KONG Next Phase: Sunrise

If a non-convoluted way of preventing $CITIZENs from burning multiple NFTs from one address cannot be done, then I propose we add in a 3rd option. Here are the updated ragequit mechanisms I would propose we put up to vote:

  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)

By limiting to only the current 281 ERC-721 we would prohibit any future $CITIZENs from burning (at least via this mechanism), however, the DAO voted to continue and I don’t see why anyone new would want to ragequit. This also prevents encouraging buy-and-burn for new $CITIZENs.

  1. 281 Citizen ERC-721 only (281 shares total)

The only plausible way I see to go this route is by freezing ERC-20 → ERC-721s permanently with no new $CITIZENs joining.

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

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.

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.

I absolutely agree with this.

I also agree here.

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.

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:

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:

  • 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.

I am posting again here to try and consolidate the prior discussion and move things forward, based on the Snapshot language:

If the vote for dissolution fails by a quorum of the $CITIZENs, a second proposal will be created that outlines the following:

  • Ragequit mechanism: Ex. Method for unhappy citizens to ragequit, burn their token, and take their pro rata share of the treasury.

  • Mission refinement: Ex. Clear goals and a path forward established for the DAO, plans to use at least 60% of the treasury over the next 12 months towards KONG Lands mission, and/or a way to generate revenue for the DAO and the establishment of explicit metrics to evaluate success.

Ragequit Mechanism

  1. 281 Citizen ERC-721 only (281 shares total)

  • This option would require freezing the ERC-20 > ERC-721 burn mechanism, which means that no ERC-20 $CITIZEN holders would be able to burn their tokens into the ERC-721. Any ERC-20 $CITIZEN holders who have not burned, to date, would be excluded from the ragequit mechanism and could no longer burn their token to the ERC-721 to participate in the DAO.
  1. 281 Citizen ERC-721 and 230 potential ERC-721 (511 shares total)

  • This option would result in each $CITIZEN, including those ERC-20 $CITIZENS who later burn into the ERC-721 token, to claim a pro-rata share of the treasury. This would have the effect of allowing speculators who recently bought tokens in advance of the dissolution vote to claim a share of the treasury.
  1. 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)

  • This option would have the effect of allowing all ERC-721 $CITIZENS to immediately access the ragequit mechanism and access a pro-rata share (1/511) of the treasury. All ERC-20 $CITIZENS (e.g., those who have not burned) would be required to wait one year to burn and access a pro-rata share (1/511) of the treasury, at that time.

Mission Refinement

There are six paths the DAO could pursue to generate revenue. Each path is listed below, with illustrative examples of potential revenue-generating projects. We should create working groups to prioritize the development and delivery of revenue-generating ideas, which could be done as volunteers, or potentially funded through grants.

I am not the author of these ideas, but have collected this information from others’ suggestions.

  1. No-code chip management & trusted service registry

  • Scripts: We (@cameron) to complete current work on scripts, working out some kinks to allow for the following “Frontend” work.

  • Frontend: A volunteer or paid contributor from treasury funds to build a simple, approachable frontend for the scripts—inputs, dropdowns, and clear UX—to let anyone quickly get started with KONG Chips.

  • Arx Research: Standing agreement with Arx to resell chips to KONG Land at a significant discount:

    • Arx will provide a minimum X% discount from quoted retail pricing for KONG Land $CITIZENS (ERC-721).
    • Arx, at their sole discretion and subject to availability, may provide free (older variant but still very usable) HaLos to projects led by KONG Land $CITIZENS (ERC-721).
  • Education: Creating resources for potential users (both developers and end-users) to understand chips, how to use them, and where KONG Land sits in the digi-physical universe (relative to ERS, Arx, etc.).

  1. Crypto-native point of sale & physical crypto cash

  • Point of sale: Crypto-native application that accepts transactions from NFC hardware wallets, leveraging Burners and KONG cash (or other cash option that the DAO creates).

  • Physical Crypto Cash: Can we revive KONG cash? Is this feasible, or even desirable? Or would this be a new, separate project?

  1. Delivery of real-world assets & supply chain provenance

  • This seems like potentially one of the revenue options with larger return. I believe some in the Discord mentioned gold as a use case.

  • Would supply chain provenance connect to the proof of asset L1 blockchain?

