GTBR RFP Response: Three Proposals

:cool: tl;dr

Three Proposals in Response to RFP: How should we distribute the 7 unclaimed GTBR?

:building_construction: Proposal

  1. Future’s Proposal RFP: How should we distribute the 7 unclaimed GTBR? - #7 by FutureAce

  2. Gift 3 to individuals going to Berlin to distribute the golden tokens this is won by putting together the best proposal for token distribution which collects a diverse demographic (financially / socially / professionally etc) that will be active locally

  3. Gift 3 to individual(s) who put together the highest revenue generating event in the NYC space while its open or something similar.

Any combination of the above

As an aside, Futures proposal has a stipulation about only awarding unique addresses… how do we incentivize citizens to keep their governance tokens in the same wallet to prevent this from being corrupted ?

Perhaps some sort of multiplier if citizens are in the same wallet for other utilities ? hmmm

To date, we have solved this by rewarding holders based on Citizen count, rather than unique wallets. Without a robust KYC program or technical solution, it is impractical to distinguish between someone holding their Citizens in multiple wallets vrs. two unique holders. For this reason, I tend to believe that we should avoid programs that incentivize holders to split their Citizens across wallets.

I second @Airloom’s comment and also @philm’s sentiment. We want to do our best to not encourage or incentivize wallet splitting. My proposal above is a one-time solution to handle these 7 outstanding GTBR’s, and is not meant to become an expectation going forward. People would not have been splitting CryptoCitizens to try and arbitrage this drop it, given that the BRT-5 vote has already happened. We should consider exploring future actions to boost claim % further (below).

Follow up with another proposal asking:

Should only “active CryptoCitizens” be eligible for future city airdrops?

Define “active Cryptocitizens” as CryptoCitizens that at minimum (i) voted in the most recent city selection, or (ii) are recently minted CryptoCitizens that did not have the opportunity to vote in aforementioned city selection, but signed a web3 wallet pledge to do so on the next such event.
Justification: This would likely place Golden Tokens with active and passionate citizens, reducing the need for additional follow up/waitlist actions and improving the claim odds.
Risk: It could exclude/alienate those who are not as savvy on web3/voting and new to the process, which is part of Bright Moments mission to onboard into the ecosystem.

We need to find the right balance. I believe something like idea has been floated before.