option 1. agreed on plot 0 being more symbolic in nature. dedicate it to conservation. airdrop 10k plots.
thanks for bringing this to forum. Do you think we should put it up on snapshot to have the citizens vote? If so, how do you think we should word the options? (I think it would be between Option 1 that you are proposing and the current 1000 lease nft sell).
If option 1 wins on snapshot, how would you word the airdrop? Would it give the owners of the the nft the ability to build on their plot? Would it be ownership, but subject to use only as decided by the DAO as a whole? Would it be for conservation/preservation only, can we build trails and a visitor center and run it like a park, would we have housing for whoever is managing overseeing the land?
The wording, in a sense, is the question we have been arguing about for months, and TBH I donât think has real meaning. I find it odd we now have basically added extra laws/rules when the goal was to take them away. So if I buy a plot and build a house on it, I wonât, but say for the sake of argument, that wouldnât be against Wyoming Law. I am not trying to be controversial here. I am just pointing out that once the land is dropped, someone else owns it on-chain. If they do something legal with it, but not for the purpose of conservation, what will CityDAO do? Isnât the point of the DAO to encourage value-adding activity? Who would do what exactly, and why? What would it mean for CityDAO to stop development? Wouldnât that mean they are going above Wyoming law? Thus imposing laws on top of what is already present.
Anyway, where am I going with this? I think you word the NFT drop very minimally âThe purposed use of the land is conservation.â If someone doesnât use the land for conservation, perhaps some rules and protocols will emerge in CityDAO to stop it. Or maybe they wonât. The point is to drop the land and see. Rules will emerge, to set out the rules top down before the land is dropped seems to defeat the whole purpose of the experiment to begin with. But, I donât want to start a big debate, I really just want to see the land dropped.
I do. Iâve updated the choices to reflect the options and voting mechanism.
The purpose of this is to separate the âwhat can we do with the landâ from âwho gets access to Parcel 0â
This proposal is to say the âwhoâ is every current citizenship holder. The âwhatâ is still TBD separately, as the citizens decide. Iâm just hoping we can remove the extra step of minting/citizens putting up additional monies and then have Parcel 0 only in a limited number of hands.
I might argue that the core vision of the DAO is to experiment with crazy shit that has never been done before, and I see this as a very low cost experiment (imagine if this was real land that we were trying to distribute⌠say the colonization of Mars). That said, the beauty of such a project is that we all have a voice and each get to vote on the option we like.
Short version is âwe will seeâ but yes I would expect this to go up for bounty, and/or the Dev Guild would figure it out. As for DAOâs in general thereâs a bit of wiggle room, but generally delgation is a good thing (put some power into the hands of the people who can get it done, and let them do their thing).
I would hope that we could come up with an authorization mechanism separately.
Re: @ScottAâs thoughts on use, I think the idea is that we can all focus our efforts on whatâs possible with Parcel 0.
Today the option may be limited to âThis NFT for Parcel 0 means nothing as itâs only for conservationâ but if that can be extended in any way then the holders of said NFTâs would benefit from the expanded options for use.
I like the idea of a communal camping spot, some totems, some hiking trails. Beyond that some one did mention wind and solar, which does seem like a great spot to at least look into feasibility.
I have no issue with issuing them as conservation. We voted on that. But I guess the point is what does that really mean? It isnât a law, it is just a consensus opinion. Doesnât mean all development should forever be stopped, the spirit is to see what emerges. See what ideas are thought up. Nothing should be limited per say.
1 Like
Thanks for the reply. I wish I had worded my statement on the values of CityDAO differently. I agree that we want to experiment with stuff, and number 3 would definitely accomplish that. I think I was thinking more along the lines of this: Since Parcel 0 is really just about proof of concept, and we donât actually want to build on it, then lets save the plot-picking for a parcel where it would actually be meaningful. That said, I wonât be too upset if option 3 is selected. Just my opinion!
