CIP-69 Guilds restructuring

Stripped down Guild proposal with no Parcel attached.

All details in Google doc:

Structure is necessary to implement CIP-65 effectively.


@lyons800 - so to be clear, CIP 65 and CIP 69 are together a proposal to restructure guilds and promote project-based leadership in CityDAO.

Together CIP 65 and CIP 69 are mutually exclusive of CIP 62 Bundled Guild Proposal. So either we vote to do CIP 65 and 69, or CIP 62. but not both. Right?

The first paragraph is correct yes.

CIP-62 & CIP-69(Stripped down functional guilds) are mutually exclusive and CIP-65 (Project based work) can actually work with both.

However, CIP-69 infrastructure is designed to best accommodate CIP-65 (Project based work)

I remember from the last proposal Josh mentioned how to find spots for active contributors.
Here at this proposal, there is no spot for them. Maybe CIP 65 will help others who are not choosen as facilitators or co-facilitators. We’ll see about it in near future.

What i want to comment about this proposal that i really wanted to take an active role at marketing side, here it is media guild which is not actually covers the whole marketing (sub category of it) but still a good step for future. I waited maybe more than 2 months to make a proposal to create a marketing guild which i think is like one of the most important issue that we have to take care off but waited for mission guild and also new structure. Then, media guild appears, which i havent any clue of that happening. Still, as i didnt want to send negative vibes to space, i didnt mention any of this out loud actually.

Marketing is not about design, product, PR, profit, events etc…

It’s about strategy ! Which actually covers the whole process. Which we strongly need it nowadays.

I’m sure media guild will do their best and they will make a difference for our project. And from my side i’ll be here to help any way i can, but working as project base (bounties) is not the same and dont feel the same. We need dedicated people who can create value for the brand. There, i’m not entirely sure about project based working system.

Ps : Hope it was not too personal, wanted to point a missing part of proposal


Thanks for the update, good to know.

I think that within each guild, responsibilities should be clarified around what they are promising to do and the deliverables.

I also think that each Guild should have one single Facilitator who chooses the team and can hire the other members and choose who they want to work with, how much they are paid, etc. This prevents politics around trying to get on this spreadsheet and allows facilitators to build teams of people they want to work with.


Agreed with @scottfits. I think the specific outcomes from what he is noting are:

  1. Each guild should put together its own proposal for funding.
  2. Each guild should have 1 facilitator and a budget to hire others. Alternatively, each facilitator needs clear roles within the proposal.
1 Like

An alternative that could work to each of the guilds doing their own proposal:

  1. Each Guild outline clear OKRs that they can be measured against at the end of the next quarter.
  2. Identify clear roles for each guild facilitator if there is more than one.
  3. Propose budgets for guilds to enable creation of bounties if necessary as part of guild operation.
  4. Critically, instead of a yes / no on the whole CIP. Give citizens the opportunity to vote yes / no on each guild. Use “Approval” voting function in snapshot to allow citizens to individually approve each guild. Any guild that get rejected can collect feedback, re-organize purpose and try again to pass snapshot.
1 Like
  1. I think that each guild should have its own proposal for funding yes, but the guilds shown in this proposal can be the guilds that are approved to propose funding.

  2. I don’t think we should be hiring any other facilitators from a budget granted. My goal is to deprecate facilitators fully as they were never really supposed to be part of the equation,.

I am also not apposed to your alternative method, however, the entire purpose of my way of thinking is to remove the importance of the guilds.

I think that there is too much emphasis put on them and to be honest, our top minds and contributors should be spending their time on more useful projects for the DAO.

I am keen to push the guilds the way they are with the structure they are currently in due to the fact that I am trying to push an environment where the guild facilitators in charge are not hugely important and performance is not reliant on those.


I prefer this proposal over the current structure, where I agree it seems like the guilds are their own fiefdoms.

I also agree on having the two categories of guilds, one for type of guild that provides basic “must have” services for CityDAO. I think this would be an ideal pairing for the project empowerment CIP too.

Can we make one change @lyons800
Please remove the “Setting CityDAO goals and vision” from the planning guild purpose. That seems like an overreach for the planning guild. I think the idea behind these guilds are that they simply help keep the DAO functioning. Let the citizens, projects, CIPs set the direction of the DAO, not one guild.

1 Like

Merged version of CIP 69 + 65 linked, proposing we replace content of CIP-69 above with this.

It includes:

  1. CIP 65 + 69
  2. Changes proposed in forum threads and in the google docs themselves
  3. Updated Planning Guild per Scott’s post here.
  4. Updated legal guild per Josh’s post here.
  5. Columns for each guild to put in metrics and total budget.

Things still missing:

  1. Metrics & budget for most guilds.
  2. Josh is currently committed at 50 hours a week.

I tracked changes so you can see where changes were made an anyone can comment.

Key open questions:

  1. This is a budget allocation of $172,500k + 225 NFTs for Q3 (~10% of the treasury for one quarter), is that how we want to spend treasury?
  2. We could set a goal for this quarter, to work towards revenue generating projects to keep the treasury sustainable. Is that something that should be added to the vision?

I will also re-emphasize that I think this should go to CIP as an approval vote, where each guild is put to an approve / deny vote, rather than a package of all together. If a guild doesn’t pass, they are free to re-submit.


@benmvic Is there a Treasury Financial Report w/ Historical Analysis?

Clear as Georgia mud

1 Like

Wow thank you for putting the budget question front and center… 10% of our budget. So if we wanted to save half our budget for a property purchase, we’d only have 1.25 years left at this spend rate. Makes me uncomfortable. Thinking about revenue generation is good, but maybe we do that AND reduce the quarterly spend a bit too.

Also, open question on the planning guild: If they have the power to set quarterly metrics, they are clearly the most “powerful” guild. Something more like a city council. If that’s how we want to work, then ok, but we should definitely have a DAO-widevote on planning guild facilitators since they are setting the direction of the DAO and choosing what projects go forward. I don’t think we’ll choose anyone different, but the process of having a vote is important for long term stability of the DAO.


I think budgeting 70 hours a week for the planning guild is really quite unreasonable. There is no way there is that much work to do, and there is no clear breakdown between what each individual will do. What does Scott do that Lyons cannot do and vice versa? If guilds all have one facilitator, why would this guild have four?


We can review all of this

Understandable, it was really under the context that Planning would have a small amount of influence over whether projects proposed were relevant to citydao goals and mission and would be able to veto to a certain extent

That I think would be okay - sort of like interpreters of the charter. But I don’t want the planning guild to set new directions for the DAO without a CIP.

1 Like

@lyons800 In my experience, Planning typically devolves into enforcement at some level. IF there is to be enforcement due to performance, there has to be standards of performance to enforce. Welcome to #management.

Why are we still talking about hours? Its not helpful and does not tie back to anything meaningful… let alone failing to incorporate the lack of value add from time spent on discord and chasing people. The hours are meaningless, this is a frankendocument, lets clean it up. One person with one pen, please.