CIP-1001 Quick Governance Fix to keep things moving until we get the Permanent fix

Dear Citizens,

CityDAO is at a crossroads. This next six to nine months of 2023 will have an outsized impact on the future of our DAO and the character of our community.

Unfortunately, we have encountered unavoidable organizational headwinds. But we have learned a lot in the last year and a half, and are better positioned to streamline our operating process and rotate in new leadership, while respecting our old leaders and traditions.

Just by virtue of collectively agreeing to join with other citizens in the first place, we all recognize that absolute decentralization is anarchy, and recognize that we are more powerful together. We have agreed to abide by snapshot voting as a barometer of the “will of the community.” And we have collectively formed guilds, factions, and projects - all implicit recognition of the acceptance of “ordered decentralization”

Unfortunately, politics has become centralized to CityDAO. Many times, citizens come to our meetings or subs and talk about what they will do. Few have demonstrated what they can do.

We need to get back to basics, streamline our governance (to eliminate a focus on governance), and set a clear path for the future, while respecting the traditions and visions of our past: Blanka, Parcel 0, T0wn, and NFT Marketplace.

Getting Back to Basics

Here’s my big takeaway from last year - we spent so much time setting up “processes” to make CityDAO “fair” and “trustless” for all citizens that we took the most important part out of the process: building!

Building relationships is key to working on a project team. Trustless doesn’t necessarily mean cold and faceless anon on the other side. Even when people use handles and stay anon there is a sense of camaraderie that gets built in chat and work product. Building our internal and external relationships is key for ensuring they have a handle on how much and what type of resources that DAO can allocate and capitalize on at any time.

Building derivative products (primitives) and ensuring that projects have adequate resources to succeed is another basic building block that we need to focus on.

Streamline our Governance

While I understand we spend an inordinate amount of time discussing governance, we have come to realize that the governance and process are what MAKES THE DAO algorithmic and immutable, and enforcable, like a smart contract. Unfortunately, our current process make the DAO ungovernable with too many aspirational sections that required growth in engagement and didn’t take into account the bear market reduction.

One option for streamlining our governance is to draft a quick fix while assigning the multi-signers with bringing back a new Charter & Operating Agreement that is simple and accessible for all citizens:


The authority granted to ‘mission guild’ in the charter shall be transfered to the ‘main treasury multi-sig wallet signers.’

Additionally, there shall be created a secretary that is a ministerial position.

Both the secretary and multi-signers have a salary of 5,000 per month and individual budget authority of 10,000 every 6 months. With authority to spend that budget on official CityDAO related business or deputize others to assist in the performance of the work required.

*Both the secretary and multi-signers shall bring back a new proposed operating agreement and any changes to the charter by April 1, 2023. *

The Secretary, multi signers, nor any other member is the ‘leader’ of CityDAO and the changes many not designate any such ‘leader.’

Set a Clear Path for the “Big 4” Projects

Each of the projects should designate a CityDAO liaison and a clear reporting schedule of at least monthly (I think weekly reporting is detrimental). Each of the “big 4” projects can be categorized in regards to their relationship with the greater DAO and how each will interact.

Functional analysis should be done on each project. For example, CityDAO Town is essentially an exercise in Intra-DAO relations. How will CityDAO tap into those resources in the future (for example)? What relationship goals do we have for CityDAO Town? How will we be able to reciprocate?

Parcel 0 needs active volunteers to accommodate the mission. Parcel 0 has been allocated funds and we should actively recruit to fill those roles.

Thoughts, questions, comments?


I think this proposal is well-written and highlights an important issue.

In terms of selecting both the multisig members and the secretary, would you recommend an election?

Is there enough work for 8 people ($40K per month total)? Over 6 months that would be nearly a quarter million dollars. Would it beneficial to have clearly defined roles?

Also - separate question - can an individual be on (or even leading) a project team and a signer concurrently? Would this be a conflict of interest if the signers have final authority over which CIPs are allowed to go to Snapshot and what happens if a proposal passes the vote?

1 Like

There are 4 people who are ‘need’ to come off the multi-sig. They have either requested removal or want to do other things. So My thought is those folks get elected in some sort of process. Probably top 4 vote getters on a snapshot is easiest.