  • Is there room for some type of escrow or verification service for digi-physical transfers?

  • End-to-end chain of custody application for delivery of real world assets, leveraging halos and ERS.

  1. Network state management & reporting

  • Treasury strategy: 80% of treasury assets will be moved into yield bearing equivalents with no exit queue to ensure that ragequitting members may claim a portion of these assets in a liquid form.

    • We should also seek to use profits from yield to take over paying costs for Discord, Kong.land hosting, etc. that Arx has fronted. Can we get an idea of what those running costs might be and perhaps come up with a plan for transition? With this, we may also wish to discuss a plan for transitioning Discord/X? control of @KongiscashKongiscash to the KONG Land DAO. Or some other solution?
  • Management System: Network state management system, leveraging passports and Agora.

    • This could include a system to distribute a share of net revenue to $CITIZENS (ERC-721) who actively participate in governance by, for example, voting, etc.
    • Passports actually limit movement, rather than enabling it. IMO, participation should not be mediated in that way.

5. Proof of asset L1 blockchain

  • A new POA KONG chain run on nodes only permissioned by chips.

This would be a great way to potentially involve less-technical people in governance through staking. I’m thinking of how $SPORK DAO is set up, potentially. Or even allowing alpha citizens to stake their NFT as a multiplier. Or staking NFT to receive a share of DAO profits?

  1. Social club

  • Embassies at events?
  • Expanding chip use cases through $CITIZEN-led projects. How can we find other $CITIZENS to team up with for project ideas? Would this be part of the Agora?

This post isn’t meant to limit anything, just progress discussion on the points covered so far.

1 Like

Thanks for consolidating the discussion, @rj1708. There’s a lot to digest and I appreciate the clarity. Here are my initial thoughts:

Ragequit Mechanism: I support the default state being to remain a citizen. As others have said above, that was the majority vote from the last proposal. Additionally, any inactive citizens shouldn’t be forced out just for being inactive. I’m also in favor of including the 11 $CTZN with the 500 $CITIZEN to be eligible to ragequit.

Mission Refinement:

I’m in favor of @cadillion’s recommendation:

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

It’s important to clarify that the mission refinement examples in the Sunset Proposal were presented as suggestions, not strict requirements. The way this is summarized above could be interpreted as a list of requirements:

Mission Refinement – Clear goals and a roadmap for the DAO, including plans to use at least 60% of the treasury over the next 12 months toward KONG Land’s mission, strategies to generate revenue, and explicit metrics to measure success.

On a similar note, I also believe we should establish a policy that would prevent failed proposals from requiring additional action. In this case, these conversations around the ragequit mechanism and mission refinement are necessary and overdue, however it’s important that citizens of Kong Land aren’t obligated to act on any requirements from a proposal that didn’t pass. This topic may be better suited for another day, as the ragequit and mission discussions take precedence, but I recommend further discussion on this to help prevent similar situations moving forward.

2 Likes

@Dr.Datamosh thank you for sharing.

It’s important to clarify that the mission refinement examples in the Sunset Proposal were presented as suggestions, not strict requirements.

I want to highlight this as well; I originally read everything as a strict requirement but the vote couched the “60% spend in 12 months” as an example.

I believe that we’re now at the point where we can hone in on a formal proposal:

On the creation of a ragequit mechanism:

  1. $CITIZEN ERC-20 → ERC-721 burns are frozen at the completion of this vote:
  • All remaining ERC-721s will be offered a proportional ragequit share.
  • All $CITIZEN ERC-20s are considered null and void with respect to any claims to citizenship in KONG Land.
  1. $CITIZEN ERC-20 → ERC-721 burn rights are retained:
  • Tokens burned after this vote cannot claim a ragequit share for one year from the date of this vote.
  • All ERC-721s will be offered a proportional ragequit share depending on the time of claim (today, that implies that there would be 281 shares available for one year and 511 shares available after one year).

In both cases: The treasury assets available for ragequit includes all $ETH, stablecoins or subsequent yield bearing or wrapped assets. The temporary freeze on $CTZN → $CITIZEN burns will be made permanent unless another vote reverses it.

On mission refinement for KONG Land

80% of the KONG Land treasury should be moved into liquid, yield bearing assets based on ETH [tbd: I welcome anyone to propose exact assets here]

KONG Land will prioritize creating a user friendly frontend for anyone to link chips to digital assets along with sufficient guides and documentation for $CITIZENs to complete this task.

