Proposal: Sunset Resolution

[Sacris]

Preface

Citizens of Kong Land,

It has become clear that our DAO has lost momentum. Many of us have naturally shifted our focus to other projects, and our bi-weekly community calls have become a ghost town. Our once-active community space has grown silent, the treasury remains dormant, and our last major initiative, Agora, ultimately missed its mark.

At this point, and for some time now, there has been no clear direction or active initiatives to move us forward. Instead of clinging to an inconsistent structure, it’s time we have an open and realistic discussion about what comes next.

With that in mind, I propose we accept where we are today and take action to responsibly wind things down — placing Kong Land into an indefinite adjournment and redirecting our energy toward aligned projects that are seeing traction and growth. This doesn’t mean the ultimate end of Kong Land, but rather a redirection in focus and resources.

Below is a draft proposal of how we as Citizens can approach this in a way that benefits the entire community. Any and all feedback, thoughts, and propositions are encouraged.

The Proposal

This proposal includes several actions, in no specific order, that require multiple steps. These tasks would gradually take place over a 30-day time span after the official voting and enactment.

Sunsetting the Discord: We formally suspend the Kong Land discord and transition to the ERS server or create a more general one surrounding Arx, maintaining a place for our relationships, connections and discussions to continue.

• Announce the indefinite adjournment of Kong Land and the discord as inactive.
• Encourage Citizens to transition to the ERS or a general Arx server.
• Senate term 4 is concluded, Senators lose their role.

Relegating tokens: $CTZN and $LAND are put on the back burner for the foreseeable future, ensuring that no one is left with unclear expectations about their utility or future value.

• Liquidity pools for $CTZN remain funded.
• Undistributed $LAND payouts for Senators are halted.

NFT reveal: Citizens who have not yet revealed their NFTs via their passports are able to do so via contract without the presence of the card. This ensures that all citizens have access to see their identities regardless of any issues surrounding the physical.

• Creation of a contract interaction for citizens to reveal their NFTs without their passports.
• (or) method to request new HaLo based Passports to use for reveal.

Treasury distribution: The existing treasury is distributed to support aligned initiatives and projects as well as to ensure that those who contributed meaningfully are compensated for their time and dedication. Allocation breakdown:

• 50% allocated to Founders — recognizing their foundational role, their insights and coordination over the years, and to empowering new ventures.

• 30% allocated to Term 4 Senators (excluding Founders) — rewarding those who have provided governance and oversight throughout the lifespan of Kong Land.

• 15% allocated to active Citizens — giving back to the remaining engaged members who stayed true and contributed despite the DAO’s slowdown.

• 5% allocated to the Kong Land Future Trust — a portion of the treasury is preserved in the event traction regains surrounding the DAO, allowing for Citizens to rebuild again.

Additional Info

• Currently the treasury sits at 30.65ETH (~$90,000) at the time of writing. This does not include the $CTZN liquidity pools.

• Active Citizen allocation is evenly distributed among those who vote Yes on the proposal (Excludes Senators and Founders). Those who vote No will not be included in this distribution.

  • Ex. Two Citizens vote Yes, each get 7.5% of the treasury. Ten Citizens vote Yes, each get 1.5% of the treasury. Citizen #018 and #111 vote No. They get No treasury allocation.

• This effort would directly benefit aligned projects such as Burner, ERS, and the larger Arx ecosystem, providing both runway and resources to continue to invest in areas where we’re seeing actual traction. Context for these aligned projects is below:

  • Arx - Chip manufacturer (https://arx.org/)
    Burner - Crypto gift card (https://www.burner.pro/)
    ERS - Decentralized chip registry (https://www.ers.to/)

The DAO will be formally placed on pause until further notice, allowing us to step back without fully closing the door. Should there come a time when focusing our energy on decentralized autonomous organizations becomes meaningful and necessary once more, we will be ready to reopen Kong Land and welcome the world in.

We built Kong Land together,
it’s only right that we set aside this project with the same respect and care.
─── ✧

[Mattaglass]

Here’s an alternative proposal that I believe offers a more fair solution:

Summary

This proposal presents a more community-focused and fair method of distributing the Kong Land treasury (30.65 ETH), prioritizing those who funded the project through NFT sales while recognizing contributors and supporting aligned future ventures. This stands as an alternative to the previously proposed “Founder-heavy” split.

