@ScottA Just showed this to me, and it got me thinking about the DAO Coalition, which has around 30 DAOs in it (with @Stuttgart being the CityDAO Representative, and having started the coalition).
If/when any question of fractionalizing these NFTs comes up, I’d be happy to bring this up within the coalition to see if any DAOs would want to pool funds for an NFT.
Thanks. Ya, I think there is real potential for collaboration between the project and the coalition!!
Thanks, @Clinamenic! I have been talking to Stuttgart about this same idea. He and I are working on a CIP regarding the DAO Coalition, and I believe that there is an excellent chance for overlap and shared goals here. Your support is highly appreciated!
I appreciate the feedback. You made good points. We will discuss these.
This is the kind of high quality proposal CityDAO needs. If some of the concerns stated above are fleshed out I will be in full support of this idea. There seems to be an underlying assumption that Town will be in the United States. I have no problem with that but would appreciate it if some effort was put into researching other locations. Or at a bare minimum an explanation of why the United States would make for the best location for Town.
To build on my initial reaction:
In terms of how to rectify #2, it could be as simple as more clearly defining the give and take between t0wn and CityDAO.
If CityDAO is meant to be a network city, then projects like t0wn and CIP - 100 The Web3 City, are nodes which in some way are connected through CityDAO.
This could be through operating structure, through access for citizens, through benefits for citizens, through ownership or any additional number of methods.
CIP - 100 is meant to be entirely owned by CityDAO (per the original proposal), which creates a very clear link. The link here is much weaker.
I’d like to see “Citizen Memberships: CityDAO Citizens will enjoy all the benefits of membership in t0wn, in many cases at a greater rate/quantity due to CityDAO’s larger membership stake in t0wn.” fleshed out as a starting point for this.
Potentially, there should be a commitment for these benefits to be written into the t0wn Operating Agreement to enshrine them.
I am guessing you just minced words a bit but why on earth would anyone fractionalize these NFTs? I do not believe that is the intent but I am not on the project team. Rather the NFT the t0wn team appears to be referring to would be held by the DAO as a whole, and provide some form of benefit to the individual DAO members who hold said NFT. Maybe I am wrong though so good thing to clarify with the project team
Yeah I don’t have much information beyond this forum post, and what ScottA told me about it, but he did mention the possibility of fractionalizing. I don’t have any real opinions about whether or not that compromises the objective of this proposal, but I would say that allowing buyers, who would otherwise be priced out, to pool funds for something like this, appears to me to be worth considering.
But again, thats coming from someone with very little visibility into this project, so for all I know its not even worth considering.
Just a discussion on how smaller players could pool resources to buy the NFT. In theory, any DAO can join with others and form an umbrella DAO. For example, the DAO coalition could become one unique DAO and buy the NFT, just pooling resources. Also, there are many tools for people to buy an NFT collectively; this has been done many times, then lock the NFT up and, in a way, fractionalizing it. I don’t think we would sell fractions of the NFT, just ways for people to pool resources to buy one. Nothing is set in stone, just conversations and ideas at this point. Ps. I believe the CityDAO first citizens NFT, or one of them was fractionalized? Someone correct me on this, i just recall hearing something about it. Anyway, I don’t think anything is controversial here. Also should be noted this is an NFT that would be owned collectively right from the start, so in a way, it is already going to be fractionalized. Not technically in terms of the actual NFT, but its utility will be distributed and shared.
Yes, exactly. Not sure if I used the word fractionalize wrong; just discussing ways for no one to be priced out, options for pooling, etc. I mean, a DAO, by definition, is an entity that pools resources. So, in a way, we are just discussing how DAOs can further DAO.
I guess at the end of the day, the team could always pursue registration/exemption from security laws in which case the NFTs could be fractionalized, I just didn’t think that was the intent. I for one do not believe any CityDAO NFT/founding/first citizen has ever been “fractionalized” - you can check etherscan and see that it is held by an individual wallet - but I have only been involved with CityDAO since February so someone else of course may know differently
Just working on ideas of how DAOs could potentially pool together resources or use technology already out there to fractionalize ownership of NFTs. Nothing more.
I will have to get back on the CityDAO NFT. I just have a vague memory of it being discussed. I thought someone said it happened, will try and figure that out.
Happy to hear you are excited. Regarding 2, this is a valid concern and really should be addressed. I think any project at some point will need to reach out and partner with others. This proposal goes further than other proposals in that direction by partnering with other DAOs/Web3 orgs right from the start. The real question is whether CityDAOs ownership in the project will be more than enough to compensate CityDAO for the initial investment. I think the answer is yes, and there is potential for very high returns.
While the link to CityDAO might be weaker, we will also bring in funds. CityDAO is potentially less of an owner but is also less of a funder. CIP-100, for example, is funded wholly by CityDAO. This project will not be. In the end, it’s give and take.
Thanks @zeno Great question. I think the US makes sense now, but this is just phase 1. Ideally, we will go worldwide eventually. Personally, I am not American or in the States, so more than happy to discuss further developments being in other countries.
I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that CIP-100 will be incorporated as a non-profit, in which case CityDAO could not own it. If this is the case, I believe that CityDAO is making a charitable contribution of money to the non-profit, but has no ownership. This is just my understanding if CIP-100 is a non-profit.
In t0wn, we would also be incorporating an LLC, just like CIP-100. We may not have a non-profit, but the land would be owned communally by the DAOs. CityDAO would have a significant amount of NFTs, governance and non-financial benefits, not least of which is a huge boost to our reputation as the founders of a DAO city. This is t0wn, brought to you by CityDAO. The name value of that is immense for the future of CityDAO if this project actually comes to fruition.
Just realized, I meant this as a response to @kkopczyn’s comment about linking to CityDAO.
I agree that fractionalize is a misnomer. What was meant was that two or more DAOs might choose to pool their resources in order to purchase one NFT. It was never intended that one NFT would be broken into “parts” or pieces, but rather that a small group might come together and buy one NFT collectively.
I definitely agree that DAO collaboration, sharing best practices, helping each other, will be very important for survival as this space evolves. As this thing grows, we will also need to collaborate cross-project / cross-parcel by sharing lessons learned, data, events, resources, vendors, wins, etc. One thing that was said in a Research Guild call a while back was the idea of CityDAO being the “City Manager” role in a DAO or multi-entity city - an idea that could be discussed and fleshed out with this project and others. I think that with all CityDAO projects, there should be ample focus put on shared blockchain primitives and ties that bind the different nodes of the CityDAO Network. So, during the planning and designing phases of all big projects, keeping Citizen Time and other common metrics, benefits, smart contract hooks, etc. in mind is super groovy. Just reinforcing thoughts I’ve heard from different areas of the DAO.
Thanks, @Starmand. Yes, I really agree. So much to learn from collaboration. We really hope to unlock so much nascent potential. So much going on in this space, let’s have it all going on in town!
I can attest that basinDAO IS interested in this concept, especially the Retreat and Distressed Town options.
Not sure how many of our members would be interested in actual physical use or lease of the property but we are definitely interested in helping with the development plan as a test case for the basinStack (carbon, natural capital, social impact, mineral rights and much more).
This message can be considered a LOI from BASIN LLC.