[4.2][Executable] Fund the Endowment (second tranche)

PSA to encourage all delegates with questions or strong opinions to attend the weekly Meta-Gov call, taking place tomorrow. Minutes, as always, will be posted afterwards for those who can’t make it.


The aforementioned quotes raise a question: Should the right to vote be considered a privilege offered only to those actively involved in the proposal at hand? Merely having been delegated a large amount $ENS doesn’t necessarily mean one is well-prepared to make informed decisions. We are limited by our local maxima of experience and knowledge. The more time and effort we invest in a particular issue, the better we can understand it.

Why not? That’s why we have the Newsletter!

1 Like

I have not voted but plan to voting YES tomorrow at the latest.

I agree that the ENS DAO should Divest from LIDO, and in general I believe we should always divest from anything that we considered a harm to public good (be it the ethereum network or the planet). We should not have a 50/50 split, but rather a total divestment of LIDO.

But I don’t think this is the topic of this on chain vote. If it were the case that Karpatkey was not participating in public discussions, calls or didn’t seem to care about the ens DAO opinion’s anymore then to use this new tranche vote as a protest vote would be a useful protest manner. But I don’t think that’s the case and I am confident we can both keep our past compromise with Karpatkey and to divest Lido.


I agree, I will be voting yes, and attending tomorrow’s call to advocate to liquidate our stETH for other alternatives.


ENS whitelisted the sETH2-ETH pool on UniV3 as part of its investment strategy. It is important to flag here that the incentives to this pool will cease alongside the imminent launch of StakeWise V3 and all liquidity incentives will transition to the protocol’s new liquid staking token, osETH.

This forum post outlines the DAO-approved liquidity strategy for osETH and there are two pools of relevance to highlight:

1) osETH-ETH - this will be the main liquidity pool incentivised using the native Balancer and Aura ecosystems and would represent a like-for-like transition from the sETH2-ETH pool.
2) osETH-rETH - an auxiliary pool on Curve, incentivised using the Curve and Convex ecosystems, that provides boosted rewards to holders of both osETH and rETH.

ENS should plan to whitelist the new osETH-ETH pool via Aura in replacement of sETH2-ETH. In addition, the osETH-rETH pool should be considered as an alternative way to increase the base staking yield for ENS as a holder of both rETH and osETH tokens.

On the topic of staking diversification, I first posted about the potential benefits of StakeWise V3 to ENS back in December 22. I am still a firm believer that DAOs should strive towards staking their own capital in a bid to help push the diversification of staked ETH, however there is an important use-case of V3 I wanted to re-highlight here.

ENS would be able to create a bespoke, private staking pool for its assets via StakeWise V3, partnering with its preferred node operators (whether it is commerical operators or trusted home stakers) and negotiating commerical terms, such as staking fees, MEV relays, EL/CL clients, slashing insurance, geographic location, etc… Even with such a bespoke staking configuration, ENS will still have the option to mint osETH should it wish to liquid stake its capital and farm DeFi.

This solution has the potential to save ENS significant costs, whilst also contributing to the diversification of staked capital away from Lido. Consequently, it should not only be considered for the 20% allocation to “other” staking providers but used to actively reduce Lido’s 70% allocation and appease the concerns of many regarding the lack of diversification.

Note, I am part of the Core Team at StakeWise and will be attending the Meta-Gov meeting later to discuss this further

1 Like

+1, I will be voting YES after reading through the discussion and updates. I find of high importance the community sentiment and the desire to move away from LIDO and any current/future threats to the ethereum network and/or public goods at the infinite garden.

The Karpatkey strong relationship with LIDO mentioned by @superphiz and absence of stated clear path or interest towards using 100% decentralized alternatives is worrisome. While in the short term I heard there will be a reduction to 20% LIDO allocation, medium and perhaps long term commitments towards further decentralizing should be discussed.

1 Like

The vast majority of votes here seem to recognize that Lido aims to centralize Ethereum stake and thus we should thwart the Lido attack. This is heartening.

However the majority of voters also argues that we should approve this vote for procedural reasons. This is certainly reasonable, but ultimately I find it unpersuasive for the following reasons.

  1. Defeating this vote sends the strongest signal to the Ethereum community that ENS will lead the charge. There will be more votes on what to do about Lido, so the same number of votes will be held either way. Defeating this proposal simply changes the default from Karpatkey sticks with Lido to Lido divestiture

  2. Defeating this proposal will provide urgency to come to an agreement. The pro-Lido forces will attempt to stall and delay and argue for the perfect solution. There will be disagreement as to what the optimal solution is. Meanwhile, ENS will continue to hold Steth.

  3. The procedural arguments are certainly reasonable. But that’s precisely why I argue for voting no. If you think defeating the Lido attack is important, then procedural arguments no longer seem persuasive.


As for the future, I want to propose that Karpatkey be required to put all STETH into Diva. I feel comfortable proposing this because i have exactly zero financial incentive to propose this - if anything, i have a counter-incentive because we are planning to lauch a staking service which will be aimed at DAOs who want a risk-minimized yield that also provides geographic diversity, non-cloud and only minority clients.

1 Like

It’s not “procedural” to point out that this is not a vote on Lido. This is a vote on expanding the endowment, which is orthogonal to how it is invested

By the time you posted this, this week’s metagov working group call had already concluded, with the stewards accepting a proposal by Karpatkey to reduce the DAO 's exposure to Lido down to 20% over the next month.

If you’re interested in ENS governance and able to make it, I highly recommend attending the metagov working group meeting whenever possible, especially when contentious topics like this are being discussed

It does no such thing, because as I noted above, this is not a vote on Lido. As today’s call demonstrates, there are more productive and effective ways to make your voice heard than sabotaging a vote that is at best tangentially related to the issue you care about.


Hey all–

Thank you for a robust and healthy discussion this past week on this thread!

Given the end of the voting period approaching, I wanted to recap our call from this week with delegates in the Weekly Meta-Gov call on this issue and close out this thread. We had record attendance in the call this week (26!) with delegates + members of the @karpatkey team. The call was spent talking about the importance of Lido diversification (something everyone agreed on), and together with the Karparkey team, I am pleased to say that we have a consensus on a concrete action plan.

Please note that I am writing this to serve as a short recap in the interest of time-- a longer recap / minutes of the meeting will be posted later this week in the Meta-Gov call/minute thread.

the TLDR is that the Endowment is committed to never having more than 20% of the Endowment’s staked ETH in Lido. We have already moved 30% away, and will commit in the short term to further divest the other 50% away.

Once again, thank you to everyone who showed up and participated in a very important discussion and voicing your opinions! I for one was extremely impressed with the thoughtfulness of the attendees. DAO communication is difficult, but I’m proud to be part of a community with passionate yet respectful folks.

Link to the full action plan here: MetaGov Call Oct-3 - Google Slides


I had no idea Google Meet could accommodate 26! participants!

1 Like

@James, I agree with your point. Sustaining the ecosystem must be a paramount consideration. That also means there needs to be a definitive mechanism to allocate the resources to what really matters and in a much more open, fair, and transparent way to win the total trust of the community.