum: 3.5% of the total supply (1.75M APW)
  • Vote differential (if available on snapshot): 1%
  • Voting duration: 6 days

APWine Improvement Protocol (APIP):

APIPs are about the most important modifications either on the the governance framework, or on the protocole direcly.

This type of proposal should include, in addition to all the points mentioned in the first part:

Context: What’s the modification and why it’s needed.

The APIPs would concern but wouldn’t be limited to:

  • New version of the protocol
  • Modification of a smart contract
  • Updates on the initial parameters
  • Modification of the governance framework
  • Add/Remove a signer on the treasury multisig

APIPs are the most critical and important types of proposals, as it’s directly about the core product of Apwine or a major change in the functioning of governance.
It’s very important to get as much community members aware of this kind of proposal for them to vote accordingly, which is why we should consider more conservative parameters, and a longer voting period:

Admin: Team multisig
Quorum: 10% of the total supply (5M APW)
Vote differential: (if available on snapshot): 5%
Voting duration: 10 days

Voting Options:

  • Accept the governance framework
  • Rework the proposal
  • Abstain
Submit a snapshot vote about this governance framework ?
  • Yes
  • No, rework proposal
  • Abstain

0 voters


Great work and good structure, I’m for :slight_smile:

1 Like

Nice governance framework, great job!
Just about the quorums, I don’t know if it’s better to use a % of the circulating supply against the total. Because (according to coingecko data) there are 7,500,000 $APW in circulation, so for example for an APIP, 5M of 7.5M would be 2/3 of the circulating supply, it’s not too much? (I don’t know I just wonder ahah).


Thanks for the feedback !

Yes it’s true that 5M might be too much for the current circulating supply, however it will only increase and APIPs would not be the most common proposal and would require a lot of attention in my opinion

Curious to have other thoughts on this point :slight_smile:


If we compare this DAO to new DAOs, on Paraswap for example there are about 10M $PSP usualy used for voting, so it’s represent 5% of the circulating supply and only 0.5% of the total supply. So I don’t know…
It would be nice to test vote on some proposals to see if we succeed to reach the quorum and then revote this quorum % later.
But yes I’m also curious to get other opinions ;))


You right, i should’ve taken into account the circulating supply to define it instead of the total supply.

Another important point i forgot to add is the multiplier on the voting power when locking your APW in veAPW:

  • 1 APW locked 2 years gives 104 votes (veAPW) as 1 vote = 1 APW locked for one week
  • 1APW on Tokemak gives 1 vote and 1 APW in Sushi LP gives 1 vote too

Considering that the circulating supply and the total amount of possible votes are changing very often, the best option is probably to have dynamics quorums following the votes amount.

Inspired by Aave parameters, we could consider:

  • APIR: 2% of the total possible votes
  • APGP: 10% of the total possible votes
  • APIP: 20% of the total possible votes

To give an overview, the first winelisting had a 83% participation rate with 35.1M votes / 42.4M, so these quorums should easily be reached, however as the governance grows, the participation rate may be lower in the future.


Oh yes you right, I totally forgot the ve lock mechanism so yes, based the quorum on “votes supply” instead of token supply is certainly the best option!
And I agree with these % (but maybe the participation rate won’t decrease as much in the future thanks to protocols like convex, voltium etc… :eyes:)


I just realized I added the protocol fees activation in APGP because it’s about the treasury, however, it’s a wrong example as this concerns a contract modification, so it would be an APIP subject.*


I agree the quorum must be a % of the voting supply $APW at the spnashot for a period of time. We can decide to reajust the % for the quorum every 2,3 months.

For me, APIR quorum might be a bit low. 2.5% would be better.

@Dydymoon, When the frameword proposal will be accepted, do you plan to make a a standard document that explains to apw holder or dao who want to colaborate how to create a proposal?


Thanks for your feedback!

Sure, there is currently a template for APIRs, but yes once voted we’ll explain all proposal types on the docs.


great project, i like everything about it, oh yea and the circulating supply may be a little bit high. to the moon

1 Like

Great proposal !
I’m agree with your proposition of framework.

It will be nice to structure DAO !


Snapshot vote link: Snapshot