JacobHomanics Thanks for communicating this to the group!
My main intent with the contract upgrade and meta data updates is to address a problem that was communicated to me roughly along these lines, "As an existing DAO member, I want to be able to customize my art using the minero tool and have the reflected on (one of) my membership NFT(s)".
The solution that had been communicated to me about this was to include zilker and genesis members in an airdrop of the bluebonnet round tokens - leaving genesis members with 3 tokens, zilker members with 2 tokens, and bluebonnet members with 1 token. This conflates the "I want to customize my art" user need with "As an incumbent, I want increased governance weight".
By introducing the possibility of upgrading the contract to allow for token URI updates (which would facilitate minero generated metadata being associated with a member's existing token) we fully decouple the desire to have the new customizable art from the more controversial distribution of governance weight and dilution of token supply.
I see it as an optimal comprimise between "only bluebonnet members get an NFT" (no new art, no additional governance weight for incumbents) and "everyone should get a bluebonnet NFT" (everyone gets to customize / get new art, everyone gets additional transferable governance token).
I believe that while this slightly increases the encapsulated complexity required for implementation (engineering lift to facilitate contract upgrade and process for updating token URIs for existing members), it significantly reduces systemic complexity associated with the "airdrop + 1 address 1 vote snapshot strategy" approach (no sybil attacks, no need for long term commitments to external software like gitcoin passport, no potential dilution of secondary market).
Assuming the implementation for contract upgrades that @JacobHomanics and I discussed can be feasibly implemented by next Monday, I think we will end up with significantly fewer headaches over all by simply giving people the option to update artwork on existing NFTs rather then minting everyone a new one. However, this will mean that in order to get an NFT with the new artwork, a member will need to forfeit their original zilker art as the primary image linked within the metadata. That said, I believe we could still include the link to the original image in the token URI's metadata so that it is not lost for ever - it just wouldnt be displayable on applications such as opensea.
A note on the snapshot strategy that @JacobHomanics mentioned. The intent of this is to achieve a "one member, one vote" system given the CURRENT unequal distribution of vote power. This snapshot strategy would NOT allocate voting power to wallets based on their ownership of a genesis NFT (token ids 1 through 25). This means that only Zilker and Bluebonnet NFTs would be used for governance and genesis members would not receive double voting power.
Due to the increased manual work required on the engineering side, I believe that any proposal to go forward with this should allow for compensation of the contributor who prepares the contract upgrade and establishes a token URI update process for existing members - if they so desire.