The KONG Land Senate will lead this initiative give its existing prerogative to spend from the treasury up to present limits, but with an expectation of spending no more than 10% of the existing treasury to achieve this. A tax may be levied on chip minting or for other ERS tools, the receipts from which should be sent to the KONG Land treasury.

Arx, at its sole discretion, may provide discounted or free chips to $CITIZENs.

Notes:

I have removed the option for a flat 511 shares on day 1 as I believe I am alone in this take and I would prefer to constrain the vote to two clear choices.

In anticipation of this vote I have paused ERC-20 → ERC-721 burns for the $CITIZEN ERC-20 token. The last burn was nearly 6 months ago and I believe it would be prudent to minimize gamification prior to the vote.

$CITIZEN ERC-20s should not attempt to burn; the contract has not been tested in this scenario and a lost token may result.

Request:

I believe that this is a fairly simple/refined proposal and I don’t think it will make everyone 100% happy, but it should cover the key bases required while leaving opening the door for further mission refinement.

I would like there to be a pro/con analysis of each ragequit choice to be presented.

I will be happy to take on the pro case for 281 + continued ERC-20 minting and the con case for freezing ERC-20 minting, although if anyone feels as strongly as I do I welcome your input here as well.

1 Like

Endorsed in full. Happy to simplify our options.

I’ll go ahead and propose a 40/60 split between ETH-based LRTs (eg 10% wstETH, 10% weETH, 10% rETH, 10% rsETH) and USD equivalents (eg 20% USDe, 20% USDS, 20% crv 3pool). If we want to simplify management, we can use a Morpho pool or a Beefy LP.

I would probably opt to invert that in favor of ETH (60/40 or 70/30 ETH/USD).

If we hold in a Morpho pool, are the LP tokens liquid/divisible (vs. a vault?)

Re: @cadillion on splitting the proposals. Are you thinking of having;

  1. Detailed proposal on the ragequit mechanism options and how each will work in-depth.
  2. Detailed proposal on the DAO mission refinement options and what each will bring.

or

  1. General direction vote on the ragequit mechanism and DAO misison refinement with options for allocations towards one of each.
  2. Detailed proposal that finalizes how the ragequit mechanism and DAO mission refinement will be handled in-depth based off the outcome of proposal (1)?

Second option buys us more time to figure out the in-depth details more so we don’t hit the 2-week deadline from the first proposal. If option 1 is what you meant then I would like to see a more in-depth proposal draft for the ragequit mechanism.

I was thinking the first here.

I think the ragequit options have been described adequately above, and what remains is simply to collate the proposal. At a high level, we’re using the MolochDAO contract or similar and discussing a pro-rata share going to either:

  1. 281 claimants only, ever
  2. up to 511 claimants, where the remaining 230 can claim after a period of one year

For any more complicated repayment schema, I think we can put the onus on the individuals who want more compensation to put forward a more detailed proposal, or otherwise request retrospective funding for their contributions in a separate proposal. @cameron has also volunteered to write the pros and cons of allowing additional mints of CITIZEN-721

For the DAO mission refinement, it’s clear to me that we have several directions we can go in and the basic vibe check in this thread seems to lean toward building no-code chip tooling for creators and artists. I can write up a thread for each option on how we’ll spend the money, but my immediate thought is probably that we’ll spend the majority of the remaining treasury on hiring a full-time dev contractor for any of the selected options, with some budget allocated for marketing the finished output. Something to the effect of, “the DAO will find a development team or group of individuals who will build X with Y features for 18 ETH” would meet the bar of specificity required by the dissolution vote.

DRAFT for Voter Guide

In Favor of Continuing to Welcome ERC-20 $CITIZENs to Join KONG Land (Burn into ERC-721)

Since the inception of KONG Land the ERC-20 $CITIZEN served as the path to join the DAO. It predates the ERC-721, the formal establishment of the UNA and the treasury. $CITIZEN ERC-20s have historically been welcome to participate in the DAO conversation through the closed “# citizen” channel in Discord. And, at the beginning of this year, the DAO supplied liquidity to rebalance the market so that it is now affordable to join the DAO through the ERC-20 path.