Maybe the secretary should get more but the idea is that these folks step into mission guild and engage on the level that mission was supposed to engage. There’s also risk involved being on the multisig.

I don’t really have a strong opinion on this.

This is a really great push for the time being and would be generally supportive of a CIP like this. Some thoughts:

  • I like that there’s a timeline for proposed charter/OA. In line with that, should there be a sunset to the proposed system? Like, if there’s no proposed charter/OA by June, everyone stops getting paid? My worry is this patch could become permanent. (Which would be present than status quo but maybe not the best long-term.) I also wasn’t a citizen during the Council period, and I take it the sunset then didn’t do great things. Just a thought.
  • I share concerns with @Da3vid about $5k monthly to multi-signers when the work isn’t necessarily there.
  • Along the same lines, I worry about a $10k budget per signer. At this stage and with this role, it’s good to keep flexibility. But when you add it all up, it’s enough money to matter. How does it interact with project funding? If not for projects, what are general opex needs that costs. Will signers have a portfolio of admin/project costs to cover? I can see a system where most costs are bucketed into programs and voted on each year/6 mos.
  • While this might be a conflict as Da3vid suggests, I also like the idea that singers would have real responsibility to execute projects. If not leading/participating in projects, I think it would be good for signers to have domains of responsibility. These could be assigned by the Secretary. (I’m thinking like how in parliamentary systems, ministers are elected officials that are appointed to mind specific departments/domains. Signers would become stewards of, if not active participants in, projects that fall under their domain.)

All that said, I’m mega-sympathetic to wanting to streamline things and/or give them lots of clarity, even if they’re still ornate. I spend a lot of time in/around local government in the northeast US. CityDAO is the ultimate form of Town Meeting legislatures, which are notoriously slow-moving, resistant to ideas, and honestly just wild. To draw out that analogy, the DAO needs a Select Board, a smaller elected group with authority to execute the will of the Town Meeting. The Mission Guild would be that body.

Clearly, a lot going on here, I won’t weigh in on the details, just to say I am broadly supportive of this. I will actually recommend the latest CityDAO podcast with Mat from Origami

Origami works with new DAOs, they talk (roughly at about 25 mins in I think) about how hard it is for old DAOs to incorporate the latest governance technology. A big focus of theirs is to create DAOs that are composable and adaptable to new tech. I mean it is kind of clever, as it is right in the name origami. The point I am getting at is that if we sort of build things back up, it should be such that we can make large changes in the future without having to tear down and build back. We need a composable and interoperable meta-governance structure in code speak. If that makes sense. I would be happy to reach out to Origami, or anyone for that matter, to explore such options.

Support the idea, and am happy to help!


I’m generally in support of something like this with a few thoughts:

  1. I think the secretary should be paid enough to attract a high caliber community facilitator and it should go through a hiring process.
  2. I’m not sure how much sense it makes to pay 8 signers at that level for an ongoing time period. Especially since I doubt any of the signers will be able to devote their full time attention to the challenge. That said, a group like the signers or mission guild is necessary to guide the DAO and act as a steering committee and those people do need to be somehow incentivized. Not sure on the best way to do it, though of course its always best to align the interests of a group like that with the long term interests of the DAO.

I like the idea of an in person sprint (ideally pre ETH Denver since people will be there) to work through the governance questions and come to clear next steps. I’m not sure that it will take more than that to get to a common sense solution.

Also @Da3vid I would encourage you to post the responsibilities list that you drafted for the secretary role, I think its a good start for a job description for this person.

1 Like

I’m in support of this. I think we have learned a lot about governance, what doesn’t work, and what some of the holes in our charter are. I think it makes sense to give some authority to a small group to figure out a new path forward and new charter that incorporates all we learned.

There are lots of good questions in the reply that I’d like to see further detailed, but wanted to register my general support.

The reality is that ‘everyone stops getting paid’ is a good motivator for people to come to the table. Having a process to fill new slots would kind of survey the community to even know if there are people who want to step into leadership roles.

