20 likes! @PatSantiago please confirm that all 20 are CityDAO citizens (as this has been an issue in the past) and if they are, this would be ready to go to Snapshot.
2 Likes
The only ones I canāt confirm are interstellarx and blotto, everyone else is definitely a citizen, letās wait til thereās some more likes just to be safe. CIPs get 3 weeks to hit the like quota right?
2 Likes
When i look the names at discord, many dont have citizen role
fyi
1 Like
Yea Pat, this is gonna be huge for the whole CityDAO community
3 Likes
Yes, I believe itās 3 weeks. But we do have to confirm that itās 20 citizens who liked the proposal.
2 Likes
Sounds like a solid plan, and Iāve only heard good things about you, Pat!
2 Likes
Thank you for the support!
1 Like
Any updates here?
2 Likes
My bad, just seeing this!
Posting updates in discord! Two new papers coming soon that focus on cityDAO governance and propose some solutions to current problems.
1 Like
Totally see how that could look, the calls are just at a bad time for me. Rest assured, Iāve been reading discord and talking with members!
1 Like
I completely understand your frustration here.
The CIP was written so that contributors had the opportunity to create a more rigid structure of public reporting and accountability, they did not. (You asked me to create a spreadsheet to track spending and I did this)
Others who have had questions about what Iām doing, or interest in my work have been reaching out to me. They all DMād me on discord where we chatted, had conversations to clear up any questions or concerns and many even opted into video meetings to talk about my work and share ideas for anywhere from 30 mins to on some cases over 2 hours!
I donāt even think the community calls are a good practice. They naturally enforce a centralized governance structure as they are limited in time meaning a limited number of people are able to speak, They are intended for english speaking citizens meaning that mainly us citizens are granted the credibility you are implying speaking at them grants and they have historically been used as a means of soft governance.
I honestly donāt check this platform much either and would gladly share my reasoning behind that as well if youād like, Iād prefer you reach out on Discord or telegram for a more timely response.
1 Like
Iāve read through the entire thread and I must say, the lack of transparency and accountability is deeply concerning. You were entrusted with 10k, and by all appearances, youāve offered little to no concrete results or evidence to justify this expenditure. The communityās frustration is entirely warranted.
Firstly, I want to touch on your absence from community calls. While I understand you have concerns about these meetings potentially reinforcing centralized governance, the reality is they serve as an essential channel for accountability and updates. Your consistent absence sends a message of disregard for community involvement and transparency.
Secondly, regarding your communicationāor the lack thereofāyou mentioned people should reach out on Discord or Telegram for a āmore timely response.ā Frankly, this is a poor excuse. Given that youāve received funds for your proposal, the onus is on you to keep the community informed, not the other way around. A more decentralized way of governance shouldnāt come at the expense of accountability.
Lastly, the āCIP was written so that contributors had the opportunity to create a more rigid structure of public reporting and accountability,ā but you have been opaque about both. This isnāt an optional part of the process; itās fundamental. So where is the rigid structure? Where is the public reporting?
I strongly urge you to rectify this situation immediately. Share the spreadsheet tracking the spending, offer up any deliverables you have, and most importantly, engage with the community in an open and transparent manner. If you canāt meet these basic requirements, then I must question your suitability for this initiative and recommend reconsideration of the acceptance of funds for this.
Best regards,
lyons800
2 Likes
The idea of āāthe right to go to snapshot with 20 votes in the forum should be developed. Why is there no right to vote against? This offer seems to been supported by citizens via private messages on Discord. I donāt even think they read it.
Payment system with Ethereum needs to be abolished. We have an example of 1 pizza and 10,000 BTC.
1 Like
You make a good point. The original purpose of the 20 likes was just to make sure that thereās some level of interest in a CIP, rather than sending absolutely anything to Snapshot. When this started, two years ago, there were DAOs where every proposal went to Snapshot, and it got ridiculous. People could āproposeā that one baseball team was the best, or that a country should change their flag - things that had absolutely nothing to do with governance. So we implemented a very basic system of 20 likes (it was originally 100 likes and was then lowered!) to stop people from making silly CIPs about things and having them go to Snapshot.
The ālikeā is meant to be a gauge of interest, not a vote. Snapshot is the method of voting. You make a good point that behind the scenes politicking and private DMs may have strongly influenced the outcome. I donāt know if thereās a way to prevent this in any society, but itās a good idea to move towards voting only on the issues on not on who asked their friends to vote for something.
2 Likes