Shutting this path down permanently is shortsighted. I believe that creating a 1 year period where only existing ERC-721 $CITIZENs receive a portion of the treasury is a fair way to allow more involved $CITIZENs the ability to exit without cutting off an important means of immigration into KONG Land. Permanently blocking a set of possible $CITIZEN shares would set a poor precedent where one group of $CITIZENs may profit over others.

One year provides ample time for “active” $CITIZENs (or at least more active) to claim a larger share of the treasury if they wish to ragequit while allowing ERC-20 $CITIZENs a path to fully naturalize after one year at which point any active $CITIZEN ERC-721 (regardless of when they burned) can claim a share upon ragequit.

There is one other important net effect from this: as we know that all ERC-20s will never burn into the ERC-721 and ragequit, there will be a larger buffer of capital available to the treasury (after one year) to pursue the refined KONG Land mission.

As ERC-721 $CITIZENs are the only ones who can vote in this snapshot their is a significant risk of the tyranny of the majority; we can easily override those who are still allowed in $CITIZEN spaces but do not have a voice in this vote. I don’t believe that’s the right thing to do.

@cadillion my plan was to only right the pro/in favor case for allowing 511 shares after 1 year. I don’t agree with the 281 share path and would be a poor/biased advocate for it.

One more thing I will note in the vote is that if we go down the 281 share only path we should immediately boot any ERC-20 $CITIZENs from the # citizen and # alpha channels on Discord and would need to rework the KONG Land website to stop showing “Redeem” as an option and remove the ERC-20 market.

It’s important to clarify that the mission refinement examples in the Sunset Proposal were presented as suggestions, not strict requirements.

Absolutely agree on this point.

There is another potential question here. If the treasury grows after one year, are ERC-20 $CITIZENS who burn and ragequit (I strongly oppose calling it “naturalization”) entitled to a potentially larger amount? In other words, the shares are diluted 1/511, but what if the shares are worth significantly more after one year? Does that matter? Maybe not, but it’s a possibility.

Yeah, agreed on this as well.

Also endorsed. I’m fairly agnostic as to the split, but slightly favor ETH-weighted.

Good with this, but I would love to be more involved going forward. Can we potentially look at some type of working group to keep this all moving? There were lots of great ideas on revenue-generating streams that should be explored in terms of timeline, requirements and feasibility. I’d also love to see calls transcribed or at least summarized (by ai or something) for the Discord to boost engagement.

Proposal: Ragequit and Citizenship

Given the sunset resolution did not pass, the DAO must create a path for dissatisfied members to permanently leave the DAO and claim their pro-rata share of the treasury. Since there are many tokens in the Kong Land ecosystem, and there exist some vulnerabilities to the ragequit process when the cost of token acquisition is less than a pro-rata share of the treasury, we have determined that only eligible voting citizens holding $CITIZEN ERC-721 tokens and having signed the charter will be eligible for ragequit. Such tokens are hereafter referred to as an “Eligible Token.”

It is understood that the general structure of the ragequit function will follow the Molochv3 contract standard, and the Senate will deposit all remaining ETH and stablecoin assets, alongside equivalent wrapped or yield-bearing assets, to the ragequit contract. Any deployed solution will be reasonably close to the above linked implementation, with the following modifications:

  • An intermediate redemption token, such as $EXILE, may be created for the sole purpose of converting an Eligible Token into a share of the asset treasury
  • Eligible Tokens may only be redeemed once per snapshot address

This vote will determine whether current holders of ineligible tokens, such as $CITIZEN ERC-20 or $CTZN ERC-20, can still convert their holdings into an Eligible Token:

  1. $CITIZEN ERC-20 → ERC-721 burn rights are retained
  • Tokens burned after the Eligible Token snapshot taken on July 12, 2025 cannot claim a ragequit share for one year from the date of deployment of the ragequit contracts.

  • All Eligible Tokens will be offered a proportional ragequit share based on the Eligible Tokens at the time of claim

    • Today, this implies there would be 281 shares available for one year, and 511 shares available after one year
  1. $CITIZEN ERC-20 → ERC-721 burns are permanently frozen at the completion of this vote:
  • All remaining ERC-721s will be offered a proportional ragequit share
    • (ie, those with tokenId <= 281 || (1000 <= tokenId && tokenId <= 1011))
  • All $CITIZEN and $CTZN ERC-20s are considered null and void with respect to any claims to citizenship in KONG Land
  • There will be no future redemptions for $CITIZEN ERC-721, ever

In both cases: The treasury assets available for claim via ragequit includes all $ETH, stablecoins or subsequently acquired yield-bearing or wrapped assets. A subsequent vote can still renew or revoke CITIZEN ERC-20 → ERC-721 burn rights.

