CIP-47: Drop Mechanics for Parcel 0

Parcel 0 NFT Drop Method

This CIP is a follow-on from CIP-43

CIP-43 Forum Discussion
CIP-43 Snapshot Vote

*If quorum is not reached, those currently working on the Parcel 0 team will make this determination at their discretion.

CHOICE 1: Continue with current airdrop
If this option wins, plots will be distributed without any additional participation from citizens. Plots will be identified as a grid of squares across the parcel. Outstanding questions will not likely be answered.

Perhaps founding citizens get larger plots, or more plots. Matching citizens to plots is randomized.

CityDAO Cost: Est $20,000 Gas + TBD Development Cost to Complete Related Efforts and Batch Transactions
Citizen Cost: $0

CHOICE 2: Other Options TBD

This choice is a decision to suspend the current mint efforts, and instead spend additional time and effort exploring and evaluating options for Parcel 0. Select this choice if you believe we need to look at additional utility and ensure that NFT holders are granted the broadest rights related to Parcel 0. The approach to how this happens may look much different than current proposals. If you want to “Just drop the NFT and be done with it” then choose one of the above options instead.

A variety of ideas for this have been proposed, including:

  • Allowing citizens to select a desired plot location within the parcel
  • Coming up with novel methods for defining plot sizes and shapes
  • Considering features of the land prior to defining plots, to allow for a potential IRL AR experience
  • Clarifying expectations and legalities related to NFT ownership, including commercial rights within the metaverse
  • Exploring ways to reduce or eliminate costs associated with a Parcel 0 NFT
  • etc.

The cost of this choice is variable and could range anywhere from saving money, to free/$0, to very expensive, depending on which paths are chosen. This choice is expected to extend the amount of time to completion by an unknown duration which depends on the amount of complexity participating citizens would like, but it could extend the process by weeks-months.

Choice 2 Cost Estimates:

  • If we choose to recognize Parcel 0 holding as a part of CityDAO citizenship, there would be no costs, and we would also save the gas fees for this distribution
  • If we wanted to allow the option to merge Parcel 0 attributes with Citizenship NFT’s, additional costs for Parcel 0 would be minimal, and we would also save the gas fees for this distribution
  • If we choose a very involved mechanism for selecting parcels, with a complicated way of allocating parcels (such as with something like a custom built Voronoi Growth Euclidian), costs could range from volunteers wanting to explore this, to significant costs if we had to compensate developers to implement such a thing
  • There will be additional costs if we are to consider IRL land features prior to allocating plots

While we recognize that there is limited value in Parcel 0 as physical land, the belief is that there is much more that we can do with the property as it relates to CityDAO. If this option wins, you are voting to support a new Parcel 0 project. The goal will be to expand what is possible with the parcel before plots are distributed.

This option also allows for the possibility of creating an ERC-721 style token with modifiable metadata that can be dropped now, to be updated later. This will keep us on track for making Parcel 0 happen as announced, but as a hollow shell that will need to be updated later, leaving the door open for more complex selection of plots.

There are possible variants here, but the concept is that citizens would have a say in where the plot that they receive is located. Say, a clickable interface, where every citizen can choose a point on the map, or maybe just submit their desired X,Y coordinates. Once all desired locations have been identified, something like a Voronoi Growth Euclidean determines the exact size and location of everyone’s plots (@alexthims). Less populated (rural) areas get larger plots, more populated (urban) areas get smaller plots. Bonus: We could incorporate a delayed reveal function where citizens select the location without knowing where anyone else selected, and the plots are only shown after all coordinates are submitted. The voronoi growth could even occur while the selection is ongoing, so early participants could be rewarded with larger plots (and founding citizens could get a head start or have faster growing Euclidian).

Beyond the plot selection process, there are other aspects we could explore such as the incorporation of AR (@slyRacoon23) in which case we would need to consider the physical properties of the land, and establish IRL walkable pathways thought the land prior to setting boundaries for the NFT’s.


Thank you for this proposal @DenverCitizen9. As for the First Question I am in favor of 1 plot per citizenship. What’s inevitably going to happen if we choose every wallet is people are going to distribute citizenships to a bunch of wallets to claim more plots. This is a big burden on the individual citizens who will feel they need to do this to keep up with the pack, as the opportunity cost of not doing it could be quite high. I’d bet we’re going to be dealing with a lot of support requests for lost citizenships and such. As to the Second Question I believe a simple claim/mint system, where each mint is random, is the best choice. We want something simple to get through this in a reasonable amount of time. Choice 3 is too complex and Parcel 0 will never end. I like Choice 2 over Choice 1 because it rewards active members. Anyone who can’t sign onto a site to mint their plot(s) doesn’t deserve one. The remaining plots can be distributed pro-rata to citizenship holders or reserved as community land.


You say this like it would be a bad thing :slight_smile:

We’re racing to drop Parcel 0 as if the end is the goal. Say the drop happens, then what? We each hold one more NFT… why is that important?