One other piece to this would be that “the multi-signers wallet would, as a group but not any one individual signer, have the authority to have an on chain vote recorded to take anything directly to CIP. The on-chain multi-signed message would need to specifically cite the public purpose of the waiver of the process and spread those words on the Ethereum blockchain.”

Maybe here is a good place for us to use Coordinape and pay media folks instead strait payments. I think the goal is for them to have $10,000 to move the ball forward. An example might be the $7500 we’re about to award @melissa with a dwindling grants budget to give supplemental funding for the Baby Parcel (Blanca), or the funding for some an event at EthDenver. Or seed money for the swag shop. Or to get the next project to CIP level because we want to do it right next time.

It kind of goes in line with what I heard on @MemeBrains Twitter spaces where some communities have these ‘executive funds’ for faster moving stuff and have the general fund for most general community process. Maybe there just needs to be some sort of rules around what the 10,000 is for - like “supplemental project funding; CIP adjustments and minor funding (at the request of the CIP team); day to day expenses of the DAO; Development and smart contract auditing and work (for CityDAO); events, publicity, and collaboration; postage and shipping up to $500, Emergency expenses, any other expenses that a supermajority of 7/8 signers agree is necessary for the DAO.”

Thanks @ScottA :+1:

For me as I said before, I’m not married to the salary. I think the more important piece is the flex funds and the authority to get things moving quickly and effectively (and as a team). But if it goes as I envision - where they work as a team and move forward the DAO AND work to fix governance at the same time and at a deadline then it’s going to be a decent amount of work. Maybe not all 8 and maybe coordonape isn’t the answer either? It’s open for suggestion. Or maybe there’s like a committees of 4 & 4 where 4 do the work and 4 are just basically ‘signers.’ Maybe signers can get paid either per signature or on some sort of delegation basis formula - which could get overly complicated.

Thanks so much, I hope I answered your questions and you can let your fellow citizens know that this is the most prudent way forward.

I do believe after this we can quickly sort out governance issues into ‘consensus’ and ‘non-consensus’ fairly easily and rapidly. The items with broad community support can be bundled into one CIP where the items we need to have a larger community discussion on would likely need to be voted on piece by piece.


I think the discussion - if this is the route we are going to go - should be where this is an internal or external position. If it’s internal then it’s going to have to be an independent authority and someone who is voted by the community.

That internal process would look like >

  1. Multi signers would find candidates and evaluate for minimum qualifications and standards.
  2. Multi signers would put up 3 to 5 qualified candidates to the community for selection.
  3. Citizens vote for Secretary Annually.

Vs. External

  1. Multi-signers would have the authority to hire a secretary who is a non-citizen up to a maximum total compensation of $10,000 per month.
  2. We tweaks @Da3vid responsibility list to a job description.
  3. Part of the interview process includes hosting a community call and a community interview.
  4. Multi signers hire best candidate.

I personally like this idea of an outside entity. A neutral non-citizen. But at the same time I am not married to either process. As long as the community is involved but it isn’t a free for all. No legitimate outside candidate is going to basically run an election to get the job - and that’s not who we want for the job!
We want someone organized and focused.

1 Like

Here’s the list of potential DAO secretary responsibilities I had put together previously. It’s open for comments if anyone wants to add anything or make suggestions: DAO Secretary Responsibilities - Google Docs

We need a Mayor not a secretary :slight_smile:

I know it sounds centralized, but i feel we need centralization at decentralization.

Thats what i got from my DAO journey. We are not quite there and ready

1 Like

You can look at this as like a quasi city council-manager system. At least for now.

Without autority, if you want to call “God of War”, still wont matter @fugyeah1

1 Like

I’m also in a broad sense supportive of this initiative. We have transitioned as a DAO, from needing to be founded and find footing to now needing to execute based off that foundation. Thus, a temporary realignment is something I see as being necessary. (focus on- Temporary and requiring focus). I myself see no qualm with payment, I can say that the 3-5k range is fine, starting with 3k per member. We had non-facilitator Mission Guild members be MIA once the charter was done, caveat being that we had no real financial incentive that made spending multiple hours a week focusing on the DAO worth it. So let’s compensate this temporary group. As long as the focus is on jumpstarting the Building Phase of CityDAO over the next 18-24 months, I’m in.