GRAPE Membership Revision


It is clear that membership restructuring is needed as GRAPE has progressed and our current model has served its purpose. The hope here is to open a formal dialogue in changing our current model to attract users that will help the community grow and reduce complexity

Below are example scenarios to build from or take:

Scenario 1:

Keep everything as it is.

Scenario 2:

Drop down to 2 memberships. (Ape and Great Ape)
Remove Class C,
Keep the numbers in the same form as they are now.

Scenario 3:

Drop Grape membership to one class.
Combination between A and B?

With secondary membership that have been introduced heavily favors Grape-backed tokens that would grant access to a specific area within the Discord.
(Events Token, Researchers Token, Content, etc…)

Scenario Sperm whale:

Gorilla class: 200k Grape
Secret Role: 1m Grape

For me this change is necessary, the overall purpose would be to simplify our structure to a non-GRAPER or at the very least make it more distinguishable than our current C,B,A.
It would be hard to measure the impact, but if this minimizes an obstacle from entering GRAPE then it has to be done.
I believe this simple change or adjustment will benefit the structure and procedural aspect of GRAPE as well as

Everything here is subject to change. There has been other suggestions here in discourse and on Discord and it is clear that a change is needed, I have merely laid out a couple of paths we can take and hope to consolidate all those ideas centered on “membership” here.

(Note: Scenario 1 is clearly not a serious one)


scenario 2 looks like something I’ll pick


Thanks for this Dynite! I just would like to shed some light on the implications of scenario 2 and 3: I do understand why it would make sense to remove class C. Just to give some perspective on the numbers, gibbons are by far the least “sticky” members throughout all epochs. Obviously that makes sense since their skin in the game is minimal compared to great apes and gorillas.

currently we have:

Gorillas: 444
Great Apes: 496
Gibbons: 1006

On the other hand, as you can see above, they are also more than both great apes and gorillas combined. So I just want to highlight that scenario 2 implies removing membership benefits from 50+ % of our more active discord community. I am sure that some of the 1K members will increase their holdings to maintain a Grape membership but let’s keep this in mind.

Personal Opinion: I am closer to a combination of scenario 3 and scenario sperm whale:

One class, with à la carte extra benefits. Could see the DAO Access (as a step to apply) being an extra category there btw.

Anyone above 200K being able to push an on-chain vote is a benefit by itself so I could see this as a different role that would be a class people would strive towards in order to get a greater influence over governance.


I like Scenario 2 with a sprinkling of 3.

I’d echo Dim’s sentiment that the Gibbons are our largest membership group and its implied removal, not sure if that was the specific intent, wouldn’t be a good idea.

To me what i see as the biggest draw in becoming a Great Ape is the ability to gain a Skill Role, while the biggest draw to becoming a Gorilla in my view is participation in the DAO.

So my thought would be keep Gibbons and Gorillas classes, we can rebrand them as something else but here’s my rational:

With the move towards SubDAO tokens and suggestions of these being requirements to gain Skill Roles assocaited with that specific SubDAO, I feel the Great Ape membership class could become somewhat redundant, and the logical train of thought I come to if members aren’t required to hold ~$6K grape for skill roles and instead have to hold a spefic token type, we could move to the 2 tier membership structure. Now with that should Gorilla membership threshold then lower proportionally by 6K and brought down to ~18k $Grape? Would the trigger a sell off from members who only want to hold the minimum? Is that devaluing what it means to be apart of the Grape DAO? Important to consider.

I’m not against higher ‘sperm whale’ tiers, I think these could be some what hidden though, give both less publicised roles. The benifit of 200k (or whatever acceptable amount) of Grape being able to raise on-chain votes seems a great benifit, and for true grape whales with $1 mill grape why not give some other perks.


Thank you for the post!

Imo, we need to shake things up! I propose a combination between 3 & Sperm Whale

Gorilla - 200k, i think it is more inclusive from the flat $ required to be one in October 2021!
Secret Role: 500k $GRAPE (lowering it a little cuz i don’t want to be alone in there :eyes:)
Realms Proposal - Gorillas can create on-chain votes
Simple Server Access for anyone holding even 1 $GRAPE (no more B & C)

I dream of an exclusive voice channel in Grape where we can hang out with the rest of the silverbacks.