Context

Kong Land was funded primarily through NFT sales purchased by Citizens. These funds were not provided by private investors or founders. With Kong Land entering an indefinite adjournment, it is only right that the treasury be distributed in a way that:

• Acknowledges and compensates the Citizens who funded it.
• Fairly rewards actual contributors who added value.
• Respects that founders were funded privately elsewhere, and should not receive a majority of community-held funds.
• Leaves the door open for a future revival, without draining the treasury entirely.

Treasury Breakdown (Total: 30.65 ETH)

Group	%	ETH	Description
1. Citizens (NFT holders)	50%	15.325 ETH	Reimbursement to all verifiable NFT holders.
2. Active Contributors	20%	6.13 ETH	For senators, moderators, and builders who demonstrably contributed.
3. Founders	10%	3.065 ETH	Symbolic compensation for leadership, not majority ownership.
4. Aligned Projects	10%	3.065 ETH	Milestone-based funding for ERS, Arx, Burner, etc.
5. Future Trust Vault	10%	3.065 ETH	Reserved in a multisig for potential future DAO revival.

Implementation Details

• Citizens: Anyone who owns or minted a Kong Land Passport is eligible. May be distributed equally or weighted by mint tier.
• Contributors: Must submit a claim describing role, time, and output. Tiered system will be used to fairly distribute this portion.
• Founders: Fixed 10%, acknowledging leadership without granting control over community funds.
• Aligned Projects: Arx, ERS, burner- equally distributed.
• Future Trust: Gnosis Safe or similar multisig controlled by diverse community members. Dormant until future vote.

Why This Proposal

It respects the source of funds: Citizens, not private investors.

It acknowledges the real value provided by contributors.

It avoids unfair enrichment of founders who did not fund the treasury.

It keeps a path open for future revival of the DAO.

It reflects Kong Land’s original values: transparency, fairness, decentralization.

——

Let us adjourn with respect, transparency, and integrity — the same values that built Kong Land from the start.

[cameron]

I have many more thoughts on both of these proposals and I cannot put pen to paper on them this moment but I would like to take a brief moment to first thank @Sacris for posting this and second concur with @Mattaglass.

I do not believe that the founders should have any distinct rewards above Citizens. I also question whether the Senate should be split out as well and would prefer an even split in the case of any distribution and a distinct way to recognize Senator contributions.

[cameron]

I think it’s telling that four years ago this month the $CITIZEN ERC-20 was launched with the ideal of coalescing a group of pioneers seeing to create a new “crypto state” (the term network state didn’t exist yet).

Since then we received an incredible outpouring of support for this effort and dozens of $CITIZENs contributed thousands of hours of time to realize this vision. A very short list; I’m certain I have missed folks and I am sincerely apologetic if so (DM me!):

• 31 for innumerable hours spent creating the most poignant auditory component for each statue
• pmg for painstakingly preparing each statue visually in a grueling process
• Brent for contributing in many many ways including CES, organizing events, the Discord, running calls, and so many others
• digit for making KONG Land beautiful
• Dr. Datamosh for attending CES, dogfooding the HaLo chips, supporting across events
• Cadillion for contributions in ERS, supporting across many events, evangelizing chips
• Matt H for attending CES, supporting across many events, evangelizing chips
• Mattaglass for supporting across many events, dogfooding chips
• Guccheetah for supporting across many events, dogfooding chips
• DAOFren for continuing to support the KONG<>Metafactory relationship (Metadreamer too!)
• The RMIT team for their early advisory role
• The Loot Larp team, Metafactory team, Cabin DAO, Orange DAO and other very early supporting DAOs
• Kenny, Parity Bit, Lumi, Nestor, Nico, Isaac, Howeird, Joon, Lewi, Min-Si, Esteve, Grin, Johnny, anyone who attended or supported a KONG event.
• Everyone who made it to the ETHDenver 2022 embassy at pmg’s house
• All other supporters and $CITIZENs KONG Land who have continued to support and believe in our mission.

