CIP=70 - Conversion to a Mayor-Council Structure

Amended by scottfits and josh.

Please “Like” below if you agree with this CIP-70

Create CityDAO Council

We propose creation of a CityDAO Council for a term ending on Dec. 31, 2022 in order to help CityDAO achieve its mission in the short-term and maintain momentum during a bear market cycle.

Council Responsibilities:

  • Oversee Guilds. The Council may modify guild budgets and/or authorize new funds as needed for mission-aligned projects and matters. The Council may also vote to add or remove members from guilds and change guild comp based on prevailing factors in light of CityDAO’s mission and needs.
  • Execute on NFT Land Ownership and Rights Project. The Council will primarily incubate and facilitate the Big Parcel project and/or similar efforts to acquire a parcel of land through NFT land ownership, leases, licenses, or other means as suitable. The final proposed Parcel will be put up for a DAO vote.
  • Manage Day-to-Day Activities. The Council will be granted the authority to manage the day-to-day administrative and operational matters of the DAO. The council can bring on new contributors to fill roles not currently filled by the guilds for example.
  • Engage contributors through bounties. One goal of the council will be to provide opportunities for Citizens to get involved though bounties. The council will encourage facilitators to make bounties available, and will create a system to determine who should take ownership of bounties and how bounties outside any guild scope are handled.
  • Compliance. The council will make best efforts to hire legal and financial counsels and work towards becoming one of the most compliant DAOs.

Budget: The Council will have authority to allocate up to $20k per month for mission-aligned bounties and expenses. Any large purchases or expenditures (like real estate, or anything over $9,999) would proceed to a DAO vote.

Creation of Mayor Role: Scott will be the Mayor of CityDAO and lead the council and will have authority to add / remove members from the Council, provided such additions / removals are transparent and in the DAO’s best interests. If the Council cannot reach resolution on any key decision, the Mayor has final decision-making authority.

Comp: Each Council member will earn $4k and 5 Citizen NFTs / mo, unless or until (a) December 31, 2022; (b) if terminated by Council Vote, or (c) if terminated by majority DAO vote. Upon successful completion of a successful land purchase, the council is authorized to distribute 25 Citizen NFTs to parties involved in facilitating by majority vote.

Time Period: This proposal will authorize the existence of the Council through December 31, 2022. Renewal of the Council will require a DAO vote.

Initial Council Members:

Scott - Mayor






Thanks for this @DAOvolution. This feels too hierarchical for my taste and I prefer the two guild structures previously proposed (ours and lyons’)


I’d like to throw my hat in the ring for a PM related role, as it becomes available. :hammer_and_wrench:

Thank you for consideration.

1 Like

I feel there is a misalignment of budget in this structure and I also find it too hierarchical for my taste.

On budget misalignment; If this went ahead, I think there should be a product “manager” for Dev and Design (i’m not advocating for this to be me btw).

Under the current structure, product is one of the least funded resource areas.

Screen Shot 2022-06-24 at 1.15.37 PM

I’ve used the following mapping to create these categories:

Screen Shot 2022-06-24 at 1.15.25 PM

Note: I’m not sure the intent of special projects, but I included it in Ops for now.


Thanks, the budgets are one areas where I could use some assistance. What do you suggest we shift it to? Totally open to any suggestions and not sure this is the right model. I do believe there is an extent to which “centralizing” a bit would really help the DAO move forward however.

Its not designed to cut anyone out. I sort of figured the product needs on development would be the primary focus for bounties but I did not spell that out… no doubt dev is our most important talent pool

1 Like

This is my sentiment as well. The language seems to suggest guilds are a complete waste, yet while I am totally in line with transitioning to a more project-focused approach; I think they serve a purpose, especially the ones with a more research-based public goods approach. Also, and maybe I am just overthinking this, but one thing that drew me to DAOs was the idea they could do better than traditional governments; thus, why are we copying and pasting a conventional government system? Shouldn’t the goal be to do better? More bottom-up, the tools we are building around will improve a lot. Let’s build our organizations to fit the new tools. Not get rid of them for conventional systems that will never adopt said tools. Better tools will solve the problem of siloed departments. This is all an experiment in coordination. But again, perhaps I am just overthinking it.


We are needlessly reinventing a wheel and doing so in the most inefficient possible manner. I have been to enough conferences and spoken to enough founders/DAO thought-leaders… Every single one of them says the exact same thing: SOME degree of centralization is required to make things happen and get things done.