In Favor of Continuing to Welcome ERC-20 $CITIZENs to Join KONG Land by Burning into ERC-721

by @cameron

Since the inception of KONG Land the ERC-20 $CITIZEN served as the path to join the DAO. It predates the ERC-721, the formal establishment of the UNA and the treasury. $CITIZEN ERC-20s have historically been welcome to participate in the DAO conversation through the closed “# citizen” channel in Discord. And, at the beginning of this year, the DAO supplied liquidity to rebalance the market so that it is now affordable to join the DAO through the ERC-20 path.

Shutting this path down permanently is shortsighted. I believe that creating a 1 year period where only existing ERC-721 $CITIZENs receive a portion of the treasury is a fair way to allow more involved $CITIZENs the ability to exit without cutting off an important means of immigration into KONG Land. Permanently blocking a set of possible $CITIZEN shares would set a poor precedent where one group of $CITIZENs may profit over others.

One year provides ample time for “active” $CITIZENs (or at least more active) to claim a larger share of the treasury if they wish to ragequit while allowing ERC-20 $CITIZENs a path to fully naturalize after one year at which point any active $CITIZEN ERC-721 (regardless of when they burned) can claim a share upon ragequit.

There is one other important net effect from this: as we know that all ERC-20s will never burn into the ERC-721 and ragequit, there will be a larger buffer of capital available to the treasury (after one year) to pursue the refined KONG Land mission.

As ERC-721 $CITIZENs are the only ones who can vote in this snapshot their is a significant risk of the tyranny of the majority; we can easily override those who are still allowed in $CITIZEN spaces but do not have a voice in this vote. I don’t believe that’s the right thing to do.

Against Continuing to Welcome ERC-20 $CITIZENs to Join KONG Land by Burning into ERC-721

by @cadillion

The token ecosystem of Kong Land is too complicated for new members to understand. Between $CITIZEN-20, $CTZN, $CITIZEN-721, $KONG, $LAND, and $RERRO, we have proliferated too many tokens to be legible to unfamiliar prospective members. While Alpha Citizen NFTs have historical value and intrigue, the continued use of various tokens to represent convertible shares of the NFT, and the resulting NFT as a necessary but not sufficient condition of voting, is abstruse and confusing.

There is little to no market for the NFTs, with a lifetime volume of less than 9 ETH, and the $CITIZEN ERC-20 tokens themselves have suffered illiquid markets for years with the Senate contributing significant resources to correct the LPs. Members have only successfully recruited 11 new voting members with $CTZN, and the value of using such tokens instead of simpler alternatives remains to be seen.

Rather than re-enabling claims on a defunct token, it would be better to lock the original token holders to represent a historical easter egg, and to focus on simplifying the ecosystem to merely LAND, or some other less complicated mark of voting membership.

While this vote is subject to a tyranny of the majority, the non-voting members have had more than three years to claim an ERC-721 token and sign the charter, securing a vote for themselves. They have elected not to do this and have chosen to speculate on the alternative tokens instead. They never converted to a voter, and never used the tokens to recruit more people to the DAO. They merely created a liquidity crunch and made citizenship harder to get for new members

Proposal: Mission Refinement

There are six paths the DAO could pursue to generate revenue. Each path is listed below, and can be voted on by approval, with illustrative examples of potential revenue-generating projects. The DAO will create working groups to prioritize the development and delivery of revenue-generating ideas, and the Senate will fund such working groups at its discretion up to 18 ETH over the next 12 months.

The Senate will move all remaining liquid treasury into a 70/30 split between ETH-based LRTs (eg 10% ETH, 15% wstETH, 15% weETH, 15% rETH, 15% rsETH) and USD equivalents (eg 10% USDe, 10% USDS, 10% crv 3pool). The Senate may simplify the LP management at its discretion, using providers such as Morpho or Beefy.