I have incredible friends who have come from KONG Land, and so all I can say is that every $CITIZEN has my everlasting gratitude for participating in this incredible community.

–

The past 6-12 months the DAO has been very quiet. At ETHDenver 2024 we had a major push with a KONG Land embassy and the $RERRO quest. Later that year we launched the much anticipated Agora. Since then little progress has been made.

I do not believe there is a viable future for KONG Land to pursue open silicon as it is structured today.

I do believe that the is still a future for KONG Land, albeit in a different form. But before I get to what that form is, I do think it’s important that we enable a path for ‘exit’ (ragequit) from KONG Land. Although the KONG Land never profited greatly from the heady market values that $CITIZEN achieved – those were all in the secondary market – it does maintain a small but valuable treasury. I believe that those opting for an ‘exit’ should as $CITIZENs should receive a portion of the treasury.

I also believe that the overhead maintenance for KONG Land is low (unlike, say, Cabin DAO or CityDAO) and that a vastly pared down form of KONG Land (perhaps, like the super OGs, simply back to KONG) should continue.

Based off of @Sacris’s original post, here is what I concretely propose for a ‘sacking’ of KONG Land.

Adding a Ragequit/Sack

Preface: I have completed ERC-721 and ERC-20 snapshots as of July 11th, 2025; new holders after these dates would not be eligible for the claims outlined below:

• 50% of the treasury $ETH [possibly as of the date of the snapshot] would be set aside for ‘ragequitting’ an ERC-721. Any ERC-721 $CITIZEN may burn their token in exchange for their proportion of this share.
• 10% of the treasury $ETH [possibly as of the date of the snapshot] would be set aside for ‘ragequitting’ an ERC-20. Any ERC-20 $CITIZEN may burn their token in exchange for their proportion of this share.
• All outstanding $CTZN would be burned; $CTZN holders may still maintain their token but would have no claim on the treasury.
• We may wish to limit these claims in time (e.g. must occur within 6-12 months) but I believe this might be misguided; a proper ragequit mechanism is always available and it would at a maximum involve a portion of 50% of the treasury at any point in time.
• No treasury would be allocated to $CTZN holders, $METIC holders, $RERRO holders or any other KONG Land associated token holders.
• There will be no special additional distribution for founders, Arx, ERS, Burner or other contributors. I am adamant that the founders or Arx/ERS/Burner should not receive anything here, but I am open to suggestions re other contributors. My rationale here is that any distribution here is actually an insult in $$$ terms to the scale of the contributions and I would prefer to come up with a different method for recognition; I know that many $CITIZENs put in dozens or even hundreds of hours of time which they would not have originally contributed for sub minimum wage.

Forward Looking

I believe that now more than ever it’s critical that the tools of crypto should not be subsumed by platforms and tokens which are purely extensions of existing institutions. As the JPMs and Goldman Sachs of the world come onchain, in full force this time, we need what KONG Cash and KONG Land intended more than ever. We need self-sovereign tools that resist centralized keys and tradcorp incumbents that will leverage regulatory capture to undo, tame and lobotomize everything we have worked for.

I believe that we should explore a two year period to explore a pared down KONG Land:

• Working towards a new, broader mission of self-sovereign hardware and custody (with silicon at its core); this concretely could be running nodes or building chains or giving out self-custody wallets like cash (yes, this is obviously a self-serving conflict re Burner)
• A reveal mechanism without a Passport
• A lean Discord slimmed down significantly to a Citizen channel, a public Bathhouse and a Senator channel. Old Citizens who have been ‘sacked’ would be purged from the Citizen channel.
• The $LAND token contract will be unlocked such that anyone may use $LAND without being a $CITIZEN.
• Remaining $LAND up to the designated cap would be available for distribution to remaining $CITIZENs as determined by the Senate; note that $LAND payouts to historical Senators and Contributors may still be due from this allocation.
• Burns from $CITIZEN ERC-20 → $CITIZEN ERC-721 will be frozen.
• Remaining members of the Senate will be free to carry out their duties for 2025 if they remain in the DAO; they may also remain as Senators for a subsequent term in 2026 but a new vote would need to be executed after this in order for them to remain in power.
• The Senate will no longer meet regularly, but any Senator can call a meeting with reasonable (e.g. 2 week minimum) notice.
• Quorum for snapshot votes may be reduced with respect to the ERC-721 tokens burned at the discretion of the Senate (e.g. if 1/2 of ERC-721 tokens are burned, the quorum will be reduced to 5 votes)
• Finally: The Senate would retain a final distribution capability for all remaining funds through the end of 2026 (e.g. any funds not claimed by ERC721 and ERC20 token holders). If there is a new path forged for KONG Land the Senators may retain these funds, within the scope of their existing remit and for use through snapshot votes. Senators would only be able to distribute funds in a fair and proportioned manner to those $CITIZENs remaining in the DAO, not to enrich themselves or arbitrary contributors or as governed by a vote.

