CIP-150 - Ensure the Succesful Future of CityDAO

Adopt all of the first version of CIP-149 with the following changes:

  1. City Council & Multisig members will be unpaid.
  2. Use the funds freed up by not paying the Multisig & City Council to pay for a Mayor who will be chosen by the council (but cannot be one of them) to run the DAO full time on a day to day basis. The City Council will have the power to remove this person and delegate any of its power to him.
  3. City Council takes on the powers of the mission guild as defined in the charter.
  4. Use CIP-145 run the elections.
  5. The first order of business for the City Council is to select a Mayor.
  6. The second order of business will be for the City Council to draft rules, regulations and ordinances for the DAO which will be submitted to approval as a CIP to the members.
  7. The third order of business for the City Council and Mayor is to create a mechanism for CityDAO to be revenue positive with the expectation that members, contributor, City Council Members, and Multisig members will be paid.

What’s the thinking on why the mayor? What if this was just reworded as city council will be paid and their first mission is to create a mechanism for CityDAO to be revenue positive? What does the mayor give us?

Simply so there is one person who is responsible for the operation of CityDAO who can be fired for not doing their job. Instead of the current situation of blaming others.

While the council will be truly incentivized to grow cityDAO instead of collecting a salary.

Interesting! I support a lot of this. A few questions:

First is about the “mayor”. Really this position is for a full-time director of operations, right? The tasks are mostly those outlined in CIP-149 (CIP monitoring and day-to-day operations), right? I’d just prefer if we changed the title from mayor to operations director, or something more reflective of what the position really is.

Second, would the city council still be five members? Not objecting, just asking. I think five people is enough to really get the job done without splintering. Also, would this still be the 6 month time limit envisioned in CIP-149?

Third, there is no clear election method outlined in CIP-145, just that Walt will run it for comp. Is this still the idea? The difference would be that it would now be an election for 13 people? I think in this case we could follow @Fugyeah’s idea and elect a City Council, which would then choose 4 signers and 4 of the current signers would remain.

Finally, the last point about creating a revenue mechanism is an interesting idea. It would probably end up being a CIP that would envision either selling something or renting something. I think that part might be challenging.

Fair point. I guess a few questions though. If the council isn’t paid what incentive do they have to fire someone not doing a good job? What stops that from just being political? Why would the council be incentivized to grow CityDAO?

In a way it’s odd. Let’s pay someone and make them accountable, but not pay the people making them accountable.

I think we need to just be a little more specific about what parts of CIP 145 we are taking because there were some well intentioned pieces that aren’t necessarily pertaining to running an election. I think the election pieces work, the structure of the election, of timing, etc but let’s be clear since we are just referencing another document (that is just posted as a reply in another thread really) so we don’t have any conflict down the line.

1 Like

I don’t disagree with what you are saying but I almost feel like we should create a signing fee of 1 or 2% and then at the end of the quarter the signers split it based on some ratio of % of transactions signed. Keep it a token payment but a paymrnt and maybe a leaderboard so there’s a little gameificstion to it. As for the council I can see paying them but I would almost prefer giving them a budget of $5000-10000 each per month budget and see how they spend it. Let’s make it part of their campaign. How will I spend the $15,000 to $30,000 entrusted to me. It might actually even improve participation in the election. Obviously they will have to justify their spending come reelection. Is it enough to spark something productive? Do they use it to promote CityDAO? To help unstick some small items to help projects, etc. Maybe a rule they can’t just pay themselves but they can spend it on projects that benefit them (ie you could spend to help T0wn)


Totally agree with the multi sig. In theory, just pay them enough to reimburse them for the bit of time and effort to hit sign. For the council, I actually love the idea. I would enhance it a bit in different ways, but yes.

At EthDenver I met this group doing something call “DAO Reaper”. Basically, if the DAO fails in certain ways the money gets sent to a charity, or public good. I feel that is the ultimate incentive. The council needs to really do good, or it will all be gone.

Trying to work through the intent here - it makes sense just reading it and having already read CIP149 but in terms of implementation - is the idea here that CIP149 would have to achieve 20 likes separately and if this CIP also achieves 20 likes then the content above would be added to CIP149?

Or what is the flow @kkopczyn?

I kind of love this idea. Giving each person an amount of money they could spend on CityDAO and then having them platform on how they’d spend it to improve the DAO and lead that effort. I didn’t totally understand who gets the signing fee, though. But this is something I’d say we could do in the future, not instead of having an operations and mission team.

For what it’s worth, however the details shake out, I think CIPs 145/149/150 bring clarity and transparency that wasn’t there regarding the multi-sig et al or was very difficult/cumbersome to figure out when I first joined the DAO in July '22. Rotations and elections might be the way the DAO starts to move again.

I would offer that once the processes are finalized, that ample, digestible documentation is kept in one, easy-to-find location. For instance, reading different conversations and posts, I’ve learned that there are different versions of the charter floating around, and so, it’s tough to know which one is the defacto or the most recent worked on. I know there are always tons of moving parts, but as a person that has tried to contribute in the past, unintuitive/opaque locations of fundamental information of the DAO is one of the major reasons I couldn’t get to a productive contributing state. I would read and read and get analysis paralysis and spend all my time trying to figure out the right information, then I would just get cross-eyed or give up before getting to the point to be useful enough to contribute.

So, Yeah! Very grateful for everyone still here doing great work and pushing this thing along!