Nominate local "Council Members" to operate city specific wallets

:cool: tl;dr

Nominate and vote on representatives from local communities to act as multi-sig signers on a dedicated wallet for each city

:sunrise: Overview

In Establish multisig wallets for local cities, I outlined a SubDAO structure that included a separate multisig wallet for each city. This proposal aims to build on that structure and address the third key result outlined in the CryptoCitizen Provisional Governance Structure:

:warning: Problem

  • 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
  • Members from each community are unsure of how to get involved and where to direct feedback

:building_construction: Proposal

  • The core team will run a process, beginning in Q2, to interview and nominate 2 representatives from each city to act as “Council Members”
  • The Core Team will provide the community with a brief of the nominees (see: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Nomination page for an example)
  • The local community (e.g. CryptoVenetians, CryptoNewYorkers, etc.) will vote on the nominated representatives
  • Appointed Council Members must receive a >50% “Approve” vote with at least 10% quorum from the city collection using a Snapshot approval voting type with a voting period of 5 days
  • Local Council Members from each city will be granted a 6-month term, a base salary, and be added as signers on city-specific multisigs

The following diagram shows the wallet structure for the proposed structure:

Council Members will have the following roles and responsibilities:

  • Work together with the Core Team to solicit proposals, capture feedback, host events, and represent the community’s interests
  • Plan events and manage the local community budget
  • Distribute community grants (incl. CryptoCitizens) to local community members
  • Maintain a cashflow positive operation, propose and implement new revenue-generating events, and establish partnerships with local businesses and projects

:thinking: Seeking Feedback

  • Do the term limits (6 months) feel correct? We want to balance the operational overhead of running an interview process with enough time to allow the appointed Council Member to accomplish things while in office.
  • Should there be a limit to the number of times that a Council Members can be elected?
  • Should non-CryptoCitizen holders be eligible to run for Council Member positions?

:crystal_ball: Future Work

  • Define funding plan for local multisigs

:notebook: References

  1. The term limits (6 months) feels right to me. A lot can be accomplished in 6 months - it also gives the officer a time frame to make things happens instead of letting it drag out if it were longer.

  2. I think if the crypto citizens would like to keep voting that officer in, there shouldn’t be a limit. An officer might be doing a great job and everyone is happy with it - why limit that? On the other hand, if crypto citizens collectively decide it’s time for a change then we should be able to vote someone new in.

  3. Should non-CryptoCitizen holders be eligible to run for Council Member positions? I believe they should be able to but as long as they have credibility in the crypto/events world and understand this DAO. Not a big fan of it but I don’t think it should be ruled out completely.


This sounds great!

Would these be full time jobs? Would these “council Members” also be at the galleries full time? or manage a gallery staff?

I don’t think there should be a “term limits” as it is good to have a consistent face… i guess this could be changed if it becomes an issue.

I definitely think that they should not only be CryptoCitizens, but also Citizens of that city, as long as they have the competency and experience.


These are not full time roles. I would expect this to be similar to joining a town board, which is a commitment of 5-10 hours per week.