I think if we are fewer gorillas we can have a more exclusive atmosphere where we can arrange more personalized events. It will allow for the rest of the community to set a $GRAPE goal.

Radical proposal and it will be super hard to convince members to lose their roles from a 10x increase :wink: but ill try <3


Look like a good proposal honestly.

Everytime we introduce more roles to the Grape Community it keeps more difficult for the normal crypto users to be knowledgeable about every topic without having the need to access the docs.

For me Scenario 3 looks more interesting to me since it would be an easier entrace for new members and introducing $GRAPE backed tokens for each role for each subDAO would be simplier as well to introduce after a Community member gets his membership role.


I think any change that simplifies would be a good thing. It’s currently over-complicated to explain to outsiders.

Scenario 3 seems appealing, but I agree with RipTide that 1 $GRAPE and 20K as the thresholds would likely cause a lot of selling.


@Dim_Selk @TheRipTyde

Since C class was mentioned. Speaking from an objective view, what value does C bring other than traffic to discord and events. Im curious to know more, honestly.
Overall I like what is being said, but mass selling/ devaluing in the short term for GRAPE probably isn’t a good enough reason to not do soymesomething, especially in the current climate of our ecosystem…we already in the thick of it. If a drastic change were to ever happen to our membership models, why not now?
(edit: maybe there is no c anymore, no more emissions for that class. Anyone can come in be it 10 grape or 100, but our “actual class” would be singular and something much higher as mentioned by other members)


To reiterate what whales mentioned, I lean more towards a model of inclusivity. There should be a higher discrepancy b/w A and B. That alone shows there is not enough value or interest in the membership differences.

My personal view would be a single class, and opening the discord to anyone with grape. maybe even offering a grace period or an allocation to B and C level members who have been participating in realms as well to help them achieve the membership class. In terms of “Grapers” Less is more would be my thinking.

Good question, I find it hard to define objectively, my view of the Class C membership is that its an onramp into the Grape community, I know Dim’s noted its the least sticky class but it would be great if we could quantify members residence time as Class C Gibbons and stat’s on the outflow of class C vs number of members upgrading from C to higher tiers.

From a subjective personal side, I got into Grape through the events as they were the easiest for me to understand and I fully viewed $Grape as a monetary reward, I saw what was then ~$50 buy in as cheap entry point to get in at that I’d not be worried about losing.

With a couple of poker placements I strongly considered my options on jumping into A Class and pumping what i viewed as a not inconsiderable amount USD equivalent, with my full consideration at the time being how quickly I’d be able to earn back that initial outlay.

Fig.1 - RipTyde plays poker :monkey: :grapes:

I’m of the opinion that we have to expect that the majority of Prize Emissions, and a good portion of Skill Force Emissions, will be sold off on the open market and devalue the token. The primary counterbalance to this is Joe public and junior members increasing membership levels/tiers but I know we’re looking at other other ways of locking up grape be it in secondary bonded tokens or mango lockers which are on the horizon. Without knowing full deatils on these I’m still thinking supply will outstip the demand for $Grape and we’ll see the token to continue to devalue. Market cap may remain the same, but if the public perception is of a ever devaluing token and by extention Grape community not worth it we’ll have face (more) problems.


I’ve advocated elsewhere that $Grape prize emissions for events are proving unsuitable and really the same could be said of skill role emissions. I know a lot of discussion here is around how do we simplify the model but I almost think the single token model is proving to be a hinderance without a major way of stemming its outflow.

My condiseration here is if a key measure of success of the project is seeing the token price appreciate, without moving to SOL based or stablecoin based prizes and emissions, a solution could be moving to a two token system with one token used in governance and a secondary reward token for prizes and emissions. People commited to the project could exchange or even better burn emission/reward tokens in exchange for a locked governance tokens that gives greater voting weight. The two tokens should not be pegged so the reward token would likely devalue while the governance token increases in value.

An alternate suggestion would be to tie membership tiers to a fixed supply of NFT’s that grant the holder emissions. Thought here would be that illiquid nature the NFT’s should better hold their value as people sell off excess tokens. Problem here is the NFT solution wouldn’t solve Grape token supply/ value issues.