On a closing note, I should add that I understand that some may not want any wind down period whatsoever and would rather have a clean break for KONG Land entirely. I respect those opinions and would love to hear them here.

[Sacris]

I want to begin by thanking @Mattaglass and @cameron for their revised proposals—they’ve opened up new perspectives and ways of approaching this. In response to @cameron, I’d like to focus specifically on the treasury distribution, while also agreeing on the idea of a pared-down version of KONG Land. That, along with the many other proposed actions, should be addressed in a separate proposal. (Sunset Resolution: Part 2 of 2)

This treasury-focused portion will be referred to as Sunset Resolution: Part 1 of 2

⸻

It is clear that KONG Land has not achieved its original mission. After more than two years without meaningful progress, this moment is not about ragequitting or a “sacking.” For example, the Sack of Rome (1527) that you referred to was a violent and chaotic invasion—driven by anger, desperation, and destruction. That framing implies hostility or pillaging, which doesn’t reflect what’s happening here.

The language matters. This is about responsibly accepting that the DAO has fallen short of its goals. Because of that, I don’t believe it’s appropriate to require Citizens to burn their identities and exit. This isn’t a refund nor a punishment; it’s a gesture of appreciation for those who stayed committed.

Alternative Treasury Distribution
The treasury distribution should focus on:

• Active Citizens who have remained engaged in good faith, believed in the mission, and still hold $CITIZEN. (We can use the snapshot you created to confirm this.)

• Contributors, regardless of title, who offered their time and labor without expecting anything in return.

Determining contributor impact is complex and indeed risks insulting true value due to limited access of contributor data. However, I believe there are two potential approaches here:

• A peer nomination and voting process among active Citizens with weighted distribution.

  • In this scenario, submissions are taken with explanations along with proof of said contributions. Once a submission deadline passes, a voting mechanism of some sort takes place for valid entries. Contributor allocation is based off the results.

• A peer nomination and voting process among active Citizens without weighted distribution.

  • In this scenario submissions are taken and validated, but they all have the same weight. Because we can not determine true impact of contributions, all contributors equally share a pool.

In contrary to your 50% and 10% allocation proposal, I propose allocating a total of 80% of the treasury for distribution, with 20% retained for the potential future of KONG Land. My proposed allocation in this case:

• 60% for Contributors - Distributed in 1 of 2 ways listed above. Open to alternatives.
• 20% for Active Citizens - Equally distributed between those who vote on the proposal.

[DAOFREN]

Well said across the board. Definitely would like to see a continuation in any shape or form for Kong and any adjacent projects that stemmed from KL. Some top-tier quality people and relationships.

Scarce for time, so just going to drop a quick reference bit regarding my experience on the DAO wind-down w/ MetaFactory (I’m sure many have been loosely or closely involved in some DAO composting)

• It was a lot of “kicking the can down the road” discourse and delays, natural with loose leadership structure, indecisiveness and busy schedules (more overhead/expenses applied there with business entitie(s) to consider)
• A v2 was/remains an unknown and slight point of contention
• Distributing via a dedicated ragequit pool with a time lock: I’m not positive on the current numbers, but I’d estimate less than 10% of holders have claimed against treasury, and potentially upwards of 50% of the supply may go unclaimed at the end of the 12-month claim period. The difference between 3 weeks and 3 years is negligible regarding % who will actively claim
• With no solid inclusion of unclaimed treasury in the ragequit proposal = imminent rebooting of treasury talks after 12-months. So my only advice is to avoid that

