CIP-127: DAO Coalition Funding


If you support this proposal, please give it a like.

The DAO Coalition is a group of approximately 30 DAOs and supporting organizations that seek to advocate on behalf of DAOs in the United States and globally. This coalition was started by Stuttgart on behalf of CityDAO, and therefore CityDAO has a significant place in the coalition. This CIP requests $10K as part of a fundraising effort among other DAOs in the coalition. The purpose of the fundraising is to provide funding to formalize the coalition as it relates to legal fees (incorporation, creation of bylaws) and website creation. Benefits to CityDAO would be a leadership role with the DAO Coalition as it advocates in Washington, D.C.

Project Team

The DAO Coalition currently consists of 3OH DAO, Alliance DAO, ATX DAO, Aragon DAO, Bankless DAO, City3, CityDAO, Cohere, Data Union DAO, enDAOment, Governor DAO, Impact DAO, JournoDAO, Kali DAO, Klaytn, Krause House, KYC DAO, LegalDAO, LexDAO, Lobby3, Nemus, OtoCo DAO, PAC DAO, Polygon DAO, R3WIND DAO, Sapien Network, Sporos DAO, SuperRare DAO, SSV DAO and Standard DAO.

Supporting organizations within the DAO Coalition include the Blockchain Association, COALA, NEAR, the DAO Research Collective, and the World Economic Fund.


CityDAO has been leading an effort to establish a DAO Coalition for the purposes of advocating on behalf of CityDAO and all DAOs. DAOs face both risks and opportunities. It is critical that DAOs come together to speak with one voice on issues that impact the sector.

As it relates to risks, as a result of our relationship with the Blockchain Association, earlier this year we were made aware of interests in Washington, D.C., such as the Crowdfunding Professional Association, which have been advocating to the SEC with appeals that are directly averse to the existence of DAOs. More recently, we’ve seen the CFTC sue Ooki DAO on allegations that, as an unincorporated association, it violated federal laws.

As far as opportunities, this summer, Senators Gillibrand and Lummis introduced S. 4356, the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act, which, if enacted, would, for the first time, provide a federal framework for DAOs. This legislation would provide an opportunity for the DAO Coalition, on behalf of CityDAO and all DAOs, to provide a positive narrative to policymakers about the promise of DAOs.

It is in light of the aforementioned risks and opportunities that the DAO Coalition has been holding monthly conference calls since its informal inception this summer. DAOs are being formed every day and, according to DeepDAO, there are almost 5,000 DAOs in existence to date. The DAO Coalition aims to harness that collective voice, but requires a small contribution from representative DAOs to begin its operations. To this end, the DAO Coalition is requesting a contribution to assist with the coalition’s formal establishment.

Other DAO representatives also are asking their respective DAOs for contributions and Lobby3 has secured its own $10,000 commitment. CityDAO’s $9,999 contribution would help ensure that CityDAO would play a leadership role as the DAO Coalition is formed.

Scottfits and Stuttgart currently are listed as CityDAO representatives within the DAO Coalition and this proposal would aim to have them represent CityDAO as Directors of the formal DAO Coalition. None of the CityDAO $10,000 contribution would go to Scott or Stuttgart. In the event that Scottfits is not available, David will take his role as CityDAO representative.

Proposal Budget

This proposal requests a one-time disbursement of $9,999 in USDC to the DAO Coalition treasury. Other DAOs also have been asked and may contribute money to this fund.

Timeline and Deliverables

Once the DAO Coalition has secured the necessary funding, the coalition would aim to take the necessary steps to formalize in Q4 2022 or Q1 2023.


There is little risk to CityDAO from this contribution other than the coalition not being able to raise the sufficient amount of funds to formalize and we believe that given the number of other DAOs in the coalition we should be able to raise these funds. If the coalition is unsuccessful in raising necessary funding, the coalition would reimburse CityDAO.


The project would create a new legal entity outside of CityDAO, but would not create a new tax burden for CityDAO. Should CityDAO also wish to provide a small sustaining contribution for ongoing activities after the DAO Coalition has been established, a separate CIP would be requested. Given the number of DAOs already in the coalition, we would not anticipate that a request to DAO Coalition members for such sustaining funding would be more than $10,000 per year, per coalition member.

Benefits to CityDAO

The first and most obvious benefit to CityDAO is the preservation of its existence. While CityDAO operates entirely within the law as an LLC, we are confronted with an uncertain legal landscape with pitfalls and obstacles. CityDAO seeks not only to exist but to collaborate with other DAOs and create IRL spaces for other DAOs to flourish. To that end, our presence as a leader in lobbying efforts keeps CityDAO in an important position in the DAO space.

