[5.4.1] [Social] Funding Request: ENS Meta-Governance Working Group Term 5 (Q1/Q2)

I think you meant to say steward and your initiative didn’t fund us. The only funding we got was thanks to Nick poking the Ecosystem WG to give us $10,000 USD in September 2023. We don’t owe anything to you.

Secondly, the comment wasn’t even directed at you since you have forgone compensation to my knowledge. You are therefore clean in my view. It was directed at those involved in textbook self-dealing.

In different and calmer times, read the definition of self-dealing and wonder why ENS Foundation is registered in Cayman Islands far away from legal reach. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a…

It’s textbook self-dealing. Ask your favourite lawyer.

Not to be callous or sarcastic, but here are the facts:

@Coltron.eth is also working for KK judging from his twitter profile so part time
@slobo.eth is also running a startup (several?) from what I understand that is his main line of work
@184.eth is also working as ENS support
@nick.eth is ENS, even though he refused his part of that “bonus”, I think it’s worth mentioning that yet another Steward is running it part time, I recognise that Nick is a special kind of case, all of this is essentially his creation, he can’t be seen as part time or full time, but anyway, his attention span is clearly spread over so many things apart from being a Steward
@vegayp from what I’ve seen he would not even show up on time to conference calls, I assume he must be running something else, full time contributor would at least show up promptly to calls

these are some obvious people who are doing it part time

I don’t know what was @katherine.eth up to, between working for Messari and that fund of her, I think it’s safe to assume that she is running a very busy schedule and Stewarship was most likely a part time for her

I don’t have information about @simona_pop maybe she can shed some light herself whether she is full time or part time contributor - EDIT - from twitter profile - PG steward @ensdomains | Gov @element_fi , @OptimismGov | ex @schellingpoint_ | ex @gitcoin | co-founder @ethBounties | Orga @0xliscon | Advisor-at-large - so I don’t see how Simona can be full time focused on ENS only

@5pence.eth is dedicated to be full time it seems, at least from public information I can’t tell if he is running any other gigs

@Limes I don’t know either, frankly I’m a bit confused with Limes, he stated that he used to work as accountant, I don’t know if that is still the case, he is also DAO secretary. Does that mean that he is getting salary as steward and also as a secretary? If that’s the case, that would be quite odd as well.

@AvsA specifically mentioned that he is doing it part time as he’s got a lot of other commitments

You Marcus yourself appear to be full time as well.

So that makes a majority of Stewards working part time.


Some anon just forwarded me a couple of additional details on this:

Limes is also working on something called Layer 3 project as growth. He is also earning salary as both Steward and Secretary - Etherescan

4kUSD + 5.5kUSD

Isn’t it like doing the same job? Double compensation? What is secretary doing anyway within ENS DAO? I’ve been around since the start of DAO haven’t seen a single deliverable which was authored by secretary or was responsibility of secretary? Maybe I’m missing something here.

@estmcmxci is being paid as Steward and additionally compensated for Newsletter - link. Isn’t it also a double compensation for the same work?

It’s a good thing that Stewards are very active in the community, but squeezing money from every single place button and click is a bit over the board, don’t you think.


I’m not saying that Stewards don’t care, but this is kinda misleading

1 Like

EP4.8 was passed November 8, and adds the following requirement to the bylaws:

Note that it doesn’t require the DAO to approve a proposed compensation plan - an omission I agree should be rectified in the forthcoming bylaws.

The metagov stewards complied within the limited time available and produced this recommendation. Of note, it included:


No objections were raised at the time. As I stated above, while I believe that compensation plans should be approved by the DAO going forward, a requirement to do this was not part of EP4.8.


@lightwalker.eth I also want to draw attention to your disingenuous use of current prices in this conversation. You said:

At no point in term 4 was 40,000 ENS worth $891,600. The highest price it reached was $10.70, on December 26, which would make 40,000 ENS nominally worth less than half the figure in your table. At the time the compensation plan was proposed, it was worth even less than that - about $8.50, working out to approximately $42k worth of ENS for each steward.


We do all realise that the capacity for work and impact of different people is different, right? Punch cards - should we do that? Looking at Twitter bios (that in my case include some of the main ways I have been building in this ecosystem for seven years don´t all mean current, right?) is also not the “proof” of someone´s commitment? We also realise that we are in a space where we do look at impact and we are all in the boat of moving things forward vs leaning into negativity or calling out or assuming that all energy put in is visible to make a point?

Perhaps I am here moving work forward so do not have the time to trawl bios or argue in forums that makes me less than what “should” be my behaviour? Context is a hard one - it´s probably one of the hardest. To judge is easy, I used to do it more often than I do now. And emotions run high - self regulating and understanding the reason for our judgement is also a useful thing to consider when entering discussion.