Cameron’s take on invaluable contributions regarding Founders, Arx, ERS, Burner bois, etc regarding distribution weighted into KL treasury distros is solid—Sure we’ve all lived through plenty of contributing for the cause, from pennies/hr or even operating at a loss. Makes for some quality memories though

PS: Were we ever actively distributing LAND for Senator terms? I was just happy to be nominated “Senator” looks fantastic on a resume, definitely worth the risk of being subjected to political violence.

[cameron]

I don’t think that my sacking reference should be taken too literally, however, I think it’s a pretty apt analogy (taking the remaining assets and disassembling the state).

I think folks on this thread might be pretty far apart in terms of what they believe should happen moving forward and so we might want to work on this through a Senate call or open Senate call (e.g. all Senators are expected to join and Citizens are free too as well).

Here is my revised, simplified proposal: we separate rage quitting (which is a well know term with respect to DAOs, I think people might see it as more aggressive than sacking) from rewarding historical contributions.

So concretely:

1. I propose that we reconfigure the treasury with respect to the ERC-721 as an even split rage quit DAO (e.g. model Moloch DAOs). This would mean that anyone with an ERC-721 could quit the DAO (by burning their token) and take a portion of the funds.

2. I recommend that after implementation of this we consider contributor specific resolutions to reward historical contributions from what remains. I am honestly still against this because I think people would be getting pennies on the dollar for their time and certain contributions from the past four years would inevitably be overlooked.

3. Remaining $CITIZENs can continue to ragequit or come up with concrete proposals on how they wish to continue KONG Land (I believe that making $LAND liquid could fall here or in step 1)

I believe that burning the ERC-721 is an important act in rage quitting and would be adamant that it’s required.

PS: Were we ever actively distributing LAND for Senator terms? I was just happy to be nominated “Senator” looks fantastic on a resume, definitely worth the risk of being subjected to political violence.

No, but $LAND rewards were promised early on and I believe that we should honor them.

[cameron]

In anticipation of our call tomorrow I have done a little bit of research and wanted to add some notes here:

• We can dissolve the KONG Land Wyoming UNA if needed; the original agreement doesn’t reference any specific dissolution procedures. The Senate might have the power to do this, or if not a majority of active members (note that the UNA agreement was strict on this and required a member to vote in something every two years to remain in “good standing”; technically many $CITIZENs would need this bar).
• There is no easy path to adding a ‘ragequit’ function to the $CITIZEN ERC721. The tools to do this are unfortunately all unmaintained from the DAO boom of 2020-2022. Something called “Silo RDF” came the closest (no relation to SiLo chips) but it is only deployed on testnets, Optimism and Base from what I can tell. We could issue a new ERC20 that is solely for the purpose of ragequitting, but this will have to be based on the snapshot and unsuspecting buyers may be duped into getting the ERC721 despite it having no claim value. Anything to distribute funds will likely have to be bespoke.
• There is 30.65613 ETH in the treasury. This is the only liquid asset, although there should may also be a de minimis amount of ETH in the Uniswap position with $CITIZEN/ETH.

[Hasgeryar]

Guys we could make a huge differences at the end of nft season with this treasure. We had to make just 100 eth volume on collection and it was cost just 2.5 to 3 eth. This had to try after years this is my opinion. So I will stay like that. I will not burn my citizen 66 nft. Remember people bought 20 eth and burned their tokens. So all the treasure should stay and wait to spend marketing at the right time

[Digit]

Thanks everyone for their contribution on today’s call. Notes below:

Current Status & Proposal Discussion

• Matt H introduced a sunset resolution proposal about the future of Kongland DAO
  • Motivation: Lack of progress, stagnant activity, low Discord engagement, few attendees on community calls
  • Last major initiative (Agora) not being actively used
  • Proposal aims to compensate “true believers” who’ve stuck around despite underperformance
• Cameron outlined two potential paths:
  • Wind up and refund (dissolution)
  • Implement “rage quit” mechanism allowing individuals to take their share and exit
• Treasury status: approximately 30 ETH currently sitting idle (not staked)

