APWine

Key words: Framework, governance structure, proposal types

Summary: 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.

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.

As a reminder, here is an overview of the $APW voting power weight, depending the form:

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

APWine Integration Request (APIR):

Proposal to add a new protocol to Apwine, 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)

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 48 hours 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: 2.5% of the total possible votes 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
• 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: 10% of the total possible votes 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
• Protocol fees activation

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: 20% of the total possible votes Voting duration: 10 days

Voting Options:

• Accept the governance framework
• Refuse and rework the proposal
• Abstain