The voting options are as follows:

  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

No-code chip management & trusted service registry

The DAO has already invested significant resources in the development of the Ethereum Reality Service (“ERS”) but has not seen much promotion or adoption of the services. A working group might be created to promote the existence and utility of ERS at appropriate venues, attempting to onboard large brands and individual creators to chip their products and refer to ERS as their canonical source of authenticity. Additional development work may be required to produce no-code chip management tools and to demonstrate the utility of the registry for widely-used applications.

Crypto-native point of sale & physical crypto cash

The initial excitement around Kong Land centered on the production of Kong Cash, Offline Cash, and more recently, Burner disposable hardware wallets. The rising global prevalence of crypto Point of Sale (PoS) solutions such as Strike’s adoption as the de facto payment rail in LatAm, or Coinbase Commerce’s collaboration with Shopify, alongside the past success of payment rail adoption from Square readers, indicate there may be an opportunity to grow market share in the nascent crypto processing space through PoS systems. Working groups may be assembled to build payment integrations for existing PoS platforms to accept Kong HaLo transactions, to encourage adoption among proprietary merchants, and otherwise to build offline payments protocols.

Delivery of real world assets & supply chain provenance

Supply-chain provenance and chain of custody are important unsolved problems in peer-to-peer marketplaces. The existence of cryptographically unique proofs of authenticity enables a verifiable chain of custody and an ironclad protocol for passing monetary responsibility from party to party in the course of delivery and distribution. A working group may be assembled to source existing suppliers with supply chain verification challenges, auditors who validate these chains of custody, and insurance firms who investigate each incident to pay out claims, and design and build appropriate crypto systems to fit their usecases.

Network state management & reporting

Kong Land holds itself up as a “crypto state,” a term we coined before the ever prevalent meme from Balaji Srinivasan which he dubbed the “network state.” There is a lot of overlap between these ideas, and the sovereignty of network states ultimately derives from their hardware and network security guarantees. The Network State Conference is coming in October, and this represents an easy Schelling point to discover the particular challenges of existing network states and ensure Kong Land is producing services that meet the needs of these emerging nations, similar to its past work producing passports for CabinDAO, Metafactory, BeadsDAO, and others. Working groups may be assembled to improve the Agora to produce network state performance KPIs, to recruit growing network states like Prospera or Praxis, and to build tooling for their operations.

Proof of Asset L1 Blockchain

A persistent issue in running blockchains is the essential anonymity of miners on the network. Because it is cheap to produce identities, it is necessary to run expensive Proof of Work or Proof of Stake systems to lower bound the cost of attestations to the network. Given a network with physical constraints on the manufacture of new identities, it is possible to create more efficient consensus and state propagation to all participants. Working groups on this project may be formed to establish tokenomics and protocol performance parameters for such a novel network, and fund the creation of the minimum testnet.

Social club

If Kong Land is collectively out of ideas or too busy to push forward the state of the art, we can always chill and have fun at various events. 30 ETH in treasury can pay for pop-up embassies at a variety of conferences for the forseeable future. Working groups can plan parties, concerts, hackathons, and other paid events for people to enjoy on the crypto conference circuit.

2 Likes

@cadillion thank you for compiling the proposal. I will endeavor to whip the vote if we can post this on Wednesday. Would you like to move ahead with adding it to the snapshot, or I can (or @Digit since he got the ball rolling here)?

1 Like

I nominate @Digit to post it since we wrote the comments, gives it three sets of eyes and an implicit second to the motion

2 Likes

2 new proposals have been posted to vote on:

Ragequit and Citizenship:

https://snapshot.box/#/s:kong.eth/proposal/0xb837ea5fbd65422e8c41b285cb824a6aeb561c7cd6e0870e73d9eaf2af6132b4

Mission Refinement:

https://snapshot.box/#/s:kong.eth/proposal/0xa576b3f16f9fb425e2f1d3586b70a078356da6a6611c32c14bd947e336094330

Citizens, thank you for participating in the votes this week, both votes reached quorum, and so:

  1. CITIZEN burns will remain open and future CITIZEN-721 IDs between 282 and 999 (inclusive) or greater than 1011 will be able to ragequit after 1 year from the date of deploying the ragequit contract

  2. The DAO will focus on no-code chip management with a secondary focus on supply chain provenance

We will convene the Sensors to deploy the contract and more fully plan the next year

1 Like