Key Issues & Challenges

• MetaFactory experience (shared by DAO Friend):
  • Faced similar dissolution challenges
  • Only reached small percentage of token holders during cash out
  • Estimated 50%+ of treasury remained unclaimed even after 12-month redemption period
• Current participation issues:
  • Few active members (under 10 participants on call)
  • Many NFT holders never joined Discord or participated
  • Last proposal had ~20 votes out of 255 citizens
• Technical challenges:
  • Need for better front-end tools for non-technical users to utilize chips
  • Missing clear mechanics for how DAO would benefit from tool development

Vision & Possibilities

• Cadilion sees ongoing value in Kongland’s mission:
  • Decentralized hardware production/security has applications
  • ERS software mostly ready but waiting for “NFT season”
  • Network state vision still relevant (conference coming in September)
• Potential focus areas if continued:
  • Building chip tools and interfaces for non-technical users
  • Supporting network state development
  • Simplified token system with clear path to participation

Proposed Next Steps

• Two-stage proposal approach agreed upon:
  • First proposal: Dissolve or continue?
  • If dissolve: Create second proposal for treasury distribution
  • If continue: Develop concrete plan with timelines for treasury use
• Timeline target:
  • Cadilion will draft proposal options by next Friday
  • Two-week voting period to follow
  • Second proposal within one week after first vote results
• Distribution considerations:
  • Need mechanism to differentiate between active participants vs. just NFT holders
  • Potential to allocate different amounts based on participation levels
  • Concern about fairness for holders who purchased but haven’t been active

Decision Framework

• If majority votes to rage quit, may trigger full dissolution
• Potential quorum requirements to be determined
• Need balance between rewarding active participants while respecting all token holders
• Discussion on allowing partial rage quit with remaining treasury for continuation
• Question of what constitutes sufficient activity/engagement for weighted distribution

Full transcript: Kongland DAO dissolution and rage quit mechanism planning

[cadillion]

The agreed path forward at the end of the call was to create an immediate proposal with a tentative deadline to be posted on Snapshot by next Friday. This proposal should be a yae or nae vote asking the DAO if they would like to dissolve and return funds to the membership and should follow the charter rules. Either outcome of the vote will trigger a timeline to issue a second vote with accompanying deliverables:

1. Vote to Dissolve Passes

If the vote for dissolution passes by a quorum of the citizens, a second vote will be proposed that outlines the following:

• Method of distribution
  • Burn to claim
  • Splits distribution with costs covered by the treasury
• Method of treasury allocation
  • Pro rata distribution of the treasury to all its members
  • Pro rata distribution to those members who burn their tokens where the remaining treasury is distributed to the burners after some claim period has elapsed
  • Pro rata distribution with favorable allocation for senators and those who participated in previous snapshot votes

2. Vote for Dissolution Fails

If the vote for dissolution fails by a quorum of the citizens, a second vote will be proposed that outlines the following:

• Method for unhappy citizens to ragequit, burn their token, and take their pro rata share of the treasury
• Refinement of the mission or immediate goals of the DAO
• Immediate plans to use at least 60% of the treasury over the next 12 months in advancement of the Kong Land mission
  • This plan should also include some method to generate revenue for the DAO and explicit metrics to evaluate success

3. Unable to meet quorum

In the event the vote cannot reach quorum, the DAO will be presupposed to have chosen liquidation with pro rata distribution to all NFT holders and charter signers at the time of snapshot.

[cameron]

@cadillion thank you for this concrete set of proposals. I appreciate the clarity of presenting two choices to $CITIZENs.

[Sacris]

Thanks @cadillion for posting this up. This next proposal to determine if we go the route of dissolving the DAO or continuing it is the best next step. Here are some of my thoughts.

• We should make it clearer that a vote to dissolve ≠ a set distribution method. A 2nd proposal like you mentioned will determine that (mentioning due to concern around paying out Senators).

