CIP-11: Requirements for compensated positions

Authors: @byron @garbageboy @Papa_Elon

Status: Draft

This is in response to CIP-9, Section “New Proposed Compensation.” May it also be proposed that all matters relating to the treasury and major financial decisions shall be separated into their own independent CIPs, with as limited of a scope as possible. CIP-9, as it currently stands, is far too broad-reaching, as it attempts to add salaried positions with passive treasury investment decisions.

This proposal aims to ensure fairness and transparency in the creation, advertisement, and hiring of positions, paid for by the citizens of the DAO and by the DAO treasury. By implementing the following regulations, we will ensure that (i) there is justification for the creation of a position, (ii) there is an appropriate plan for compensating the position, (iii) the position gains broad visibility to the global job market, thereby (iv) ensuring that the DAO has the ability and knowledge to adequately select the best possible applicant.

Justification for the Creation of a Position

  • A CIP shall be created for the proposed position. This CIP shall include: (i) a detailed job description and plan of work, (ii) the compensation, and (iii) the duration of the position.
  • All positions are contract positions and shall never exceed one year. A separate vote may occur for position renewal, if required, in the period leading up to the contract’s expiry.
  • The DAO shall vote on whether this position is essential and in its best interest before proceeding with further steps.
  • Compensation shall not include CityDAO NFTs.
    • Citizen NFTs would strengthen the position of people who work for the DAO. The DAO should strive to the principle of one vote for one citizen.

Advertisement of Aforementioned Position

  • As the DAO’s LLC is based in the United States, the job advertisement shall follow U.S. Department of Labor and anti-discrimination laws.
  • The job advertisement shall be publicly posted and reasonably marketed on job advertisement sites and provided at least a month to attract a large pool of applicants. Public posting implies distribution on LinkedIn, Indeed, Google Jobs, etc.

Interview Process

  • Resumes shall be distributed to the DAO members a week prior to formal interviews.
  • Formal interviews shall take place in a public forum available to all DAO members.
  • The interview process shall also follow U.S. Department of Labor and anti-discrimination laws.
  • (These interviews could be conducted at the weekly meetings or during another time slot specific for interviews. Each could be treated similar to a city hall meeting.)


  • Final voting on the set of candidates shall occur after the appropriate application period has lapsed and all suitable candidates have been interviewed.
  • Final voting shall follow the ranked-choice protocol.
  • Final voting shall occur no less than one week after the last interview. A voting period of at least one week shall be provided.

Not feeling aligned to this. We indeed have DAO LLC for IRL contracts related to land and perhaps land maintenance/augmentation contracts in future; but I don’t think we’re looking to hire ‘employees’ and so I’m not sure all this U.S. Department of Labor stuff applies.

This seems quite antithetical to typical DAO work coordination and rewards schemas which are designed for more self-sovereign working relationships (contrasted to the paternalistic and bureaucracratic traditional employment model).

DAOs aren’t new and we shouldn’t ‘reinvent the wheel too much’ and/or retreat back to TradCorp models as much as possible. I’m not in a single DAO that is using this type of labour coordination and renumeration practice so I’m unsure why it is necessary to do so here. Generally it enhances legitimacy of a proposal if you’re working from a pattern that has seen some traction elsewhere in the crypto ecosystem and you’re modifying and recomposing it for local needs/environment.

Reasons I would personally vote No on a proposal like this one (in current form):

  • anti-discrimination requires dox’ing (we work as anons in the Metaverse to avoid markers that could lead to discrimination)
  • hiring trad employees requires managers and reporting lines (DAOs shouldn’t do ‘power-over’ style relationships and instead let natural and dynamic hierarchies emerge)
  • Trad Payroll and benefits are a mess to manage (especially if you want to do token streams)
  • This is really about doing a ‘tour of duty’ – i.e. more like the indy contractor model not employee so if we’re going to borrow from TradFi / TradCorp that’s a better spot in the playbook to refer to and model imo

@bpetes We should be sure that we are compensating people legally. I’m skeptical that it’s legal to pay people anonymously if there is an overarching LLC. If we’re “not sure” that labor laws apply, that needs to be determined.

What’s being suggested is not a bureaucratic structure for employment but a fair and transparent process to ensure (i) a wider pool of candidates can be considered and (ii) the DAO remains informed and able to impact and vote on phases of the hiring process. I don’t think this is so complex that we’d be “reinventing the wheel.”

I’m confused by your statement that what’s being proposed here would require managers and reporting line. Is that required under the current structure? If not, it wouldn’t apply here. Again, this is a process for hiring. It does not establish a bureaucratic structure within the DAO.

If people feel it would be beneficial to have a probationary period for a contract, that could certainly be something we add to the proposal.

Fully agree that before we can truly move forward with CIP-9 that we need to have a formal voting process on what positions will be created and what the compensation structure will be. These are items that impact all citizens, and as such need to be weighed in on on an individual basis.

100% feel that each position should be its own unique proposal that details full scope of the role, expectations, and offers the opportunity for anyone to apply. Perhaps citizenship holders have an opportunity to apply ahead of a general candidate pool, but also don’t think there’s a reason to restrict it only to internal citizens. Maybe a referral system where a citizen needs to vouch for a non-citizen would be a happy medium there.

1 Like

Thank you for drafting CIP-11 proposal.

I like the idea of this proposal a lot.

Integrity and equal opportunity should be core values for CityDAO. I also like the principle of one vote for one citizen (or should it be a unique citizen?).

My one question for CIP-11 is that I don’t know what the U.S. Department of Labor laws are. Are we going to be able to hire people that are not US Citizens by complying to U.S. Department of Labor laws? Are we legally required to follow U.S. Department of Labor laws if the LLC is in the US?

Plus, I am new and I don’t know how the voting mechanism works. Are the votes tracked on a blockchain for transparency and accountability? How do I vote?

These are great questions, thank you. I also don’t know the legality of compensating contributors, here. Hopefully, this can be addressed during today’s meeting. Assuming that contributors could be anonymous and paid anonymously, following U.S. Department of Labor laws might not be required, but we should perhaps adopt some of their guidelines to ensure an anti-discriminatory and fair hiring process.

I also haven’t voted and am not sure how the voting mechanism works, so I’m interested in hearing answers to that, too. I do know that it exists, though.

1 Like

By making people do commission based work (bounties) first to build a “community portfolio” we can vet the level of work they are going to put in and see that they are self motivated before putting them on salary.

1 Like

I’m supportive of some elements here like a transparent process and publicly posted job listings. I am worried about certain aspects like requiring a vote on every new contributor

1 Like

Fully agree with bpetes. Having to consider the U.S. Labor laws kills a lot of the fun. I agree that we need to do what we have to do, to avoid legal issues.

But I’d also suggest to do what we can do, to avoid being governed by governments.

I don’t know much about the law side, but would like us to detached the HR/operational side as much as possible from the Wyoming LLC.

In terms of hiring I 100% agree with byron and Pat to “probations” first and in our world the easiest way of doing this is to do bounties first.