Establish multisig wallets for local cities

:cool: tl;dr

Establish local multi-sigs for each fully minted city

:sunrise: Overview

One of the goals and key results of CryptoCitizen Provisional Governance Structure is:

This proposal outlines a SubDAO structure to address Key Result #1. Future proposals will outline a process by which the CryptoCitizen community determines representatives and funds local communities for city-specific events.

:warning: Problem

  • Individual cities have different funding requirements (leases, upkeep, local event budgets)
  • The Core Team is highly focused on the development of new communities and is interested in establishing a structure that enables local representatives to drive event planning and existing community growth

:building_construction: Proposal

  • Establish a multisig for each minted city (CG, CV, CNY)
  • Going forward, establish a new multisig upon completion of a CryptoCitizen city mint
  • Assign each multisig a subdomain on the primary brightmoments.eth domain
  • Use local city multi-sigs to pay for city specific expenses (leases, events, etc)

:thinking: Seeking Feedback

  • Does this structure “feel right”? As a CryptoCitizen holder, do separate wallets for each city simplify your understanding of DAO operations?
  • Does this increase operational complexity? As a Core Team member or multisig signer, are we making our financial overhead too complicated by introducing new wallets for each city?
  • As a CryptoCitizen, what types of responsibilities would you expect multisig signers to take on? What jobs are being done by the Core Team today that could be handling at a local level?

:crystal_ball: Future Work

  • Define signer policy for multisigs
  • Define signer composition for multisigs (core team / community)
  • Define a process for determining which community members are added as signers
  • Define roles & responsibilities for community signers
  • Define funding plan for local multisigs

:notebook: References

I love this - with the exception of GC’s claiming the metaverse as their local domain. Integration in the metaverse is arguably one of the biggest funding channels, so it should be open and integrated into all brick and mortar establishments.

1 Like

Fair point. Since CG were the only collection minted “in the Metaverse”, I wanted to be consistent with the naming. Do you have a suggestion to make this naming convention more clear?

Galaxy ?

It’s not so much the name itself as it seems to imply (I probably misunderstood) that the “metaverse” dao would manage the metaverse presence.