What is even the purpose of a separate Parcel 0 NFT?

Do we really want non-Citizens owning CityDAO assets? A Citizen air-dropped the Parcel 0 NFT could sell their Citizen NFT without also selling their Parcel 0 NFT. I think we’re being too quick to divvy up CityDAO assets because it’s a human impulse to want to own things.

What benefit does having a separate Parcel 0 NFT provide over just granting Parcel 0 rights to Citizen holders? Is it too late to stop the Parcel 0 air drop? Arguing that development money has already been spent on the Parcel 0 air drop is an extremely poor argument. That’s called the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Sometimes mistakes are made and money and code is wasted.


Very discouraging that nobody can list a single benefit that having a separate Parcel 0 NFT provides over just granting Parcel 0 rights to Citizen holders.

The politician’s syllogism , also known as the politician’s logic or the politician’s fallacy , is a logical fallacy of the form:

  1. We must do something.
  2. This is something.
  3. Therefore, we must do this.

I think the benefit is setting up a long term structure that makes sense when CityDAO owns multiple parcels. Right now you are right, it doesn’t matter.

But I think there’s a future where CityDAO has 50+ parcels, some of which you can actually spend the night at (campsite/building/village etc). I think your CityDAO NFT should give you the right to visit any City DAO parcel, but you wouldn’t get to vote on parcel management stuff unless you had that Parcel’s NFT.

What if you own the Parcel NFT but not the Citizen NFT? I don’t like the idea of non-Citizens owning and managing CityDAO assets. Decoupling the 2 just needlessly complicates things and decreases the value of the Citizen NFT (the value is shifted over the the Parcel NFTs).

You still didn’t name a benefit that having a separate Parcel NFT provides.

But I think there’s a future where CityDAO has 50+ parcels

Citizen NFT handles that case just fine.

I think what you really want is a “yearly membership (fee)” for non-Citizens to visit the specific Parcels, which I’m fine with. All Parcel management should be done by Citizens. That’s the whole point of being a Citizen.

1 Like

Legally our current CitizenNFT doesn’t grant us land governance right. It grants voting rights in CityDAO, which will aim to own multiple parcels and properties in the future.

A Parcel 0 NFT would grant actual legal governance right of parcel 0, which is very different from CitizenNFT voting rights for CityDAO.

Instead of creating a whole new NFT, they could simply grant those parcel governance rights to Citizen NFT holders.

CityDAO […] will […] own multiple parcels and properties in the future

How does one own a parcel without having governance rights to it? The two go hand in hand.

If you read through some of the original parcel 0 NFTs proposals, you will see that you can only own a parcel 0 NFTs if you also have a city DAO NFT.

My take: if you own a parcel 0 NFT it’s like owning a plot of land in the city. So as a owner of a plot of land, you have the right to do whatever you want on it, as long as it is within legal bounds set by the city.

So then you also have to participate in city governance to decide on land use and building codes that govern all plots of land in city. Not just yours.

So in parcel 0, we have pretty limited land use rights for individual parcels. But an NFT would allow you to participate in decisions on governance of all of parcel 0. Make sense?

you can only own a parcel 0 NFTs if you also have a city DAO NFT

I could maybe get onboard that if it were properly enforced. What if you buy Citizen NFT, buy Parcel 0 NFT, then sell Citizen NFT? A non-citizen would own a CityDAO asset. In other words, a non-shareholder would own part of the LLC.

1 Like

CitizenNFT is a piece of governance token for CityDAO at large, and Parcel0 NFT s a piece of governance token for parcel0.

Parcel0 NFT would be originally dropped to CitizenNFT holders, but there is nothing preventing Parcel0 NFT holders from exchanging/selling Parcel0 NFT on secondary markets.

Essentially the utilities for both these tokens are unique to its own and can be used independently, one for governance of CityDAO and one for governance of Parcel0.

@DenverCitizen9 thoughts on this? Do you have to have a cityDAO NFT to own a parcel NFT? If so is there a way to enforce?

In your opinion would it be ok to own a parcel 0 NFT but not a cityDAO NFT? Genuinely curious to hear why or why not…

Id like an answer to this as well…

Yes because one represents governance over CityDAO and the other is a license to use Parcel 0. One could just want to be a citizen and want to make decisions on governance and future parcels but don’t care about the rights to use parcel 0, or vice versa.

the other is a license to use Parcel 0

Actually AFAIK the Parcel 0 NFT grants governance (and usage) rights over Parcel 0, which would mean a non-Citizen could control a CityDAO asset.

You are correct but why is this any different then any other use case. For example of I have a lease to use an apartment then I have control over the apartment and I can put whatever pictures I want on the wall and make improvements to some extent with consent of the landlord, but I can’t decide I want to tear down his house or sell the property.