#Path-Forward Proposal

Introduction

Today I’m submitting the attached proposal for the #Path-Forward initiative. I’ve pasted the abstract below to give a high level overview of what is proposed and why. The link to the complete proposal doc is included near the end of this post. In introducing this proposal, I’d also like to include some brief reflection. While crafting the proposal, it became clear that two questions must be answered by the community. The answers to these questions will shape the path forward for CityCoins. Those two questions are as follows:

  1. What is the mission of CityCoins?
  2. Is CityCoins a product or a platform?

Luckily, we have already answered the first question. The community overwhelmingly responded that the mission of the CityCoins project is to empower people to take ownership in their cities. Thus protocol-level decisions and general strategic decisions should should be aimed at advancing this goal.

Now let’s unpack the product or platform question. You’ll notice that the first paragraph of the abstract poses the question Is CityCoins a platform or an end product in itself? to the community. I chose to make this the first thing the reader finds in the proposal because I believe it is that important to answer this question.

Throughout the process of crafting this proposal, it became clear to me that this has been a source of friction in the community for a long time, although it hasn’t been explicitly identified. The terms “building” and “programmability” have been ever-present in discussions of the project’s mission and vision. However, over the past year, a very clear trend has formed: User suggestions for building utility on CityCoins as a platform have fallen on deaf ears. Meanwhile, the community has been more responsive to suggestions that would treat CityCoins as the end product itself. We need to thoroughly discuss the implications of each option, including an honest discussion of the work required to achieve each one, and make a final decision before moving forward.

Abstract

This proposal assumes that the intended role of the CityCoins ecosystem is as a platform, as the theme of building and programmability has been highlighted repeatedly throughout the life of the CityCoins project. It should be stated explicitly that if these are no longer key focal points of the community, then this proposal is not likely to be the best suited for that modified vision. The intended role of the CityCoins ecosystem, either as a platform or as the end product in itself, should be identified by the community before deciding upon a path forward as this will have far-reaching implications in the protocol and ecosystem design.

This proposal prioritizes alignment with the community-defined CityCoins mission statement of empowering people to take ownership of their cities. It puts forth small adjustments and future guidance to the existing protocol that help to address the challenges that have been explicitly stated as part of introducing this initiative. This approach is intended to minimize the workload necessary to address these challenges when compared to a major redesign of the protocol. The proposal relies on completion of the DAO and City Activation initiatives to achieve the desired scalability, but these initiatives on their own provide valuable functionality to the ecosystem and thus should already be targets for completion regardless of this initiative.

Final Thoughts and Link

The full proposal can be found here. I hope this highlights that the original goals of CityCoins can be preserved without tearing down the infrastructure that exists today. The ideas put forth are an initial attempt to describe what this might look like. I also hope this sparks discussion by the community and that the ideas are refined and made even better. I’m looking forward to discussing this in more detail with you all.

7 Likes

Is City Coins really too early?

Quick thoughts

Unclaimed Bividend feeding into DAO NFTs

People will use something like Arkadiko’s Keepers to claim Bitcoin rewards automatically, so how do you design a system that allows for unclaimed Bividends?

You could combine “the ability to claim” with the requirement of “fulfilling voting duties”? If you didn’t vote, you wouldn’t be able to claim your Bividend.

What if you didn’t want to vote every 2 weeks? No problem, you could delegate your vote to a trusted representative and they’d collect your Bividend for you. They could charge you a fee and perform some other city coin duties as well.

NFTs at DAO level instead of core protocol

I love the idea of different DAOs and having NFTs designed at that level instead of at core protocol level, although the NFT creation mechanism should be assisted by protocol.

The core protocol would offer officially integrated tools for DAOs and sub-DAOs to be able to create such NFTs. DAOs and sub-DAOs would have to meet certain requirements to be able to use these tools.

Non-transferable city DAO NFTs

We can imagine a system where you own a Non-transferable NFT that reflects your score as a citizen. We could combine such non-transferable NFT (NT-NFT) with a scale of Bividend boosts.

Your Bividend would be boosted if you would perform duties permissionlessly and boost scores would be reflected in your NT-NFT.

The rules for how the boosts would work would be written at the DAO level, although compliant to protocol level.

The DAO would stack on behalf of its constituents and rewards would be distributed according to active scores. It would be up to the DAO to write the rules to incentivize active behaviors and participation from their DAO citizens.

Stacking made possible to highest scores

We can imagine a system where stacking is made possible to highest scores only, thus electing representatives of stacking pools based on merit. Such role model citizens would be able to maintain stacking privilege and perform stacking as a service for others only if they own a NT-NFT that continues to meet pre-defined high scores by protocol.

Un-pause inflation

Any thoughts on when to press the un-pause button and how this would be triggered?

“Being too early is the same as being wrong [unless you slow down].”

Conclusion
No, Citycoins is not too early. In fact, the time is about as perfect as it can be. Citycoin is not too early, but it needs to slow down. Slow and steady wins the race. Let Citycoin be the tortoise, not the hare.

Watch City Coin’s conversation:

2 Likes