As we prepare to launch our experiments around land on chain with our Wyoming parcel and a partnership with Invert for land in the Amazon, we propose offering the community and selected teams grants to build metaverse land games and uses.
Format:
• Create a Grants Committee of up to 11 people composed of the core team and citizens who express interest here or in Discord. A 6 out of 11 vote can issue the grant
• Each grant shall be no more than 20k since our goal is to provide opportunity to many teams
We propose 3 voting options: Option A: APPROVE with 250k Option B: APPROVE with 100k Option C: REJECT
It is hard to know which metaverse platform will survive in the long term. Purchased land may became worthless in couple of years. Maybe it is too early to step in.
I agree here. I’m honestly not one who spends much time in the “metaverse” as I think it’s a silly gimmick that won’t be a lasting feature of web3. The real potential of web3 is to digitally represent physical objects (this is not possible with web2). By funding metaverse projects before we even fund IRL ones, we’re prioritizing these other highly experimental worlds over our core mission.
I am reading the proposals that you are making and many of them seem very good, including yours. I think it would be an added value to generate a metaverse about the LANDs and thus be able to form a secondary market for parcels.
The point is that we are talking about totally exorbitant sums of money, and that although our DAO has a generous fund, it is finite and ends.
In another vein, I am really alarmed by the fact that proposals with intentions with spending huge amounts of money prosper so easily. I think we should be more rigorous with which proposals we approve for a vote. I think the procedure should be more rigorous.
I say all this without detracting from fundamental ideas, but only focusing on budget items.
I think, at the very least, you should explain why we’d do this?
CityDAO should leverage its unique position in being able to purchase real land/assets: virtually no one can do this, and this is what makes us interesting.
Everyone can create some metaverse land, where’s exactly our hedge here?
I think we should all be open-minded to proposals, but they should be laid out with more detail.
Agree with Greg and LucaTrips here. Our core mission is (or at least was) to build a city, and I think this was commonly understood to mean real land - this was the original motivation for the DAO.
It looks like this vote will pass so this comment won’t matter, but it feels a bit disappointing that a few vague paragraphs is sufficient for us to allocate 250k for this.
I think we have to solve or establish certain general guidelines when putting together proposals. We are at an early stage of development that I believe is extremely crucial and will define the direction of CityDAO, and yet many proposals are being considered that lack complete information.
Also disappointed in the result here. It feels like everything that goes to a vote is voted in favor. Essentially that means he who controls what goes to snapshot controls the DAO. Not the way we should operate long term by any means. We need to get some improved governance proposals through to improve this process.
Since the vote will pass (likely with 200K), hopefully, that 200K is at least spent incredibly sparingly. That’s a very large percentage of our treasury.
Now NFTcitizen is more like a share certificate than civil rights.
In my opinion, it lacks the essential thing that evokes a sense of belonging.
Try to Take the most basic idea for now. Rights come with duties.
We give NFTcitizen holders the right to vote.
What about their duty to pay taxes or not? It probably isn’t.
The problem is that when designing NFTcitizen, how do you put civic duty in there? Init?
Otherwise, this project does not use the city. But it’s a company, and NFTcitizen is no different from a shareholding.
Agree that it’s an issue that everything gets approved by default.
Just an assumption of WHY this is the case:
Maybe it’s because of overall lack of actions + clarity after the mint? The narrative might be “we have a lot of money in the treasure, no clear strategy how to spend it… So we rather do something rather than nothing”
Feel we lost a lot of momentum due to lack of long-term strategy, operating principles and governance.
Without these pillars in place it’s impossible to vote thoughtful on anything… But non-ideal actions might be better than no actions?
