YOMO (You Only Mint Once) No Mo'

:cool: tl;dr

People should be allowed to mint more than one CryptoCitizen IRL per city.

:sunrise: Overview

Throughout the first two IRL cities, Bright Moments has loosely enforced a policy that I will refer to as “YOMO” (You Only Mint Once). The idea of YOMO is that an individual can only complete an IRL minting ceremony once in a given city.

YOMO started in Venice as a way to make sure the CryptoVenetian project was fairly distributed. Since we were giving away CryptoVenetians for free, having a YOMO policy ensured that people couldn’t abuse the system.

Since launching CryptoNewYorkers and CryptoGalacticans, YOMO has evolved away from it’s original roots. In New York, we allowed people to mint with “surrogates”. This means that you could mint more than once, but you needed to have another person physically present to do the reveal ceremony in your place. In some cases, we also accepted people wearing disguises (e.g. a mask) to surrogate.

:warning: Problem

The fundamental problem with YOMO is that it creates friction for the people who are most interested and engaged with the project. If someone buys or wins multiple Golden Tokens they need to coordinate a group of people to mint on their behalf. This introduces security risks as well as unnecessary logistical overhead for the operating team. Since the result is the same (the person owns more than one CryptoCitizen from a given city), YOMO has not served its purpose.

:building_construction: Proposal

Remove the YOMO policy and allow people who hold multiple Golden Tokens to mint more than once IRL.

Here is the specific proposal:

  • Anyone who holds a Golden Token can mint IRL at Bright Moments as long as they are physically present.

  • If someone holds a Golden Token but cannot mint IRL, a surrogate mint is still required (i.e. someone acting as a representative for the individual still needs to attend the mint).

  • Individuals who receive Golden Tokens through the local community distribution are not entitled to mint more than once. This is to make sure that we have a broad distribution of individuals from our host cities and is in line with the original YOMO policy reasons introduced in Venice Beach.

4 Likes

Makes sense. If the project resonates so strongly with someone that they want to invest more (and purchase off the secondary) then they should be allowed to. The GT is going from someone that prefers the ETH to someone that is willing to spend ETH to be further invested in CC.

1 Like

This makes sense. We can even give this person some extra value during the minting event for his/her commitment. Something special related to how many GT you own. It could be simple things like t-shirts/cap, physical print of NFT etc.

1 Like

Yes, pieces of flair for each CC held :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Striking the YOMO policy for security reasons and engagement seems reasonable, as well as allowing and making it clear that surrogate minting is possible.

Fringe cases:

  • Can someone in the local community distribution mint again if they purchase another Golden Token, or somehow show up at another event with another Golden Token in their wallet?

  • Can someone who purchased or received a Golden Token also be eligible to be part of the community distribution? In the same case, community locals may be incentivized to secure a GT via secondary or primary, and then hold off on minting as they try to secure a spot via the community distribution (depending on distribution mechanic).

In the end, some people will attempt to arbitrage any established guidelines. However, having those guidelines in place will make the intention clear. At some level, Bright Moments will have to trust community members to act in-line with those intentions.

It depends. If they purchase a Golden Token on secondary, then that seems fine. If they somehow game the system to receive another free Golden Token then that seems wrong. I think we could enforce this as a policy and trust people to do the right thing until we have proof of wrongdoing.

I don’t see why not. This is the same question as above but in the reverse order. We don’t want to prevent people from buying in just because they have a chance of receiving a Golden Token for free. We saw this happening in New York and it resulting in a large backlog of mints the final week of the project.

:+1:

As someone who bought two back when successful nominators still won a free citizen, because It seemed like only existing citizens were winning the nomination votes, to then have the rule change such that buying made me ineligible to win – it would personally sting a little for that rule to keep flip flopping.

Suggest we at least keep the rule consistent in a given city

I think if some whale came in an minted 10 in a row it would take away some of what makes CC special to me. If they are well off enough to afford multiple GTs I think they can bring some friends.

Another solution would be to change it to one mint per person per day, I feel like that could be a good middle ground. Still allows people to go deep in to the project if they want, but there is still a limit (number of days minting in that city).

1 Like

Regarding minting more than one per city — i’m supportive. Do we require the mask thing or no ?

Regarding Justice’s question about eligibility for the local distro…

Maybe one way to handle the 334 that are locally distributed is as follows:

If someone owns a prior city they can’t be part of the community distro ? That way, local people who buy in to be involved from the get go, and to hedge against not getting the community distro aren’t penalized ?

I think this makes sense because prior city owners already have the raffle.

What about this scenario: someone lives in Tokyo and has been following the project from afar. They even bought a CryptoVenetian to get access to token gated channels and voting. One day, the community votes that Tokyo will be the next CryptoCity. Finally – this is perfect. But wait, now they are excluded because they showed support before knowing that their city would be selected.

Should this person be eligible for community distribution?

Great point…

Perhaps the only solution is to leverage the IRL component and require that someone be physically present on at least two occasions over a long window of time - we have a better chance of getting local engagement from the local distro if this is true.

1 Like