CIP-200 CityDAO Council v.2.0


The purpose of this CIP is to create a temporary group to organize and clean up certain key administrative issues that have prevented CityDAO from moving forward and developing. The purpose of this CIP is to fix problems and then hold elections for a more democratic government of CityDAO. The quorum for this CIP is 500 votes and the budget requested is $10K.


The proposed City Council 2.0 would include the following people:

  1. Scottfits
  2. Lyons
  3. David
  4. Blackacres
  5. Fugyeah

These five people have been in CityDAO from the earliest days and have shown their commitment to CityDAO. As they have all been active from the beginning, they are well-informed on all aspects of CityDAO. In addition, these five people have worked together on the first City Council to create the initial Charter, and know how to work together effectively.


Upon passing a Snapshot vote, City Council 2.0 will function for three months. If it accomplishes the phase one goals, it will continue for a second three months.


City Council 2.0 is meant to accomplish very specific goals. Each of these goals is directly tied to the effectiveness of CityDAO. The goals are as follows:


  • Amend the CityDAO Charter to:
    • Clarify the process of CIP creation → Forum → Snapshot
    • Making a clear template for the creation of CIPs
    • Clarify how an NFT holder confirms their citizenship
    • Ensure that only verified citizens are able to “like” CIPs on the Discourse forum
    • Clarify Snapshot voting to refine quorums and/or implement quadratic voting
    • Any other changes the council determines are needed
  • Appoint the 8-person multisig and make clear rules for how members are removed
  • Establish legal clarity on:
    • CityDAO treasury payments from projects
    • Using NFTs as compensation to citizens
  • Maintaining or hiring people to maintain the DAO tools including Discord, Discourse, Snapshot, Website, Notion, and Twitter
  • Establishing and enforcing regulations for behavior on Discourse and Discord
  • Establishing a complaint and grievance process for CityDAO citizens


The council will aim to complete these responsibilities in phase 1, time permitting

  • Organizing operations and day-to-day administration

  • Setting policy and strategic direction

  • Appointing advisory boards of citizens, as needed.

  • Initiating an update to CityDAOs public facing content in order to attract more users

  • Sunsetting proposals that have had no progress for six months, as needed.

  • Creating an events and grants budget proposal to ensure continued presence and maintain branding at various web3 events

  • Holding elections for City Council 3.0 within a max of six (6) months of the first meeting of the council.


  • Remaining Funds: All funds ($10K) will be used for bounties for administrative and operational work as needed.


  • CityDAO Council reserves the right to bypass the forum stage in the CIP process. This is to allow the Council to run as effectively as possible and directly post CIPs to Snapshot.
  • CityDAO Council reserves the right to act as the Mission guild in accordance with all applicable CIPs that passed a Snapshot vote.

It looks like the council will provide sorely needed structure. My concern is that the structure may become mere bureaucracy in the end. I suggest making a discussion of the values of citydao and what type of culture we want be a part of the structures and policies implemented by this council


I can’t support this as is, though I do agree with the general idea of forming a new special council to make revisions to the charter based on what we’ve learned since the first special council.

One of my main issues is the members being self appointed, the optics are not great considering mostly the same people just requested to spend almost the entire treasury and seem to be getting rejected in that proposal (The timing makes it feel like this is a reaction to seize power from the community and pass that proposal). I’d like to see this council elected by citizens.

I also think we should try our best to have people who were not on the first council step up this time to give everyone a chance at testing their governance ideas


This approach seems like a reasonable compromise for now. While a larger elected group would be preferable in an ideal scenario, implementing such a change at this moment would likely be a bit too chaotic. For the moment I think this is a good group that can get some things done and transition to a broader elected group down the road. I support.

1 Like

A favorite quote of mine from the from CSO at ShapeShift AG Michael Perklin always says, Veify, don’t trust. In this sense, as someone who is new and voting on this proposal, tenure isn’t enough for me to blindly trust people being proposed.

Could you provide a background on each member being proposed, their strengths, and why they should be included in this council?

Were any of these members on previous councils? If so, why should they be re-elected to this current council? Could you talk about the successes and failures of each person’s time on previous councils?

Some of these items feel like they should be voted on by the DAO as a whole. These include:

  1. Any amendments to the charter. It was previously voted on, and it should continue to be voted on as it changes.
  2. Clarify Snapshot voting to refine quorums and/or implement quadratic voting. Any changes to the governance process feel like they should be voted on by the majority, else whats the point of having voting-rights.
  3. “Any other changes the council determines are needed” This is entirely too vague to be included IMO. this feels like a blank check of authority being written.

I think having clear leaders on tasks in this team could help the community understand how this new team can help CityDAO facilitate more project and avoid bureaucracy.

For example, we can have different leaders for: the charter, the website, discord mod, community engagement, etc…

1 Like

I have decided to remove my name from this council. There is currently another council proposal being developed and I do not want to be associated with two conflicting proposals.

1 Like

Having seen no responses on any of these issues at this time, I will not be able to support this proposal going forward.

1 Like