The function of a diplomat is the oldest form of foreign policy, predating foreign ministers by centuries.
Core functionalities of a diplomat include:
Representation
Protection of interests of the sending state
Initiation and facilitation of strategic agreements
Trade and commerce
Friendly relations
This list of functions perfectly describes the needs of KONG LAND. We need representation, strategic agreements, commerce, and friendly relations.
To become a diplomat for KONG LAND, you propose the placement of an embassy within another crypto country, metaverse, DAO, or simply a project related to crypto.
$CITIZENS of KONG LAND will vote on your proposal. If the proposal passes, possible perks are:
Discord Rank identifying you as a KONG LAND Diplomat in the KONG LAND Discord
Power to pre-negotiate and prepare proposals, to be presented to the relevant KONG LAND governing body, in collaboration with the receiving crypto project
1 $CTZN token per year of service
Special physical passport identifying you as a Diplomat for KONG LAND
Of course, being an official representative of KONG LAND could come some of these responsibilities:
Represent KONG LAND impeccably
Build personal relationships with the receiving project
Establish commerce fiercely but tactful
Take part in as many functions at the receiving project as possible to you
Send quarterly cables about the state of the receiving project as well as the state of relations with said project
Generally, these are all just ideas I have come up with. I am happy to discuss the actual use of such a position or how it could look. It could be established with relative speed and significantly impact KONG LANDs’ exposure to the crypto world.
I think a term limit is undoubtedly valid, but there should be no limit on consecutive terms imho.
Compensation in $LAND makes sense. Maybe they can award a $CTZN per year to holders of critical positions in the crypto project they are assigned to, to build a friendly relationship.
A limited number of diplomats makes sense, of course. It would look weird if 200 out of 235 CITIZEN are diplomats. A general rule of thumb could be that no more than 5% of CITIZENS can be diplomats simultaneously.
A way of starting this could be forming a diplomatic corps sub-DAO. Gather people interested in being engaged with other projects as a diplomat and start working out a framework for normalized relations/treaties.
Maybe there should be a vote on forming the sub-DAO? Since it will eventually consume resources from the KONG treasury.
Eventually, the diplomatic corps sub-DAO could have a private channel where relevant CITIZENS and active diplomats have a space to discuss delicate details of commerce.
This is a great idea, and I’d like to propose a small but important tweak to how we view this role. In the physical world, diplomats generally pledge allegiance to a single nation and represent that nations interests. But as @cadillion points out in the manifesto, metanations are composable. Our diplomats will likely be members of many metanations and will find it hard to separate their loyalties.
For example, I’m a KONG citizen and active in CabinDAO and founder of Vibecamp. If I were a KONG diplomat to Vibecamp, could I really claim to protect KONG’s interests (or vice versa)? Or maybe you could argue that diplomats must renounce all other allegiances, but that runs counter to our vision of composable metanations and is not practical in today’s world.
I suggest the opposite: a good diplomat IS invested in both sides of the relationship and works to find positive-sum outcomes for both sides. Being close to both orgs gives them insight into how each works and where the win-win opportunities are. And the role of protecting each DAO’s interests rightly stays with the citizens/tokenholders/whatever of each DAO.
This creates a natural path for becoming a diplomat. First, be active in both DAOs. Then apply for diplomat status. If you favor one side too heavily (e.g. Nouns holder but lurks in KONG discord), your allegiance is clearly skewed and you won’t be effective. By establishing a norm that diplomats should look for win-wins, we create incentives for DAOs to be concerned (in a positive sense) about each other, as opposed to an adversarial your-diplomat-vs-ours relationship.
You have a point here. Diplomats are not supposed to be cut-throat salespeople trying to sell as many KONG chips as possible.
But consider that the world of crypto metanations is still a competitive place. Metanations compete for talent and funding. Then there are the other projects that would be possible commerce partners for KONG like Metaverses, Metagames, or NFT projects. These are often in competition for the same resources. Diplomacy does come with implied secrecy.
Picture crypto-project A sharing confidential information with a KONG diplomat to discuss possible future collaboration angles.
Said KONG diplomat shares this information in a cable with the diplomatic corps. Another KONG diplomat shares this information obtained from the diplomatic corps private communication channel with another crypto-project B.
This might be temporarily great for the relationship between KONG and crypto-project B, but it is a disaster in the long term. I understand that transparency is a big thing in crypto. But there are still cases when confidentiality is essential, especially if you are looking at a multi-decade relationship with other crypto-projects.
Thus, a diplomat does need to have KONGs interest in his mind when conducting himself as an intermediary between KONG and other metanations or crypto projects.
I think that classifications of information shared with the diplomatic corps would enable each diplomat to understand which data can be shared with others outside the diplomatic corps.
This problem might also mean that KONG Citizens involved in leadership positions with other DAOs/Crypto-Projects should not be KONG diplomats.
When a diplomat is biased, other Crypto-Projects might not want to work with KONG because of confidentiality concerns.
Do I want to share my cutting-edge ideas with KONG if it means my direct competitor might have access to it and start realizing it simultaneously as I do?
I’m not sure how deep this rabbit hole of diplomacy is (or how far we should take it), but it seems deeper every time I think about it.
I see @grin’s point here: that metacitizenship naturally may spread allegiances here. It might be important to split out “diplomatic” activity from “development agency” activity.
I see the latter as economic (potentially implemented by diplomatic agreement) and the former as relationship building based on common goals which may or involve an economic piece. E.g., it might make sense for two metanations to push for regulatory change in a trad state, or to create joint trade zones within physical territory one of them might occupy.