CIP-6: Increase Supply of Founding Citizen NFT's to 60

This proposal is to increase the supply of founding citizen NFTs to 60 (Adding 10 to current supply

This is in replacement of CIP-4: proposal to add 50 more to supply.

Proposal reasoning is below:

• The DAO sold off Founding Citizen NFTs too quickly. We only have 2 left in the treasury
• We propose that the DAO increases supply and holds 12 in treasury.
• This increase in supply is designed as part of the business model to help develop strategic partnerships (people, other DAOs, organizations , etc)
• Any time a Founding Citizen NFT is to be sold, it must be at agreement of all Gnosis signers.

If we vote on this proposal only Founding Citizens can vote on this , given they are impacted.

I wanted to add: I don’t plan on making a trend of increasing supply, we just have an opportunity to do it now that we are moving away from Opensea and minting our own contracts

We’ve gotten several contributors who want to have more skin in the game and these NFTs are a good mechanism


I think more details need to be provided. Is there a specific price at which the DAO plans to sell these, and a set of people they will be sold / gifted to? Does an open market not exist where long term believers can buy from speculators who got in early?

I worry about the precedent being set by increasing supply. In the best case, there will be many future productive core contributors to CityDAO. Will we increase supply for them too?

IMO the Founding Citizen NFT represents being early. All CityDAO NFTs should be sold in fair and open auctions, not in one-off negotiations between Scott and contributors. If necessary, the DAO can compensate contributors in other ways, including cash from the DAO treasury.


I agree with this sentiment. Founding Citizen shows early support and taking more risk when contributing funds. This should be rewarded financially or with certain rights / privileges as CityDAO grows and finds success. I’d argue there’s probably a need for an even higher level of protection to this value for the first contributors and leader of the project (Scott, etc.) Current and future contributions will continue to grow, and I believe call for other ways of compensation rather than dilution of “founding” citizens.

I think it’s critical to build proper incentivization mechanisms so that CityDAO can continue to grow, I just don’t think this is the ideal way to do it.

I’d propose keeping founding citizen NFTs at 50 cap, permanently, and considering one of the following ways to build incentivization mechanics to current contributors instead:

  1. Dedicate a portion of parcels to the DAO upon parcel sale that is fractionalized and retroactively awarded to contributors. This could be one drop, or an incremental drop that is awarded based on milestones. Milestones are a great metric for awarding contributors because we can all vote on objectives as a DAO, but allow contributors freedom to contribute any way they want as long as the goals are met - more value based alignment.

  2. Create a separate ERC-20 offering that represents fractionalized CityDAO ownership. Continue to create a long term roadmap for CityDAO that includes revenue models for launching new cities and/or helping other communities launch their own. Happy to help with this, as I know several DAOs that could use our services to launch their land acquisitions and management learnings. We could vote to allocate a portion of this token to contributors, each season.

  3. Accept an external fundraise. I’m less keen on this idea (actually, mostly against it), but if we need to raise money and trade land or an asset that we collectively own as a DAO, there are plenty of models emerging that we could consider.

Love the iteration and thinking on this, and would love to hear other ideas in this context.


I would probably vote not in favor of creating more founding citizen NFTs. It confuses the intention of what founding citizen members were meant to be, and dilutes the initial group of people involved in the project.

It was fantastic that the founding citizen NFTs were sold so quickly, and is a signal that another type of NFT could make sense to introduce rather than conflating founding citizen with partnerships or inter-DAO relationships.

On the other hand, I do love that as founding citizens, we are directly being invited to vote on the partnerships and relationships CityDAO is looking to build. If we agree on proceeding, I would ask that we consider ways to return some value or investment to the OG’s in exchange for dilution.


I agree with the sentiment above, I believe we can get more NFTs to the treasury through a different route. In the end of the day these are called “Founding” Citizens, if people come in after we’re already established with some land are they really considered founders?

Just like in start up investing, the pre-seed raises get more equity at a better valuation because they are taking more risk.

Take a note from PFP nft collections and maybe make honorary members or just increase the amount of regular citizen nfts or even find something inbetween like platinum members or first class citizens(not this one because it sounds icky but you get my jive). if someone wants to pay market value for a founding citizen nft paying 5-10-15eth isnt a big deal, the market will find the true value for them.

I do believe we have to get treasury more ways to get money, but I dont believe this is the route.


I don’t think it’s that big of a dilution to the founders dao to add 10 more people especially if they have more time to be active than others. I’m for it.

I would probably vote not in favor because I don’t think it’s a good precedence. I’m not sure this is a good or sustainable way to fundraise, we should be maturing beyond that for revenue, and don’t believe that it’s a sustainable way of rewarding contributors because it’s a one time use.

Strategic Partnership wise, I bet we could ideate some other ways to signal and create alliances.


The more I read the above responses the more aligned I am to the logic. I feel massive tension with early heavy contributors (who continue to contribute) having missed the flash sale. I felt lucky to get mine they moved incredibly fast. That said, reading the above comments I’m aligned to the logic to not dilute.

I like suggestions for either a new class ‘engaged citizens’ or a new model (e.g. LCA in addition to our LLC that has both membership tokens & ERC-20patronage tokens)… This feels like a knee jerk solution to an important problem and I value the problem so much I was almost in favor until I read the above responses and more deeply considered.

Instead of arbitrarily increasing the supply of Founding Citizen NFTs, we could authorize CityDAO to mint to 10 more on a case by case basis.

I’m still not in favor because I don’t see these as a way for us to compensate, build partnerships, or sustainably raise capital. The case by case basis is also problematic and a slippery slope. CityDAO has currently 4 Founding Citizens and it would probably be best to get those in the hands of the people that have helped found this project and are here today.


If we vote on this proposal only Founding Citizens can vote on this , given they are impacted.

As a non-founder Citizen, I’m not sure of the rationale for limiting this vote to Founders. Any changes to dilution in any of the Citizen roles would potentionally affect everyone, even if indirectly, as unallocated NFTs as effectively property of the DAO. i.e. Collectively owned.

I’m not trying to be difficult but what basis is there for limiting some votes to only a subset of Citizens? Was this proposed anywhere?

For anyone coming across this proposal, it is now CLOSED. The vote happened and it did not pass.


1 Like