Another key benefit comes from the collaborations and relationships with other DAOs that such a presence will foster. Working hand in hand with organizations like Bankless, Aragon, Polygon, the Blockchain Association, NEAR and the World Economic Fund has benefits that cannot be adequately measured in dollars or in the short term. For the $10K contribution this CIP seeks, it could benefit CityDAO immeasurably.

A third benefit is the engagement with larger communities and increased awareness of CityDAO. Having our name associated with so many other DAOs, each of them with many thousands of members, all of whom are committed to the web3 and DAO space, being in a leadership position within the DAO Coalition could serve as wonderful, perpetual marketing.


Strong support here. This type of cross-DAO collaboration and big-picture thinking will be essential to the ongoing success of DAOs and Web3.

The ultimate public good is the rule of law (where I use this term broadly to mean a well-defined, functioning, and accountable legal system). Laws are still not well defined regarding DAOs; having our voices heard and represented fairly is critical. I feel this is a worthwhile contribution to an essential public good.


Open Air Comments - not to fight, poke, argue, create problems, or anything else…

I see it is an alphabetical list, but the first named DAO is 3OH DAO - who as I have told @ScottA @Clinamenic @Stuttgart and now @Da3vid - was founded by an individual who attempted to misappropriate the DAOvolution name that I came up with in February 2021. Its a long story that I will not go into now - suffice it to say I do not support the collaboration. @scottfits stated earlier this year that CityDAO would not work with this group upon learning the facts of the situation - so I am surprised to see him listed as a supporter here and can only assume its because he is not paying attention closely.

Second - I was part of this working group (In fact I originally created the server you guys use) and then later removed from it and excluded from participation, after I made an unprofessional comment towards Stuttgart, which I regret and have since apologized for several times. (Stuttgart was mentioning on a call that he needed some help, apparently I misunderstood and I took it personally, and in turn I said something about how he should spend his time telling us what he does for citydao instead of complaining… not to re-live it… but so that its clear what I actually did - which I do regret and have apologized in writing and verbally for). I was removed from the group without any sort of “due process” - i.e… any notice/explanation, an appeal right, or an opportunity to be heard.

So that would be my other challenge to the proposal - that it seeks to be ostensibly “inclusive” while being founded on exclusions relating to the exercise of individual power - an exclusion which, in my opinion, has disadvantaged my ability to work and learn with the team I helped put together.

For these reasons I do not support this initiative.


@Stuttgart please explain - was josh removed from the DAO Coalition? i think the bigger question here is around accountability - could CityDAO be removed from the DAO coalition if you decided so, after donating the 10k?

how is membership decided?


This is actually a very good question.


I really don’t want to get into the issue with Josh other than to say simply that I won’t work with someone who is personally abusive.

As it relates to your more relevant question about accountability, as of now, there technically is no DAO Coalition. It’s just a server where I have been working to build out DAO representatives over time. The whole point of the funding is so we can actually establish a 501(c)(4) and bylaws that govern membership.

As one of the CityDAO representatives, Scott (or David if you would rather defer to him), you would have a say in how membership is formally established. After its formal establishment, my intention as the other CityDAO representative would not be just to give myself (or anyone) the ability to simply kick a DAO out of the coalition if I just decided so.

This is probably a good time to note that the CIP states that, “in the event that Scottfits is not available, David will take his role as CityDAO representative.” Do you, Scott, consider yourself available and would you aim to take an active role in the coalition or would you be deferring to David on this?

@Stuttgart this meeting is very early my time so I will defer my position to someone else.

I can also maybe shed some light on this. To Stuttgarts point, the “DAO Coalition” proper doesn’t exist yet, as that name is what we have pegged for the eventual 501c4. Right now we have a wider network of DAO representatives, pretty much just forming a loose professional network, based in a discord server entitled “DAO Coalition”.

One idea is that the actual DAO Coalition 501c4 is established as a traditional advocacy group, IE not a DAO itself, and that it will function as the lobbying “organ” of the larger network of DAO representatives. Eventually, this larger body may take on a more formal structure, perhaps involving tokenized membership and other DAO-like characteristics, and could conceivably end up becoming something of a Self-Regulatory Organization for DAOs, being structured as a republic of sorts, consisting of N representatives per DAO.

Because that larger structure is super complex in its various prospects, we are choosing to defer that organizational challenge to a later point, and focus in the short and mid term on forming the 501c4, which would be called the “DAO Coalition” (as per Stuttgart’s suggestion early on that similar lobbying groups tend to use the term “coalition” or “association” and thus that our doing so could implicitly bestow us with some sense of familiarity, which could help offset how alien and novel our whole sector must seem to most legislators).