We know it is going to be a long time before we purchase another piece of land, if at all (citizens have indicated an interest in building a city, not buying land). Option 3 represents a fair way for citizens to “claim” a parcel. How would this happen if this were the real world, with real land?

I don’t see option 3 as a delay, or as busywork, I see it as something novel and exciting which we can all rally behind and engage with. It would be a good use of our time to figure out such a thing.


Can we get rid of this now? I think it’s confusing as this CIP-47 is the second vote. CIP-43 is the first vote.

1 Like

Now that we’ve agreed to change Parcel 0 that was originally approved, we should make this change as good as we can, and I vote the Choice 3

I agree, and the important bit was all citizens not necessarily these details. Removed.

I love using IRV for this. We should do that for every vote that has multiple options.

1 Like

Except votes where we are trying to select multiple options :sweat_smile:

Thanks for getting this proposal up so quickly, and I’m glad to see we will be making progress on parcel 0. I have to say I’m torn. I agree with @gugz that I kind of just want to be done with Parcel 0 - especially since there isn’t much we are planning to do with the land (I know I know, there might be future possibilities, but we certainly aren’t building a city there.).

But @DenverCitizen9 makes a good point. We hand out the Parcel 0 NFTs and then what? It might be nice to also have this other proof of concept (choice 3) to point to for whenever we get around to Parcel 1.

1 Like

I had a great conversation with @slyRacoon23 today. With Option 3 for Parcel 0, the “then what?” can actually be pretty huge if we don’t pull the trigger prematurely.

We covered a lot of ground in one short brainstorming discussion, where we talked about creating an AR experience on the actual land (parcel owners could display what they wanted).

If we were to do something like that, we might even want a city planning type person to help us determine the layout. Would we want actual pathways on the land for people to walk? If so, that would mean streets in the metaverse that we wouldn’t want going through people’s properties (this would need to happen first!).

Also, what about interopability and the ability to use the plot in other novel ways. What about legal or commercial rights in the metaverse? Have lawyers figured out how to define virtual property?

There is so much more that we could do, and the rabbit hole goes as deep as we’re willing to follow it.

1 Like

I had a great conversation with @DenverCitizen9 as well. The idea is quite big. It’s about Life-sized augmented reality. The idea is to tie the physical land with the meta-verse land and have it be an AR experience while having very secure property right, e.g. Data Vizualiztion on the land, who can view the land, who can build on the land, etc. Life-size Augmented reality is quite new tech at the moment which its only use case is construction development but it’s a way to bridge the physical with the virtual. Here a link to show what I mean (link).

It is a huge undertaking that will take quite some time however the virtual can be built fairly independently of the AR which will give people to develop and create the VR aspect.

1 Like

I love this! Definitely a substantial undertaking, but I’ll bet we’ve got all the necessary skill-sets in this DAO to firm a project around it. I’m excited about the utility this would add to the Parcel 0 NFT, and I’m a big fan of the AR component that could tie it to the actual land.

1 Like

What’s missing from these conversations is that a Parcel 0 NFT should/will convey real rights related to the parcel. I can’t name another project that grants liquid control rights to a piece of land. I think that’s a cool proof of concept and I think that’s what people are missing in the big picture here.

Can we leave flexibility in the initial drop so that the fate of everything else is in Parcel 0 Holders hands. I think @DenverCitizen9 alluded to this elsewhere.

Yes, part of my concern is the current ambiguity. These things have been discussed, but not defined.

I think we need to push things back, and open up the conversations to figure out what’s possible with the plot/distribution mechanism and and finalize all of these things. This is why I am ultimately pro option 3.

I also think that such things can be accomplished through a migration of the current citizenship NFT. If there is any value, I haven’t heard why we even would want to offload it to a separate token. Why not increase the value of the current citizenship NFT’s?

The only thing I can think of is this: we know for sure they’re will be future parcels. And in those future parcels we are pretty sure that we’ll need separate parcel NFTs. So we might as well establish that structure now for parcel 0 as a proof of concept.

Here’s a better example of the Voronio overlayed onto Parcel 0


What you are looking at:

1) Map of Parcel 0, green line is road and buildable area (approximate)

2) People pick plots by clicking specific locations (9 plots in this example). Option to see other locations as they are selected, or keep it all hidden for a final reveal. Could even allow users to edit their selected location for some amount of time (say, you don’t like your neighbor, or want to follow the crowd, or move to a less-dense area)

3) The clicked points grow to consume whatever territory is available. If the selected points are clustered around denser areas, then that will mean urban/smaller plots. For less dense areas, it will be rural/larger plots

1 Like

Here are a couple examples of the types of plot differences that other algorithms might produce

@DenverCitizen9 are we ready to put this to a vote?

I’m not sure. There was talk of having it happen simultaneously to expedite since CIP-43 wasn’t complete, but the original plan was to wait for CIP-43.

I’m OK either way, happy to defer to the core team for timing.

Updated to reflect decision to airdrop.