Both of these suggestion presuppose we’re putting a price tag on $Grape, and some may have the altruistic view of $Grape being purely for governance and that the price at which its being traded shouldn’t matter so much, but i think we have to consider that outside the project it may be seen as a guage of success.


No matter which scenario it is, I think some changes should be made as soon as possible, and I also tend to raise the threshold of A and B, or add a higher-level role, and higher-level role can get more benefits

1 Like

Why not to move a part of prizes/emissions to SOL/stables?

Maybe we could establish a system where one-time things like a poker tournament are payed in tokens that do not relate to Grape as a project, because the event itself did not really relate to Grape and as such the winners should not be given voting power.
Skill Roles and other positions that contribute to Grape are moving the project forward and as such deserve voting power. Here we could maybe hash out an option to receive a part of it in SOL/stables for the people that are relying on Grape to pay their bills.

This is only one thing we can change. Overall I agree that we at least need price stability, a slow and steady uptrend would be better.


I am going to suggest a new single-group model, where the membership cost will be 50,000 $GRAPE.

-This would also be the new membership threshold to join the DAO.
-Discord would be open to anyone holding any amount of $GRAPE
-This new single class also requires GRAPE-backed tokens offering access to specific
areas of interest at a much much cheaper rate.
-Remove the current 3 membership model

The 50k number is based on the state of $GRAPE as it stands now.
Open to the number of suggestions, but I believe it’s a threshold that would maintain quality members. There must be a balance between two levels of access. One that is accessible and another that is properly gated.

What does it mean to be a GRAPE member? It is a group that provides access to alpha and education on everything Solana, such as using protocols/projects, investing, and building anything on Solana. If our community is to be the power users and the center of everything in Solana” then it is also about bringing people into the ecosystem.

I say screw class emissions 50K $GRAPE and you’re in, simple as that. Let’s see what the DAO thinks, but the current climate leads me to believe that an emission reduction of this size would benefit the public perception of GRAPE. (Shooting my shot)

As for “Skill-roles, they would transition into contributors instead……especially with the development of the criteria being set for now by the DAO and each sub-dao, it will and should be easier to assess the contributors of the community and the value each individual brings and thus allocating #GRAPE to those individuals. Not to mention the transition into a bounty model with a greater focus on rewarding successful value creation. This would also open up GRAPE to more of the Solana community.

In terms of class C,
If the traffic from this group is mostly present in the events community (maybe Dim can provide some insight on this) then a GRAPE-backed “event token” can supplant that purpose. That way the community can support certain areas they prefer or want to be a part of. This would provide data on the value each of our sub-communities is providing as well as the value they bring into GRAPE.

Simple Membership model


Add: Scenario 5 - Keep Roles & Limits and introduce 1 New Role (already in place due to Realms Proposal that succeeded following Discourse Proposal):

Discourse & Realms Proposal to Decrease Proposal Threshold to 200,000 $GRAPE:

Due to the new successful Proposal to allow GRAPE holders of 200K or more to submit Realms Proposals, we needed a role to reflect this - so there are now 4 Roles at present.


  1. Neanderthal - 200,000 (Realms Proposal Eligible)
  2. Gorilla - 23,600
  3. Great Ape - 5,900
  4. Gibbon - 1,185

Potential CHANGES under Scenario 5:

  1. Shift Emissions to reflect new Role & Rewards/Privileges.
  2. The new “Neanderthal” role already opens possibilities of gearing membership benefits toward a higher echelon. If it is deemed necessary to “change” any of the holding requirements or Roles, I would focus on Gorillas only and leave Gibbons & Great Apes as is, but review Emissions Model.
  3. Depending on the Emissions Model Proposed, I would take a close look at how “Membership” Emissions are distributed, combined with Inflation & Other metrics as previously proposed.


I believe the community and members who worked hard or acquired and held their GRAPE over time should have enough to maintain their roles and the new Emissions model should compliment the logic of rewarding larger holders (or should imho).

The trade-offs here are change the membership amounts and disrupt the existing membership roles. I recommend incorporating the new role and ascribing privileges to the new role that enable greater exclusivity to holders, contributors and those who accumulated or procured Grape to be members.

Thank you so much for your continued support and time! #itsgrape