KONG Next Phase: Sunrise

[rj1708]

There is so much good discussion here. I’m going to keep my comments separated as to (1) the ragequit mechanism and (2) refining the DAO mission.

Ragequit

@cameron

Using existing Moloch ragequit mechanisms would significantly decrease development time/risk.

I wholeheartedly agree with using pre-existing tools (e.g. Moloch) wherever possible, without having to create some complex new system. The additional work involved for people who will ultimately have to technically implement this is not something we should take lightly. It has been a recurring issue and something that has come up in discussions to dissolve the DAO.

@cameron

I believe that ERC-20 token holders were issued a “right” to always burn into the ERC-721 and maintaining this right keeps a path to $CITIZENship open. I think there is disagreement on this point and welcome additional feedback. If we wish to end or pause this right then the ERC-20 → ERC-721 burn to mint function must be disabled.

I actually don’t feel strongly one way or another on this. One, I’m not sure that there was always an immutable, indefinite “right” to burn into the ERC-721. My observation of this process was that there was something of an expectation that people would burn into the ERC-721 to participate. That not everyone did burn was an ongoing discussion and concern. Two, ending the ability for ERC-20 token holders to burn into the ERC-721 could solve a portion of the issues raised in Improving the Token Landscape in KONG Land. I would not oppose disabling the burn to mint function after a period of notice.

@cadillion

As for a difference in payment between alpha NFTs and vanilla NFTs, I’m not in favor of differentiating here. As @cameron said, excluding 11 CTZN-721 from pro-rata changes your share by 2%. This is $8 per alpha if the whole 30 ETH in treasury is claimable. The simplicity is worth the trade-off.

I absolutely agree with this.

@cameron

I agree that we may need to split out the ragequit vote (in effect) from a deeper mission oriented vote as there are many factors at play here.

I also agree here.

@cameron

Hmm this is not how I believe how the term ragequit was understood by all. I believe it always means that you get to walk away with your full share of the liquid treasury, hence I suggested it as a fair alternative to those who wished to leave as opposed to dissolution. I don’t believe the ability for KONG Land to set a budget should apply an arbitrary tax here (60% in this case). I would love to hear other takes on this.

I agree that ragequit has always meant that you can walk away with your full share of the liquid treasury. It is not limited to 40% of the treasury. I say this as someone fully committed to remaining in the DAO.

@cameron

The only way to prevent this is by (1) allowing 511 shares upfront – whether or not $CITIZEN ERC-20s can exit immediately or (2) freezing the DAO to the 281 tokens/230 holders and ignoring all other $CITIZENs permanently.

I also feel that people attempting to speculate on the dissolution vote should be excluded, but am conscious of the complexity in trying to prevent gamification (that ultimately may fail anyway). Perhaps then the additional option @Sacris set out should be included in a vote and making clear that option would result in freezing the ERC-20 > ERC-721 burn mechanism. (See above for my thoughts on that). So, the ragequit vote options would include:

1. 281 Citizen ERC-721 only (281 shares total)
2. 281 Citizen ERC-721 and 230 potential ERC-721 (511 shares total)
3. 281 Citizen ERC-721 (281 shares total; tokenId <= 281 or tokenId 1,000-1,011) may burn; after one year 230 potential additional shares will be added (511 shares total after one year)

Refining the Mission

I think that Cadillion (I can only mention two users, for some reason…) has captured the discussion of mission refinement well by proposing the following categories:

@cadillion

I propose that the revenue product be approval voted on as:

1. No-code chip management & trusted service registry
2. Crypto-native point of sale & physical crypto cash
3. Delivery of real world assets & supply chain provenance
4. Network state management & reporting
5. Proof of asset L1 blockchain
6. Social club

Following these discussions, and having reviewed prior documents (e.g. versions of the DAO structure proposal, discord, forum posts), a general goal along the following lines may make sense:

To make decentralized technologies accessible to everyone by delivering seamless no-code chip management, trusted service registries, and user-friendly crypto-native hardware solutions. We bridge the digital and physical worlds through real-world asset delivery, supply chain transparency, and a proof-of-asset Layer 1 blockchain. Through intuitive tools, clear reporting, and a community-driven association, we empower individuals and organizations to participate in and shape the future of trustless systems.

I’m not wedded to this, at all, I am just trying to think through some of the overarching objectives that keep popping up in discourse.

Also, it may be worth adding a bit of detail to the paths outlined. For example:

@cadillion

No-code chip management & trusted service registry

• This could include @Digit’s suggestion to build a “simple, approachable frontend for the scripts (funded by the treasury) —inputs, dropdowns, and clear UX—to let anyone quickly get started with KONG Chips.”
• Standing agreement with Arx to resell chips to KONG Land at a significant discount. This could be limited to ERC-721 CITIZENS as @Sacris suggested. I don’t think this should be time-limited, or limited to $CITIZEN owned and run projects.

I’m curious to hear from others what else could fit under these “buckets”. I would be happy to organize what has been suggested, thus far.