After yesterday’s discussion with the attorney, I think it’s clear the main CityDAO token is going to need some sort of transfer split (tax or membership fee) on the transfer of all the other tokens to fund operations since we can’t ‘invest.’ For example 75% of transfer fees go to fund the local token government and 25 to CityDao treasury.
It’s something we really should have the council discuss/set as part of the framework charter and operating structure but I wanted to bring it up here for discussion so it doesn’t come out of left field.
Thanks to @Fugyeah for bringing up a great topic. I just want to clarify, when you say a transfer fee, or a royalty split between the parcel land sales and the DAO, are you referring to a situation in which CityDAO sells land in the possible future? I’m also not sure what is meant by the “local token government” as opposed to the CityDAO treasury.
For example, let’s say that hypothetically CityDAO were to sell Parcel 0 in Wyoming in a few years. Let’s say that there was a profit of $1 million. These numbers are just examples, not based on any actual data.
CityDAO would need to pay both Federal and State taxes on the sale. Then, my understanding is the rest of the money would go to the CityDAO treasury. So I think I’m missing a part of what the attorney said. Was he or she suggesting that there would be a disbursement of funds to citizens, like dividends, based on the sale?
No. Let’s take parcel zero. I am assuming and I think everyone is based on comments by the core team, there will be ‘limited self governance’ of parcel zero by a ‘parcel zero sub-dao’
Limited self governance in my mind means that whatever isn’t prohibited by the DAO or general law is allowed.
The parcel government will need to have funds to operate and so will the DAO.
The discussion I’m trying to spark was what folks feel the split should be. How much of the royalty should fund operations of parcel 0, parcel 1, etc vs how much should be taken up by the general DAO to continue growing and operating.
Oh, that’s quite interesting. I think I better understand, though I’m still a little confused on the word “royalty,” which I usually think of as an amount paid to a third party for use of a product or patent.
In this case, if there is a Parcel 0 Sub-DAO which runs Parcel 0, then I agree they would need some funds, maybe to build on the land or develop the land. They would also need some funds to operate Parcel 0, especially if it is something that requires day-to-day operation, like an AirBNB or hotel.
I guess one possibility would be that it would be put to a vote when this happens - a sort of “we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it” approach. Another approach would be to assign a certain amount of money for sub-DAO parcel operations, like CIP 30, which seeks to allocate $50K for paid contributor roles. A third possibility would be to allocate a percentage of the CityDAO treasury, like 5% per parcel for development and operating costs.