As for the conflict with Josh, I don’t have any visibility into, nor do I want to stir anything up regarding, any prior interactions between him and Stuttgart - but as for the 3OH DAO connection, I may have a bit of info which could be considered material. The guy from 3OH, whom for the sake of this post we can call Alex, and whom I understand to be the party in question regarding Josh’s disputes, has informed us that he is no longer working with 3OH, and is now merely filling in for a colleague in certain managerial capacities while Said colleague is on a break.

All that said, I’m not sure if Josh’s dispute is limited just to Alex, or 3OH at large, and I certainly don’t want to speak or speculate on behalf of anyone involved here, but I would like to note that now, as before, any grievances Josh has remain valid in my mind, insofar as I understand them.

As for what membership rights will look like in the 501c4 - that is undecided. I will say though that any membership rights arrangement which allows unilateral removals strikes me as an arrangement begging to be corrupted.

For what little more context this may provide, Lobby3 is the only one so far that has formally passed, and has queued on Gnosis, a contribution to the DAO Coalition. In our case, it is to the tune of $10,000, but we also gave voters options for lower amounts.

Another DAO is taking a different approach, and will propose among their voters a nominal contribution of $5,000, plus a contribution of research services equalling $5,000 in value, with the intention of matching Lobby3’s contribution.

Similarly, although to a less formal extent, A third DAO has voiced a willingness to match Lobby3 up to $5,000, but this has not been expressed in any really binding way, although I am inclined to think they meant it.

Happy to provide any other information insofar as I can.

Not sure what the reason is, but I just had a long post, attempting to shed light on some of these matters, flagged by a bot and filed for review by Akismet. I could retype it all out, but it took me maybe 10 minutes.

Edit: it may be because I went back in twice to edit typos

Weird, did you lose access to the message?

I seem to have, yes. I got an automated message saying that it’s been hidden, and is pending review from an admin.

Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the current coalition meetings as they conflict with my classes this semester, which will run until January, possibly February. After that, I will have a new schedule.

That’s not a problem, @Da3vid . I don’t see us incorporating formally until next year.

@scottfits, we can have David be the other representative, but did want you to know that I likely will change the monthly call time so that’s a better fit for west coast folks.

1 Like

Great project. Liked.

Instead of 2 people listed as representatives, and a third as a backup, I would like to see opportunities for other citizens to get involved.

1 Like

As a note, I just changed the funding ask from $10K to $9,999 in the above CIP.

This is a good point. Among other things, CityDAO certainly could make the choice on a regular (annual?) basis to elect new representatives to the DAO Coalition, to require such representatives to report back on DAO Coalition activities, and direct such representatives to take xyz action.

Was able to have a chat with Stuttgart as I had a lot more questions, so paraphrasing and adding some more thoughts. I think what I’m missing is the grand vision and the tactics for how this works before I give full support. In lieu of being able to see the conversations within the DAO Coalition (which is probably fine, it’s not a DAO itself), no articles, messaging, and lack of twitter content, I’m not seeing the insight this group brings yet.

I obviously support efforts like this in general to improve and benefit the standing of digitally organized groups in the law.

  1. What are a few core principles distilled down, is it about new incorporation frameworks that allow DAOs to fit neatly into, is it clarifying SEC regulation related to DAO tokens, patching the holes with regard to DAOs being default international that sometimes is at odds with US law, etc

  2. Is the focus state or national policy (international)?

  • State and National
  1. What’s next after creating a website and incorporating?
  • My understanding is Stuttgart would get licensed as a lobbyist. I have no idea about that world.
  1. How is Lobby3 different from the DAO Coalition and from CoinCenter? Why not consolidate efforts?
  • Lobby3: Web3 overall
  • DAO Coalition: Just DAOs
  • Coin Center: Cyrptocurrency focused, assets, banking etc. (I respect and think they have an enormous positive influence on the space, a lot to learn from)

So it seems my prior post will remain hidden - no problem, I’ll just rewrite it here.

I think I may be able to provide some clarity regarding some of the questions and concerns so far. We have been recruiting and coordinating representatives from DAOs for several months now, and bringing them into the Discord server called “DAO Coalition” which I gather Josh and Stuttgart made, maybe with the help of others. We’ve been having monthly meetings, and strategizing about what this group should be doing, and how we should be doing it.

The term “DAO Coalition” is what we have pegged for the eventual 501(c)(4) social welfare organization we plan to establish, whereas the larger network of representatives from DAOs and DAO-friendly organizations remains unnamed, perhaps to some confusion.

Membership rights for the social welfare organization remain undefined, and this process of definition would be among the chief privileges exercised by those entities which contribute to the formation costs involved.