I started where you are coming from, hoping we could revolutionize decision-making and make improvements to existing structures, but the current guild structure is not working in terms of deliverables, value-add, community empowerment for contributions, and cross guild communication (my two pennies, coming from someone very close to it anyway).

Somehow despite NOT being a company, we managed to create inefficient silos comprised predominantly of people who possess no management-level experience. (Check out the the concept of the Peter principle because none of this is “new”) I am ok if the idea of a mayor-council is not the right idea for everyone, however, the current guild structure looks a lot like BIG bureaucratic government - and much like a bureaucracy I would argue there is very little to be shown from the past 3 months. I am not saying the guilds are a waste, I just think they are incredibly inefficient and full of people who can’t align on a single item - let alone management of CityDAO.


Thanks @DAOvolution for spending the time to put this together. It’s an interesting alternative to other proposals currently under discussion.

Just to make sure I’m understanding the proposal correctly, it seems like guilds are replaced by:

  1. Core functions are run by managers + mayor
  2. Council runs support functions for other tasks that are currently filled by guilds.
  3. Would projects then be able to be funded through CIP as well?

My initial thought is that it’s a lot of funding for the council without clear responsibilities for the council.

Would it potentially be better in this structure if:

  1. Reduce size of council and make clear responsibilities for it. Potentially, the council can be empowered to approve budget allocation decisions up to a certain level instead of requiring a snapshot.
  2. Election for the council
  3. Empower Managers & Mayor to make hires & spend budget on bounties (potentially with approval of council?)
  4. Part of responsibility of Managers & Mayor would be to maintain functioning of the DAO + enable projects to be submitted to CIP. So the Managers / Mayor would become the “stewards” of CityDAO, while any citizens could participate either through bounties or through project proposals. (as outlined in the CityDAO as a Factory thesis)

I think thats in the spirit of what you’re proposing. Makes clear governance process while allowing the day to day to be more individually driven.

To be clear, just some ideas that may or may not be good ones.


I totally hear you @DAOvolution, I guess change for the sake of change isn’t what we want. I think much of it depends on the guild, to be honest. I have been a part of some very successful guild endeavors personally.

The big thing is just cause you change the structure doesn’t mean you solve the problem. What we need are tools, not more hierarchy, IMO.

For a concrete example of tools, suppose we had a CityDAO token that had the following properties. 1. People committed to the DAO would rather hold it than, say, USDC. 2. The more you use the token to generate results, the more the token is worth (like you could stake a token to a project, if successful, the number of tokens assigned to you increases). Like it acts as a type of micro-stock, essentially allowing each project to issue stocks. 3. You can vote on issues and send payment quickly within discord. (ps. Seriously, I want to set up a project to tease these ideas out). A magic bullet to induce coordination across guilds and promote projects.

I guess the point is you make huge changes, don’t really solve anything, and all those that come wanting to be part of some bottom-up experiment get disenfranchised and leave. I think you really have to keep a long time horizon. Guilds, in theory, will produce communities of people with similar skills, which will serve the DAO as a whole. I don’t see the solution as dropping a bomb on them. Instead, look at the coordination failures and consider which tools could be developed to solve them. To me, it is about what is the real bottleneck. It is about developing the tech, not the hierarchy of CityDAO.

With that said I am not per say against the proposal, and I do agree a degree of centralization is needed. But, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak.


Respectfully disagree with this. Now that finally got some cips to go to snapshot, I think we will start moving forward. I think each guild should put up a cip for funding for q3. For now, IMO, we should only fund Real Estate, Community and Operations/planning (other guilds can be funded once we get something going with buying/leasing land/building).

1 Like

The Education Guild is currently in the middle of creating an academic conference to discuss web3 education as a foundation for city building, a metaverse architecture workshop as a foundation for city building and a book to help bring people into the conversation about web3 city building. Would you suggest that we throw away all forward momentum that has been created, give up on successful projects? For what purpose? Education, research and buying land are not mutually exclusive. I’m not sure what the justification is for stopping positive forward momentum. If building the fabric of a community stops, what is a city?


Josh: I think this is one of the best proposals to effectuate management and accountability for a DAO. Highly support and I think this is the best way for cityDAO moving forward.


Agree with Scott though. Although centralisation makes everything move at a faster pace, guild structure wouldn’t hurt to have it. I mean maybe merge different guilds into a few( as in like a subset of the main guild but remain the same function/operation) There could be another way to re-structure/contract our guild to be more effective. Just my opinion, no need to take it personally. We can have less number of guilds under an umbrella. It’s more about communication and better organisational timeline/ responses. We can still have 3-4 guilds maybe? And each one has autonomy to work on their projects and make decisions. CIPs can be voted within those guilds with own budget. Also, as some guilds have done a lot of work ie David’s education guild, it’s better to have them going where they are heading to. Sub-guilds within guilds?


There is a lot to this I think. Not so much about getting rid of guilds and putting in a bit more oversight. Some mechanisms to just ensure more cooperation and some more checks and balances.


@DAOvolution - Thank you for putting together this proposal. I think it is necessary conversation to have. I agree that complete decentralization has been a bit tough, so I think we all needed to see what a more centralized proposal is like. I’m not ready for the city council version, but I do think you bring up some really good questions.

My preference would be to push through CIP 69, so that we have a path forward, and then start a new conversation that I think addresses some of the core issues here.
Things like 1) Setting really clear scopes of work for each guild facilitator and what our expectations are. For example “Host 2 meetings a week, ensure meeting minutes are recorded and placed in notion within 3 days of meeting, etc.” 2) Having a really clear process and timeline for how guild facilitators will be voted on.

Since we are paying up front and in good faith for guild facilitation, we also need a way for the DAO to say “this isn’t working” and move to new leadership. To be clear, I’ve been happy with how most of the guilds have been run, but there needs to be an off ramp in case things go sideways.


I understand where you are coming from and I see a lot of value in Guilds and Guilds being funded. Guilds will add value to CityDAO. Notwithstanding the forgoing, DAOs need informal or formally appointed leaders. For example, the Ethereum foundation has an executive director. The executive director is a leader and (as a leader) she is given and empowered to make decisions operationally, strategically and functionality on behalf of the foundation. These powers are restricted due to the open source nature of ETH and other factors resulting established by the Ethereum foundation. For these reasons, among others, I do think that Josh’s proposal has the highest likelihood to take CityDAO to another level and really grow the ecosystem for all of the members, contributors, and also revisit guilds and other structures in a way that can consistently build on the protocol. I think the guild structure can lead to a lot of disjointed efforts and all those efforts need to be unified by a conductor that is indeed run by a decentralized community and beholden to the governance standards therein.

Would love to hear your thoughts and thank you for the continued discussion.


Thank you @ethlaw. It really may not be the right fit for the DAO but its a great conversation to have.

Nearly all societies, civilizations, governments, institutions, and organizations have some form of hierarchy. These systems have naturally evolved and/or been intentionally designed for a reason. Some times it is about power and resources, yes sure, but in most examples arising in modern society the institutions and organizations (by and large) are hierarchal for one main reason - execution.

Trillions of dollars and human-hours have been spent optimizing these institutions and organizations for execution. I believe it is a difficult wheel to suddenly reinvent, especially in a “social DAO”, where the members sit all over the globe and behind a computer screen where its easy to criticize, question and never align or get literally anything done.

To be clear, I am not suggesting this as a permanent structure, just one that can help align resources and efforts more efficiently in the short run.

Further - to be clear - I am not recommending a despot.

I am advocating that the founder of CityDAO, whose vision gave rise to the project and whose tweet was a calling for all of us to flock together in the first place, to perhaps - just perhaps - be authorized to lead us with his vision once again.

This CIP is really intended to be a simple request to the CityDAO community to consider (i) the vision of the person with a proven track record of mission-based focus, (ii) significant experience in web3 and IRL, and (iii) the vision for the future that brought us all together - to follow him once more, for a period of just three (3) months, while we collectively align for a flatter organization - one with a concrete mission-focus and less noise.

My heart is in the right place here. I want what is best for CityDAO and believe this is it in the short run. The names on the document can change, we can take them all out as far as I am concerned, and please - take my name off of the proposal if anyone legitimately believes this is about me or the other “bureaucrats”. I am objectively recommending a radical shift in internal “management” because I believe it is what is in the DAO’s best short term interests. (Its not that radical actually… we just created guilds 3 months ago, and people have shown the ability to adapt quickly)

No matter what happens - thanks for reading. Also, I really appreciate @Nick123 pointing out that this is a necessary tension, no matter the outcome.


To start, I think we should focus on Scott’s proposed performance metric of increasing citizen time on CityDAO property: Citizen Time at CityDAO Property = # citizens ⨉ # days at CityDAO property, which I would encourage everyone to read such proposal here: CityDAO Mission, Metric, and Values Discussion

However, having an elected official and leader that is able to make strategic, administrative and practical decisions on behalf of the CityDAO will enable CityDAO to spread decentralized governance of land, management of land, and the development of a decentralized City (although such City may have some centralized officials that communicate with CityDAO (related DAOs) and drive further decentralization and democratization of land through (as Josh has said) execution. Such execution should tie back with the Citizen Time metric above. Execution is generally easier when you have less decision makers, but not always, so I do think this is a very productive conversation.

As a practical matter, executing transactions with land is difficult to do with multiple proposals. I think really trying to unify behind one proposal would be helpful and there should be someone that is held accountable to effectuate transaction. Perhaps it does not need to be the mayor per se, but I really liked the Mayor idea. A mayor is beholden to his citizens, which is different than a traditional corporation where a CEO is accountable to the corporation’s board of directors (with the board appointed by the corporation’s shareholders).

If Citizens are concerned about power being concentrated with one or a series of actor, CityDAO could actually have a panel of Mayors (with the necessary qualifications) that could be randomly selected in order to implement a decision. I was just speaking with a collogue at MakerDAO that does substantial work in the RWA space and we were both discussing the importance of having a centralized person or team able to execute and make decisions on a deal. To the extent that people do not like the Mayor’s, Council’s, (or decentralized/qualified/rotated) Mayor’s/Council’s decisions, then there could be pre-set thresholds that must be taken to snapshot to Citizens, Guilds, project participants, subject matter experts, or the council. However, the strength with this proposal is that it empowers some people to implement a unified vision of the CityDAO, while continuing to scale out decentralized systems, guilds, projects and governance. The biggest risk of failure for any startup is disagreement amongst founders. In the instance of a DAO, I think one of the more critical points of failure is disagreement among guild leaders and actually solving coordination problems across guilds, which is a processes that is very time intensive (I imagine). A central mayor or council would be able to help process information, so that every facilitator does not need to know what every other facilitator is doing in order to make informed decisions. Every guild (or perhaps in the future project participants) should be focused on performing their task and goals and not spending as much time trying to interpret what other guilds are working on and how to unite efforts. I think we are all saying a lot of the same things, but just using different lingo. However, I just wanted to add clarity as to why I think this could be a good approach or a approach worth discussing over voice, as it has seemed to get a lot of engagement.

These issues become particularly complicated whenever we are discussing real-estate, which (by law) requires multiple parties in order to close and frequently it is necessary to put multiple offers in on multiple properties in order to successfully acquire a property.

In fact, in addition to Josh’s proposal, I would also suggest that the mayor and the Council be given an additional budget to be able to execute on a proposed transaction or funding mechanism (or potentially both). Having staff/contributor allocations is important; however, I would suggest that the Council and Mayor have some funding allocated as well, so the mayor and council is able to move swiftly in order to fully bake a transaction for approval and showcase their best talents work on behalf of the service to the DAO.

The final property selection could be taken to Snapshot for member approval, but permitting the mayor/council to put together a good deal or financing structure will allow them to approach citizens with a focused proposal, with the consultation of subject matter experts or members as needed.

In the end, a DAO is made up of people that execute on things and I think that CityDAO has gotten a bit bogged down in internal communication and debating actions vs actually effectuating transactions that achieve the common mission/metrics. It’s a bit late for me, but these are some of my initial thoughts on the proposal and why I thought it is a proposal worth a deeper discussion.

Regardless, I have enjoyed participating in this thread and the tension here between the approaches, because if we can figure out a way for people to freely assemble capital and build communities and decentralized cities, then wow… <3


I agree that I think there is a hybrid approach to be explored here and not all guilds necessarily need to be collapsed, as they drive value to the organization.

1 Like

It looks like some of this was incorporated in CIP 71!

Now that there is simply a mayor proposal vs mayor and city council, @ethlaw @DAOvolution - any thoughts on value of city council specifically if there is a mayor?