• I would like to see a stricter clause of ensuring the DAO continues if that is the outcome. Meaning a clear plan to progress the DAO forward should be required within a timeframe of even just 1 week of the vote ending. Not only that, but consistent check ins (every ~2 months) and benchmarks to hold the DAO more accountable should be required and detailed in a second proposal to ensure that the past of inaction is not repeated.

• This proposal should also use Shielded Voting on Snapshot to keep live vote counts private and encrypt ballots until voting ends. This preserves voter privacy, prevents bias from early results, and encourages honest choices. All which are crucial for such an important decision here.

[cadillion]

I think these are reasonable conditions. It is the intention that the second vote should take place within two weeks of the end of the first vote.

Shielded voting makes sense.

For the two month check-ins, I suppose we can assess this with the second vote should the first vote to dissolve fail, but I’m not sure what the check-ins would accomplish that is different from the bi-weekly community calls and Senate meeting notes.

If you’re proposing that we evaluate the progress of the dao every two months and contemplate a new dissolution proposal in light of the previous two month’s progress, I think that veers into the territory of extractive behavior. A failed dissolution vote still offers unhappy citizens an opportunity to take their pro-rata share of the Treasury if they do not want to continue forward with the rest of the DAO.

Either way, happy to add time limits to the final proposal and ensure votes are shielded. The subsequent vote to continue can address accountability measures if the first vote fails.

[cameron]

Agreed with @cadillion; I don’t believe that either the first or second votes should be so prescriptive with respect to the business and operations of the potentially surviving DAO except for the ability to ragequit.

If you aren’t satisfied with the meeting cadence, outcomes, goals, mission, you will be able to exit with your portion of the treasury through ragequit. I don’t think those remaining in the DAO should be held hostage by preconditions from this vote.

100% agree with shielded voting.

Also, agreed around extremely clarity for the first vote in that it does not articulate the means of distribution and that a subsequent vote will be required in either case (e.g. if it passes we must vote on how things are divvied up and if it fails we must propose next steps and a ragequit).

With respect to the dissolution proposal and ragequit option; I would request that the only assets available for distribution in either case would be (1) the ETH in the treasury and (2) the ETH in any CITIZEN/ETH LP positions (about ~1 eth more).

I would request that all remaining non-ETH assets be distributed to the original pre-DAO KONG Cash address 0xAB35D3476251C6b614dC2eb36380D7AF1232D822; notably kong.eth. I think this is important to call out this request at this stage given option 3 might automatically trigger a distribution.

[rj1708]

I completely agree with a lot of what is in here and would just add the following:

I truly believe that the potential of Kong Land is in making distributed tools that are accessible to technical and non-technical people. That was one of the major ideas behind Kong Cash and drives Burner, etc. We didn’t need more places to talk or meet up, we need an organizing principle with actual utility that benefits chip makers, ERS and companies/people who will use the chips (or a combination of these).

If people can be involved in something - whether by staking to drive some validating action, or running nodes, or promoting chip adoption, etc - there is a natural driver for engagement. A pared down version of Discord organised around this idea - and with very clear announcements, notes from meetings (as not everyone is on US time), etc - is a great start.

I believe that now more than ever it’s critical that the tools of crypto should not be subsumed by platforms and tokens which are purely extensions of existing institutions. As the JPMs and Goldman Sachs of the world come onchain, in full force this time, we need what KONG Cash and KONG Land intended more than ever. We need self-sovereign tools that resist centralized keys and tradcorp incumbents that will leverage regulatory capture to undo, tame and lobotomize everything we have worked for.

Yes, and the governance frameworks should also not be extensions of existing institutions. This is part of the reason I was so vocal in the Discord about the “green card” program and had real reservations about the Senate and many other ideas that basically just bootstrapped existing ways of working into an idea called a “crypto state”. The project was essentially pasting bureaucracy into something that didn’t need it, because there wasn’t a clear utility to Kong Land in relation to the chips (whether that be tools to validate provenance, or whatever form that relationship takes).