I will leave these here as to what I/we´ve been up to while this whole dialogue has been ensuing:

and adding this https://twitter.com/Giveth/status/1764969613010305184


There are a lot of passionate people here supporting ENS protocol; we are fortunate. We are ENS Protocol stakeholders, and these discussions reaffirm our commitment and dedication with ENS technology and processes. From contributors to stewards, everyone is deeply invested in the long-term success of the ENS protocol.

Despite differing opinions and understanding on the steward compensation (and governance structures) situations, there’s a shared understanding that governance distribution is about more than just monetary rewards–it’s about empowering passionate individuals to shape ENS protocol’s future, and it’s about individuals stepping-up. I think there’s a consensus on the need for clearer communication and transparency regarding steward responsibilities, compensations, and achievements.

It is great that so many people care about ENS, and are paying attention to our potential issues, opportunities and solutions–It is even better that we are able to resolve questions and next steps in the public forum; developing constructive feedback and solutions. Overall, the dialogue here demonstrates a collective desire to strengthen the ENS Protocol and to ensure it continues to thrive. I appreciate learning from you, this process, and these conversations.


Genuinely, I am making an effort to understand, and my intention was to offer my perspective, considering that there is an ongoing proposal on which we need to vote.

Perhaps an annual comprehensive report on resource allocations would be helpful, so that everyone can have an overall picture to better evaluate how much these expenses account for and provide some clarity on aspects that people find confusing, such as governance distribution that leans more towards compensation rather than voting power in its current form.

1 Like

Oh boy there we go again. Another heated discussion in this forum.

Some questions from me.

  1. I spent quite some time trying to follow through old links and read the entire post here. Its’ stll not clear to me what each person is being paid and what for. Same as it was last time we had these conversations.

Then why are we having a vote? If this action was voted in the previous term and now needs to just be executed why put it again to a vote? What’s the point?

  1. I see stewards who are going to get compensated by this actually voting yes in this proposal. This is bad. You should not do this. This is the definition of self-dealing and conflict of interest.

  2. The ENS part of the compensation should be vested yes.

  3. Commitments should be honored. If we voted for this compensation in the past and had people agree to put their time with those terms we should honor it

  4. That said it’s quite a big amount of money for part time compensation and for the token part of the compensation vesting is a standard. And not hard-cliff vesting. Something like a stream where you can claim anything vested till the timestamp you claim.

  5. Alternatively since crypto market is volatile do not commit to any hard amounts for ENS tokens. Say we will pay $X in ENS at the price at the time of payment. Nobody loses this way and agreements are clear.

Now as for what I should vote. I don’t like a lot of things here. And I am put in the ugly position of having enough tokens delegated to equalize negative with positive vote and maybe stop this.

There is not enough time to have a clear back and forth with people here.

I believe in honoring one’s commitments even if it was not clear to me when they were made that this would be the outcome. I also voted against the previous proposal where the commitment was supposedly made (Snapshot) . I have a lot of issues with what is happening here. See the above bullet points.

To that end I will be voting abstain.


Thank you :pray:t2:

1 Like
  1. As per this - indeed, it was already decided so in my view this vote isn´t about this, it´s about the MG working group budget for the next period and my support for the stewards in that group.


the vote I personally cast was not about this disputed issue because point 1, it was in support of the overall budget which includes things like:

MG Steward + Secretary Compensation
DAO Tooling

I made no vote on the PG budget which is what I would be partly responsible for spending so if the community would not agree, ofc we´d have to revise. I think this is maybe the piece that needs clarity in policy re don´t vote on issues pertaining to the group you are part of.

Imho this is a vote that contains a contested line item that has already been voted on. So the confusion and tension come from a call for a change to a past vote within a new vote.

Add on: @lefterisjp´s I appreciate your breakdown actually and thoughtful stance given all the above

1 Like

Using ChatGPT with an example:

"Conflict of interest and self-dealing are ethical and legal issues that arise when individuals in positions of authority, such as board members, prioritize their personal interests over those of the organization they serve.

In the context of a board member voting for their own compensation, conflict of interest occurs when the board member’s decision-making ability is influenced by their personal financial gain. This situation creates a conflict between the duty of loyalty the board member owes to the organization and their personal financial interests.

Self-dealing, on the other hand, refers to actions where individuals in positions of authority use their influence to benefit themselves or their related parties at the expense of the organization. When a board member votes to approve their own compensation, they are engaging in self-dealing by using their position to secure personal financial gain.

For example, imagine a scenario where a board member of a non-profit organization proposes a substantial increase in board member compensation during a board meeting. The board member fails to disclose that they would directly benefit from this increase. Despite potential objections from other board members or concerns about the organization’s financial health, the conflicted board member votes in favor of the proposal, ultimately approving their own compensation increase.

In such a scenario, the board member’s actions undermine the integrity and impartiality of the board’s decision-making process, potentially harming the organization’s reputation and financial stability. Additionally, it may violate legal and regulatory standards governing conflicts of interest and self-dealing."

tl;dr You should not vote on resolutions that decide your compensation.

Again though, what I was referring to re logic is what I stated - that vote was already passed so this one technically is not to about revoting on that which seems to be what this whole convo is about. I am approaching it from the logic of gov process as it stands

Arguably, I have not a clue what you do for ENS DAO.
Before recently, as in the past 24 hours, the last time you posted on this forum was this in December of 2023, which is pushing one and a quarter years.
Not only that but you have also never not once created a topic of discussion.
Which quite frankly is bizarre for how many times you have been voted in as a steward.

I hate to use myself as a comparison, but if you look at my forum statistics

and then look at your activity

and while I have provided a list of things I have done and requested to be compensated.

Maybe this sort of thing sheds light on why I’ve been quietly singled out as “aggressive” or "frustrated" without consideration of clear and obvious facts like the aforementioned.

disclaimer: these are facts and not a personal attack

I would absolutely totally love punch cards :melting_face:

But seriously though

There is no judgement here, it’s just factual, that’s all.

I even invited you to comment in your own words if you think you are full time or part time contributor. That’s all there is to it - just facts. Amount of involvement was one of the pivotal points within that discussion, so that’s why I thought it was important to highlight this.

1 Like

Ha re punch cards! Make a proposal :upside_down_face:

Thank you for the clear response. I think again - my argument here is that number of votes or comments on a forum are not in my view the only metric to evaluate impact. More robust and nuanced ways of evaluating engagement are needed. Funnily enough, when I led Gitcoin governance back in 2022, I worked on expanding and creating delegate health scores re qualitative metrics to track engagement in a much more holistic way.

Re full/part time - which is why I mentioned the differences between people and how they work - I think a measure of impact vs calendar time spent is the way we might move fwd

1 Like

I’m not sure why this was still set to be voted on. There was clear and obvious debate and discussion about this topic round the clock since its original posting.

well…I am clearly a PG steward and you do know this. I was an MG steward before that. As per my responses above, I believe the hourly time spent on a forum isn´t the metric might utilise in evaluating commitment, value, impact. I think it can be an objective and easy one to go if someone would want to say “I cannot see you punching in so I assume you do nothing.”

Also, Dec 23 is 3 months ago. Taking the holidays into account (and my mistake for not being on the forum at that time), it would be 2 months. I have said it before, I am not as great as constantly writing on a forum vs identifying opportunities to fund Public Goods and creating opportunities for us to actually robustly manage to disburse resources (as per examples I gave) in this year term in a much more coordinated way vs shorter terms as before.


Strongly in support of distributing $ENS to stewards. This is a critical first step to continuously growing the broader set of responsible community members participating in governance, which is key to ensuring the long term viability of the ENS protocol.

With that said, also strongly agree that a multi-year vesting structure is the most logical framework within which to facilitate governance distributions, both now, and as an operating principle going forward for all future $ENS distributed to any third party for governance.

Appreciate everyone that has shared constructive feedback on this topic (the majority of contributors to this thread), the leadership from those that suggested solutions, and the initiative shown by those that have offered to help move those potential solutions forward (@James :pray:).


sorry my apologies on the year thing, i am wrong on that one. but still…3 months…is quite awhile and 0 topics created for what 3 or 4 terms as a steward?

It’s not specifically the hour metric. It’s the entire picture, all the metrics, you know this. The last time i can find of an observably active interest in a topic goes back to march 2022.

How would you evaluate yourself as a steward?

Happy to see consensus is forming on a path forward that vests $ENS token distributions. It’s good that stewards are well compensated.

@nick.eth Thanks for putting in the time to expand on the processes that led to (most) Term 4 stewards taking a decision to distribute 40,000 unvested $ENS among themselves as compensation. I’m happy that at least some process was followed for this action.

Agreed. The confusion in this thread reveals that there’s room for improvement in how proposed compensation plans are communicated to the DAO. The forum thread in question had zero replies for months. I don’t believe that’s necessarily because everyone agreed with it, but rather because the context was unclear that the DAO was being asked to give feedback and approve a proposal.

@nick.eth and thanks for the point about the price change in $ENS from Term 4 vs. today. I should have written those ideas with more precision to avoid misunderstandings.

Never said that stewards in general aren’t putting in their 100%. Please check what I wrote:

@estmcmxci hope that clarifies. I’ve had multiple stewards look me in the eye and say these things. These are their own words, not mine. I always assume the best in people. For all the stewards who haven’t told me such things, I continue to believe they’re consistently doing their best for ENS. For the stewards who said these things to me, I hope they have a change of heart and improve their approach.