Digital Dreams pfp

Digital Dreams

@digitaldreams

259 Following
59 Followers
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
There are legitimate concerns that this governance structure may violate the spirit of open-source DAO governance, particularly around decentralization, transparency, and the ability for dissent. The City Council is empowered to define and enforce ethical standards. This introduces a centralized enforcement mechanism, potentially conflicting with City Nouns DAO's commitment to decentralized governance, where power is ideally distributed through token-based voting. The clause allowing the Council to determine “official” conduct could enable subjective or politically motivated enforcement, especially without a transparent appeal or checks-and-balances system. The prohibition against “guerrilla literature” or altering values through “undemocratic means” is concerning & could stifle dissent. This is an open source a feature often seen as vital in open-source cultures like City Nouns DAO /builder https://nouns.build/dao/base/0xdf4f168ba41c88ab4d0f1e2117110600c7e44b6d/vote/9?tab=votes
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
I believe in City Nouns’ mission — and that’s why I oppose this proposal. City Nouns was founded on open-source values: decentralization, transparency, collaboration, and community-led governance. This proposal contradicts those principles. It introduces a centralized “Council” with vague authority, retroactively assigns veto power, and attempts to redefine the role of a founding contributor without consent or vote. You can’t change the rules after the game has started. I stepped back temporarily due to breakdowns in collaboration and communication. That does not erase my role as a co-founder, nor does it justify removing me from the multi-sig wallet I helped set up or rewriting the DAO's history through off-chain documents. I support structured governance — but only if it's truly accountable to the community, not consolidated behind closed doors. The appointed Council was not elected - https://nouns.build/dao/base/0xdf4f168ba41c88ab4d0f1e2117110600c7e44b6d/vote/8?tab=votes
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
DAOs promise decentralization but fall back on human defaults: Power-users making the real calls Social capital > token balance Pseudo-leaders running it behind multisigs All “on-chain” just means you get to watch the dysfunction in public! Most governance today feels like theater. Proposals are sculpted long before they hit Snapshot or Builder. Votes become ritual, not decision-making. Some projects try to push against this. WildYield DAO recently proposed: One verified wallet = one vote, regardless of token size. A noble step toward “one human, one vote.” Fairer, maybe. But it shows how far DAOs still are from true decentralization or legitimacy. If governance becomes a performance… If outcomes are predetermined… If decision-making is cosplay… Then what are we actually decentralizing?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
PSA: Today, @zamees publicly announced the creation of a “City Council” — assigning specific individuals roles of power or influence — without a DAO vote, without tokenholder consensus, and without onchain ratification. None of the listed individuals currently hold any $CITY tokens and they were not nominated or approved through a proposal. This move concentrates governance authority in a non-tokenholding, unelected group and was done unilaterally by @zamees who already controls a significant portion of voting power. Power and responsibilities should be delegated by proposal and community vote. Appointing roles without DAO input undermines that system. A significant concern raised in Discord today was @zamees public post declaring that any proposals not aligned with his outlined process “will be vetoed.” This is incompatible with Creative Commons, OSI standards, and the ethos of DAOs. City Nouns was founded on Creative Commons and /builder forkable model. We must protect that.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Digital Dreams pfp
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction