CIP-F 1: Issue Founding Citizen NFTs to Dev Team

Two members of the dev team, GregR and Odyslam, have both spent over 100 hours without compensation to build CityDAO products. The core team proposes acknowledging their contributions with Founding Citizen NFTs.

This will increase the supply of Founding Citizen NFTs from 50 to 52.


Built CityDAO parcel viewer product that will be used for first land parcel drop, including web3 for connecting wallet and buying parcels.
See his work: GitHub - citydaoproject/app: A web app to view CityDAO land parcels


Built smart contracts for our own in house Citizen NFTs after Opensea delisted our collection, wrote logic to manage exchanging those and manage issuing those NFTs.
See his work: GitHub - citydaoproject/citydao-citizens: ERC721 NFTs for CityDAO

How issuance will work:

  1. First, the proposal needs to pass, then…
  2. Core team most vote YES on successful completion of Citizen NFT project and CityDAO parcel project
  3. NFTs can be issued on Dec 9th or later
    Two members of the dev team, GregR and Odyslam, have both spent over 100 hours without compensation to build CityDAO products. The core team proposes acknowledging their contributions with Founding Citizen NFTs.

This will increase the supply of Founding Citizen NFTs from 50 to 52.


I’m in favor of compensating GregR and Odyslam with Founding Citizen NFTs and have witnessed their contributions over the last few months.

I think the CityDAO treasury has (4) Founding Citizen NFTs. I lean towards sending them (2) from the treasury instead of increasing the supply by (2) unless there’s a clear reason why/how we would use them in the future. Just a thought.

-Founding Citizen


in favor of authorizing a ‘share buyback’ to use treasury funds to purchase Citizen NFTs back from market. not in favor of issuing additional Founding Citizen NFTs at this time.
-Founding Citizen


While I recognize the incentive to have as many Founding Citizen NFTs in the treasury as we can (for potential partnerships, etc.), I agree with @alexthims re: giving GregG and Odyslam Founding NFTs from our existing collection vs adding more.

Sentiment in the last forum post related to this is mixed but appears more in favor of not adding more Founding Citizen NFTs.

I look forward to taking other opinions into consideration, but as of now I would vote Not in favor to adding more Founding NFTs.
-Founding Citizen


I also agree with NOT minting new Founding Citizen NFTs, as stated in the prior related CIPs, but rather:

  1. Awarding a citizen NFT from the existing treasury


  1. Using treasury funds from the first parcel sale or existing funds to buy an existing Founding Citizen NFT from the current market supply

I think it’s extremely important to compensate both GregR and Odyslam properly for the amazing work they’ve contributed.


I’m not in favor of minting new Founding Citizen NFTs, as it dilutes the value of what it meant to be part of the project early on.

I appreciate this conversation!


Just want to add that I am super humbled by this move to receive (whatever method) a Founding Citizen NFT.

As I said, everything is a signal, and showing that good faith work is rewarded, is the way to play long-term positive-sum games.


I am not in favor of using the Founding Citizen NFTs as a reward mechanism.

Here are some reasons:

  1. Everyone had a fair and equal chance to participate in 2-3 auctions over a 3 week period.

  2. Nobody else was “awarded” a Founding Citizen NFT for their contributions.

  3. The argument that “someone did not have time or ETH to purchase at the time” should not be considered as the time period was almost 3 weeks and the Founding Citizens were actual close to floor for about 5 weeks.

  4. The people that did make an investment in the Founding Citizens were taking a risk, like any NFT purchase. These were never designed to be a reward mechanism.

  5. If the current price of founding citizen NFTs was at floor, this debate would not be occurring and we would be rewarding using a different mechanism. It is now that they are worth almost 40k and rising which the contributions do not add up to.

  6. Nobody else in the team has been rewarded anything for contributions so far and there has been other people who have easily put in 100 hours work.

Regardless of the above, I AM 1000% IN FAVOR of rewarding Odyslam, Gregs and other contributors contributions, however, I am 100% against using Founding Citizens to do so.



I agree with the proposal to award them from ones in treasury as opposed to minting more.


Agreed with @alexthims and @aje here. Contributors should obviously be compensated by the DAO via the DAO treasury. But arbitrarily doing one-off dilutive mints sets a bad precedent. Either buying back via market/OTC or compensating contributors in USDC/ETH and having them handle an NFT purchase (if that’s what they want to own) make sense to me.

EDIT: compensating in more liquid ways also lets us pay in rates rather than in lumpy NFTs, which will be useful moving forward. Separate from the question of back-paying contributors for previous work.

Separately, it would be nice to have more clarity on what exactly is currently owned by the DAO on-chain treasury (EDIT: this is available here Gnosis Safe) and what assets are owned by the DAO bank account (if any) + DAO LLC entity.

-Founding Citizen


To be completely honest here, I agree with @lyons800.

-Obviously not a founding citizen


Agree with everyone’s concern that minting additional Founding Member NFTs is definitely not the way to go. Moreover, I also support the suggestion that all contributors should be paid from the treasury either with ETH or USDC. It’s up to them then whether they would like to purchase NFTs or not.

-Founding Citizen


agree with what most other founding citizens stated. Use treasury funds, don’t mint more.

-Founding Citizen

1 Like

+1 to use treasury funds (no net new)

1 Like

I also understand this point and agree Founding Citizen NFTs are not the best reward mechanism. I think as of now this is difficult because we haven’t put context around how effort is compensated long term and this ‘founding’ issue can only happen once. Maybe there’s a better middle ground in one of the options below:

  • Send one Founding Citizen NFT to both GregR and Odyslam
  • Sell one Founding Citizen NFT OTC to both GregR and Odyslam for 0.5 ETH
  • Send one ETH as compensation

I agree with the necessity of “reward” for the dev team. Really in support of what they are doing for the DAO.

But for me it seems to be a better idea to

  1. Create a new role of “core dev” or “core contributor” or,
  2. Have a payout or grant program for the contributions

I don’t think having a new mechanism to gain a citizen membership is the best way to compensate and acknowledge their contributions.


As for some intuition for why I personally wanted a Founding Citizen, is because I (and I think GregR as well) were very early active in the project.

The work described by Scott is not the only contribution we have had.

My angle is that due to being active since early July and for a number of reasons not making it to the auction (it happened while being offline for a number of reasons), I would like the community to help me recoup this lost opportunity. Had I been active, I would for sure buy early on, and that’s why I contributed all this time.

So, it’s not only comp but also a second chance as a very early member of this initiative. Early contributions were around from specing the alpha version of the parcel mechanism to discussions about dev and other things.

The citizen NFT is really the tip of the iceberg, thus a Founding NFT has extra “sentimental” value to me versus a couple of ETH.

I believe what @lyons800 said was logical maybe a founder NTF isn’t the right reward. What would be a reasonable reward?


I perfectly agree that your contribution and interest towards the DAO can’t be fully described through few sentences. What if we all plan to have extra numbers of Founding Citizen NFTs in the next phase (hypothetically sometime soon) - let’s say 10 more Founding Citizen NFTs and then we can allocate 2 of the citizen membership to the core devs?

there was some discussion about increasing supply by 10 in CIP 6.