So far, Lobby3 has proposed and passed a contribution to the tune of $10,000, in ETH, which is currently queued as a transaction from the Lobby3 multisig to the DAO Coalition multisig, the latter of which has not been assigned signatories yet (I am the only one on it so far, as I deployed the safe contract). We also have the ENS domain daocoalition.eth pointed at the coalition multisig.

LexDAO will propose a $5,000 contribution, the asset of denomination being as of yet unknown to me, in addition to $5,000 worth of policy research services, to develop a thorough policy position in response to the Lummis-Gillibrand bill.

ATX DAO stated, in no really binding fashion, that they would be willing to match Lobby3’s contribution up to $5,000, but to my knowledge we have yet to see any action to that effect. That said, I have a good impression of ATX DAO so far, and I think this is something they can deliver.

In my initial post, I also made mention of the 30H DAO situation, in an attempt to address Josh’s grievances, which remain valid in my mind. I have since touched base with Josh privately, but I’m still happy to help clarify things in public. I just didn’t want to drag too much private stuff out into the public, without the consent of those parties involved.

As to the point @DenverCitizen9 makes, and which gets at the aspect of all this which I find perhaps most exciting, there may yet be ways that CityDAO Citizens, and more generally the members of any DAO involved in this network of ours, can get involved.

Again, the “DAO Coalition” will be the 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, which will be traditionally structured, and which I believe should go on to become the lobbying “organ” of this larger body of representatives. I think there could be real potential here to establish something like a Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO) for the DAO ecosystem, and this could be structured as a republic of sorts. Although here, I hesitate to use the term “republic” as that definitively involves representative governance, which isn’t necessarily what we have to do here. We could have metaproposals which can be “handed down” to constituent DAOs, for a sort of federated direct democracy. The team at Sapien have drafted a constitution for their platform, which may provide some insight and/or useful precedent for our case.

To recapitulate matters which are, to be sure, still largely hypothetical: we have this broad, expanding body of representatives from DAOs and other DAO-friendly or DAO-curious groups, which now includes around 30 DAOs and several non-DAO organizations such as WEF, Blockchain Association, COALA, and Global DCA. Some of these groups (Lobby3, with CityDAO and LexDAO in the proposal process) have contributed funds for the formation of a social welfare organization to advocate on behalf of the DAO ecosystem, with an initial emphasis on federal legislation - this social welfare organization is what is called The DAO Coalition, whereas the aforementioned broader body remains yet unnamed, perhaps to some confusion. The DAO Coalition could go on to be contextualized as the lobbying organ of this larger body, with the LexDAO Clinic (perhaps alongside the DAO Research Collective) being the policy research organ.

We’re talking about building a modular and federated metagovernance structure, international in scope and perhaps unprecedented in character, spanning whatever sectors DAOs may apply to.


Speaking on behalf of Lobby3 here, we are in the process of incorporating ourselves, probably seeking a Wyoming UNA and then applying for 501(c)(4) status. The angle Lobby3, as a direct and/or grassroots advocacy group, would take, does largely coincide with that of the DAO Coalition, but Lobby3 would have more of an emphasis on social/economic impact, poverty alleviation, and other matters that are more in keeping with Yang’s movement (EG Humanity Forward, Forward Party).

That said, I definitely think there are ways that Lobby3 and the DAO Coalition could, once they are both positioned for it, collaborate and support one another. That said, they would each have their own definitive focus/ethos.

I’d imagine there might be other DAOs in the future that for example might violate some ___ law or whatnot and which should not be inside the Coalition per say, that seems to lead to a filter process of some sort on which DAOs to allow in or not, like a mutually accepted standards list of sorts. That could be formed after -if- the project gets funding. I don’t know anything about 30H DAO but if they violate trust or other important topics, them and/or any other similarly violating DAO would/should be simply removed from the Coalition.

A Coalition however would need to exist and be formed first before anyone can be removed from it.

I also think -just guessing/hoping- that old hurt feelings from the many people who end up one way or another in conflicts, such as you and @Stuttgart, can be worked out so we can move on and continue working towards the common vision. Repeat occurrences are a different matter of course, but second chances feel like they benefit everyone.

I’ve certainly been the target of personal attacks -you guys know who you are…lol-, and also found myself being too harsh on others sometimes too, however all but 1 of those instances have been resolved quite well and peacefully with lots of productive work and conversations afterwards

We’re all here united by a shared vision. That’s the focus.

The enemy is out there, not in here. We’re gonna have to keep reminding ourselves of this and forgive our fellow Citizens from time to time for crossing lines.

I support this project on the grounds that I believe all of us can forgive and work through our personal challenges together, that our shared vision is stronger than hurt feelings from the past, that the $10k is relatively small risk, and that the prospect of a larger united voice of DAOs could be quite beneficial for the ecosystem.