1 Human = 1 Citizen = 1 Vote

I think it’s absolutely critical that 1 human only gets 1 vote, regardless of how many “Citizen NFTs” that person holds. Proof of Humanity should be used to enforce this. To be able to vote, an Ethereum address must be in the Proof of Humanity registry and hold at least 1 Citizen NFT (more Citizen NFTs can be held, but it does not grant them more votes. The only incentive they would have for holding more is the possibility of reselling them later for profit).

Take a step back from the project and think about what the word “Citizen” even means. Now imagine a city/state/country where wealthy people get to vote more than once: Corruption ensues.


-1. This is an opinion, not an well-reasoned argument.

@will, what is your counter-argument? and how many Citizen NFTs do you own?

There are no cities in existence that grant more than 1 vote to a single human. Why should CityDAO be any different?

1 Like

Ideally once POH is implemented you use Quadratic Voting. I don’t see why one person one vote is ideal at all.

1 Like

The same reason no city/state/country gives wealthy people more than one vote: wealthy people tend to (read:always) vote for things that make them wealthier.

If CityDAO aims to be a… city… then one person one vote is necessary. There might even be federal laws that require it(?).

1 Like

I propose a middle ground for the time being: quadratic voting.

16 Citizen NFTs = 4 notes.
100 Citizen NFTs = 10 votes.

This is already built into snapshot and we can start using it. It will discourage speculation while also letting people who have several NFTs not feel like they got punished.


Apparently Snapshot already has a Proof of Humanity strategy: Feature request: Proof of Humanity as a requirement to vote · Issue #2263 · snapshot-labs/snapshot · GitHub

People with several NFTs will only feel punished if they forgot that the point of this project is to start a city. There are no cities in existence that grant more than 1 vote to 1 human.

“Punished” is highly subjective anyways. If the USA rid itself of the “lobbying” corruption that is ever so popular, big businesses could make the claim that they’re being “punished”.

@scottfits I think you might have to just up and force “1 human = 1 vote” without having a vote on it, because it’s pretty obvious multi-NFT holders will reject it. Or maybe the Proposal for “1 human = 1 vote” should be done using the “1 human = 1 vote” strategy, as a special exception to the usual voting strategy.

1 Like

the balance-of-with-thresholds strategy could be used (with just 1 threshold defined: 1 → 1) alongside the proof of humanity strategy. it doesn’t state that it works with erc1155 but I suspect it might (or it might with very little tweaking)

Hey you may want to check out radical markets by glen weyl. The section on quadratic voting leaves open the possibility that people could buy vote credits (and thus have more than one vote per person). The theory being it would be a more efficient market.

Upon closer inspection I don’t think the stock balance-of-with-thresholds strategy will work with erc1155, so I filed a pull request adding erc1155 support. will post here if/when it gets merged.

1 Like

KYCDAO is doin a proof of human with a nontranferable system. I think we should hear them out. Should we have a AMA? Here is one of their latest articles on the issue: NFT vs VC

1 Like

i think so,it s a good idea

1 Like

Does anybody know of an Ethereum address that is both in the Proof of Humanity registry and owns a Citizen NFT? I’m working on a “1 human = 1 vote” snapshot strategy and need a test address.

I finally finished the “1 human = 1 vote” snapshot strategy, just waiting for it to get merged in now. shouldn’t take long. I’ll create a CIP when it does.

@will still waiting for your counter-argument.