Edit: I love your empathic vision for the cities we could build and your passion towards democracy and opacity, I’m super happy to see that here Sorry for not saying so initially, rude of me
But, we have three seperate, active threads on here about narrowing the vision, discussing the vision, figuring out the vision, stating the vision.
Rather than continue this trend, why don’t we get some tangible data? I have set up a Pol.is environment where everyone can submit and vote on ideas. You don’t need to sign up, and it produces a clear report from the responses.
We used this over at Proof of Humanity to excellent effect to gather opinion on one of the biggests events for the protocol, forking. You can see the results here:
I think this is good feedback, albeit low participation. I think it also merits discussion around what is - and is not - a public good!
I think a lot of people in web3 feel that DAOs could be efficient at public good provision/management, at least more so than the current providers, but those same people have long recognized that DAOs should not be trying to operate as a business or compete with mean lean companies on for-profit motives. So not to conflate - but one persistent topic of conversation over the past few months involves returning value to the treasury so that the CityDAO project can continue to flourish, despite funding projects and teams. This is why a nonprofit entity always seemed to make a lot of sense for CityDAO - nonprofits can make revenue, they just can’t pass “profits” to “owners”. Instead the money goes solely toward the mission.
My takeaway: CityDAO should be a nonprofit entity focused on funding public goods projects.
This was always how I envisioned the mission of citydao, we just got off track a bit IMHO.