This is a proposal to liquidate all assets of CityDAO and end the experiment.
All assets such as land, NFTs, property, tokens, fiat accounts, etc shall be liquidated and turned into ETH and/or USDC. Then the pro Ratia share of each citizen shall be determined as follows:
The number of outstanding citizens not including those in the treasury or those otherwise out of circulation to the general public divided by the total amount of the treasury. Founding citizen NFTs shall be worth 3 pro Ratia shares.
The eth and/or USDC shall be distributed among the citizens on a proratia basis in the following manor:
•Citizens will have 60 days to exchange their NFT for their pro Ratia share.
The multisig shall remain on for one year without compensation to ensure any remaining assets or obligations shall be wound down in the appropriate manor and returned to citizens or otherwise appropriately disposed of.
First of all, I believe citizens should always be given this option periodically, especially in the context of new governance. It’s not a proposal in support but intended to start a discussion: what are we doing here exactly? I commend David for his exercise in fixing governance, but the reality is that we are not any closer to solving the one critical question - why are we here and what do we do next? And you can’t say ‘oh turkey’ or ‘oh coasta Rica’ because those are projects not a mission - and there is significant debate in the community on both those projects. I’ve had citizens contact me with concern but I’m done organizing folks. It’s one of the reasons I’ve been so focused on mission during these discussions. Because without it we are just spinning our wheels to be back where we were before. We have misso, but that’s a means to the end not the real solution. Misso still requires ultimately the input and alignment of citizens.
I’ve been pretty right in the past on all these predictions so…
Perhaps the real solution is to modify this proposal
60 days to liquidate and during that time project teams can get together a proposal where citizens can opt to have their share sent to the project as opposed to back to citizens.
Your project and Turkish citizens and project supporters can stake their share into that project and that chunk will be split off as well as other projects be allowed to stake into a plan.
It is a proposal as it is in the section of CIP.
Discussions are always welcome but in a proper way.
Yes / No. Not saying that it can be our future cause we just started to work and the idea is to show DAO the results. Its so complicated process and need a lot of work. A lot !
I am willing to do that but i need help
“0000 Proposal to Sunset…”
This is not a good title, not at all. Think about the results if citizens or potential citizens or web 3 community see this title. What would they think ? Aaa CityDAO failed and they re going down. Lets not do that, lets try to show our strenghts and ideas instead to build confidence.
So again, its not a discussion, it is a proposal.
This web 3 House is not my project. ITS OURS ! Why people do this i dont get it. Whenever a CIP passed, i personally try to support in order to increase our exposure in any ways. We have to be ONE and act as ONE. There is no “i” , every one of us should understand this and change their mindset.
Web 3 house pre CIP is just a feasibility report but we got the attention of BanklessDAO (they just asked) and BiLira. So i dont know what outcomes we will have but i’m trying to get every possible answer to questions (so many details here).
So instead of Sunset lets try to focus at Sunrise !
This is my way as I have always done in the past. There is nothing improper about this proposal. But you bring up a good point that highlights my previous assertion - we need to get away from the culture of saying things are improper that are just ‘things we don’t like.’ We need to criticize and debate ideas and not make accusations like this because it changes the conversation from one of a debate of ideas to one of personal attacks. While I consider you a friend and aren’t offended in this context, it’s essentially an attack on my character. You’re saying I’m doing something wrong, that I’m breaking the rules, and that escalates the situation. Let’s try to keep it to debating ideas in the future please.
Again, perhaps this is just a language issue and maybe a bit of a catch 22 but you are the sponsor of this project and you and your community are putting in immense work so I wanted to recognize that. We also have to recognize that there is someone responsible for delivering on a product - which as I understand is you. I guess we can say ‘Our’ and I recognize what you are trying to do but generally I don’t get too caught up on pronouns
I have always felt that our mission was to forward the idea of the network state. We started with the concept of building a city, though quickly realizing that “city” is an idea more than a definite construct. To build an area where people can exist, whether it is for work, play or home, using blockchain technology and the ideals of web3, such as transparency and decentralization, is not a linear project. It touches upon many areas, including real estate, protocols, governance, community, engagement, business, law, etc.
We are continuing to explore as a group. While I appreciate the notion that people should be presented with the option to end the overall project, I personally think we’re continuing to align and progress, although not in a linear fashion. It just takes one step in the right direction for things to tip and this idea to gain traction. We don’t necessarily know the right direction, so we’re moving in many directions.