Right now, the experiment of picking plots in parcel 0 wouldnât be a real experiment in personal preferences. If you know you canât build on parcel 0⌠then do you just choose one that has coordinates with your favorite number? In the real world, many people would want a few choice plots (closer to city center, closer to natural features, further from roads etc.). It would be fascinating to see how that played out in a land drop. But maybe it would be useful to experiment with the technology here first where the preferences donât actually matter⌠Iâve talked myself into circles!
Update: I was going to add a 4th option to âRejectâ this proposal, but I realized that has a chance of winning even if more people want to move forward with the proposal.
Iâm proposing that this is 3 choices. If we need a ânoâ option to be included, I think we might need two votes:
First vote to determine whether we go forward with 10k plots or 1k plots.
Second vote only necessary if we decide 10k, in which case the 3 options are presented.
Open to other thoughts but not sure how else to do this fairly
3 Likes
I think we should go with the two-vote option. It feels a little uncomfortable that the only way to not have a parcel drop is for the vote to have less than 100 people vote (though personally I am in favor of doing one of the 3 options!).
Not sure if its possible, but can you do a nested vote? Like have a secondary pop up if you voted yes, then which option do you want? If thats not possible, then maybe a simultaneous snap shot vote for the three options - and be clear that the results will only matter if the previous CIP is approved.
I donât think so, but we can have two back-back votes.
If the first vote passes, we can immediately post the second. Based on other conversations this does make more sense. Iâll update the proposal to reflect this
Looking from the bigger picture, let us use our productive effort/asset in Parcel 1. Parcel-0 is our first stepping stone. It is not just our symbolic, it help us to create our DAO today. I believe Citydao is the most productive community in the space.
Airdrop 10K should make everyone happy while we can release the core / guild resource to next activities. Just put the options in vote. LFG!!!
6 Likes
I also agree with âSimple is the best; especially for DAOs.â
1 Like
10k airdrop is not that simple; what do we do with all the citizen NFTs currently held by the multisig?
Thanks @mdnatx, I appreciate you adding your thoughts.
I donât want to create too many tangential docs so Iâll address some of the topics here.
Re: relevant existing CIPâs
CIP-14 Land Use - Nov '21
Weâve known for some time that the land canât be used for much, as was noted with this proposal to use the land for conservation.
CIP-? Pricing - Dec '21
This proposed a âcase for a higher priceâ but did not have an option for zero/free plots.
The above vote also says âParcel 0 will be divided into 950 plotsâ though I am unsure when/where that determination was made. A Snapshot vote from August '21 without a referenced CIP has 500 parcels listed. 10k plots was not an option.
Update: Good news! It sounds like weâve reached agreement on the pricing concern.
For either option, the mint price will be free/gas-only
1 Like
I think I need some more information.
- If there were 1,000 (larger) plots would it be likely / possible to actually build on them?
- How would I âfindâ my plot (regardless which size) if I happened to acquire one?
- How would I do this without crossing other plots?
- In general is the DAO expecting people to travel / build/ live here or just look at their NFT lovingly on screen?
Maybe this info all exists somewhere in which case could you edit the original post please?
1 Like
My understanding is that no plot can be used for building. The land is not suitable and it would raise too many legal issues. Therefore, there is also no need to worry about your point 3, which would be easements to cross onto another personâs land. NFT owners can visit the land, maybe people could hike or camp on the land (not sure about camping) if they sign a hold harmless waiver of liability.
I think thereâre more to this than just looking at your NFT. Many NFTs are just things you look at. Itâs knowing that youâre a part of a project with a vision. This first parcel may not have valuable use rights, but itâs still Parcel 0. When and if there are 100 parcels out there, Parcel 0 might mean something.
1 Like
No.
I believe there is a map of the plots overlayed on the actual land, with coordinates. If this does not exist itâs pretty easy to do so I suspect it will be created at some point.
You canât, and it wouldnât be âyour plotâ anyways, only âyour plot NFTâ
What a plot NFT represents is TBD, but itâs looking like it will be your right to licensed activity, likely being able to physically access Parcel 0 (in its entirety) and vote on how to spend monies in the treasury. These details are still being worked out.
It will mostly be an NFT, but will also provide some limited licensed activities, such as visiting the land in person.
Building an actual city is still on the radar, just not with this particular Parcel.