This may be a controversial take, but I actually believe the Senate should be abolished because it concentrates information amongst a small subset of people. And, historically, that information hasn’t been regularly distributed to the community in an easy to access way. This isn’t a complaint or accusation - just an observation about the limited release, which primarily consisted of calls (that not everyone can make), recordings of calls (uploaded at differing times) and occasional recaps on the forum and in Discord. There are many other ways to put proposals to the community about building projects or initiatives. IMHO if Kong Land continues, there should be a hard look at unwinding the Senate (but obviously compensating Senators according to what was agreed when they were elected).

[rj1708]

Just one more thing to note - I also agree with @cameron about the votes being prescriptive about the business and operations of the potentially surviving DAO aside from the ability to ragequit.

If someone isn’t satisfied with how things are moving, they can ragequit. What standards would govern whether there is sufficient “progress”? Can one or two people force a dissolution? The prescriptive approach seems to raise more questions than answers.

[grin]

hey, grin here. i haven’t come to any of the calls (timing hasnt worked) but ive been following the discussions here and in discord for years (call me a semi-active citizen lol)

first of all a huge thanks to everyone for publicly engaging in serious and civil discussion on this. i was core team at Cabin for the last two years and we just went through the same thing. we ultimately voted to sunset the DAO and startup, distribute the treasury pro rata to all tokenholders, and remain just a mission-focused community. so I know what you’re feeling.

id love a bit more info from the current core team on what their concrete plan is for Kong’s future (say 6-12 months) as well as how much time and effort they personally plan to commit to Kong over that period. i want to be an an informed voter for the upcoming proposals, and this would help me a ton (Granola didn’t have anything to say on this).

let me know if there’s any info or advice i can provide from my Cabin experience

[Sacris]

Good call out @grin and I had no idea about that happening to Cabin DAO. If you’d be open to providing any experience/advice regarding that I think it would be valuable here or in the discord.

Agreed on possibly hearing more about a concrete plan for KONG Lands future. The proposal as it stands is heavy on do you have faith in the DAO being able to continue as a whole based on how things have gone up until this point. I already have an opinion but like you mentioned hearing a concrete plan could better inform my vote.

[cameron]

@rj1708 @grin thanks for jumping in.

Re @rj1708’s point I would concur that a dissolution of the Senate is an option to consider BUT I would note that Senators have contributed a significant amount of time and effort behind the scenes keeping the DAO going and those contributions have not always been super apparent (e.g. $RERRO Quest, the Agora launch, ERS work). Of course the fact that these contributions are “behind the scenes” is obviously not great, however, the Senate at its most active points was good about keeping Senate minutes (I am unsure all of these were made available publicly).

id love a bit more info from the current core team on what their concrete plan is for Kong’s future (say 6-12 months) as well as how much time and effort they personally plan to commit to Kong over that period.

Agreed on possibly hearing more about a concrete plan for KONG Lands future.

Starting 2022 the core team took steps to progressively remove itself from dictatorial leadership plans through:

• creation of the Snapshot and establishing the DAO through the Charter and UNA agreement
• empowering $CITIZENs with funds from the sale of the tokens
• coordinating the creation of the Senate

Obviously CITIZENs have looked to the core team for leadership, but the hope was that we could put in place systems that would allow everyone to decide what goals the DAO should pursue.

To that end, the core team (e.g. I guess David and myself as of late 2022) have slowly ramped down our efforts while the Senate picked up the role of determining the future of KONG Land. We did, uncompensated, do a significant amount of work around $RERRO and contributing supplies and housing toward ETHDenver 2024 (with major contributions from Senators around managing the event and space). However, since early-mid 2024, we have pushed to bring in outside help, notably with the Senate grant for building out Agora functionality.

All of this is to say I don’t believe that it should be up to the historical core team to either dictate what should be built, nor build it in isolation. I sincerely appreciate @Mattaglass and @Dr.Datamosh’s comments around self-determinism here within the DAO around selecting what should be built. And, to the maximum extent possible, I would like to contribute to that vision (both through things like ERS as well as offering free Arx chips to builders).

I also agree with @rj1708 that a surviving DAO should establish a clarity of mission that coincides with creating a set of tools that gives all Citizens a means of participation in the DAO. I believe that the DAO should collectively direct and fund the creation of these tools/staking mechanisms/node development.