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

Thank you for your transparency, @lightwalker.eth.

Any persons who said these things should remove themselves as a steward immediately. I don’t want my well being–being decided by people with this mentality.

Step up and be an adult and apologize to the community and individual persons for this. You know who you are.

These are NOT the values of which I and many others have participate in this organization for.

From what other people who have decided to stop participating in ENS DAO have told me and from my own personal experiences…I’m not surprised. Instead I’m infuriated and incredibly insulted as the justifications I have received for certain requests reflect this ideology almost verbatim.

Integrity check.

Hey there,

I will only answer this due to your mentions.

  1. I hope you are aware that most of my late timing on calls it’s due to travelling for crypto conferences, most of the times giving a talk about ENS.
  2. Can you provide me where such subjective metric, “being late”, becomes a reason to challenge wether it’s a part time, full time or any of the above?

I highly respected MetaGov decision, the same way I felt their respect towards the initiatives we had on Public Goods, hence my lack of comment because as a Steward I am byass, but what I have seen and read here today, is a lot of burning bridges rather than positive contributions or potential solutions (with the exceptions of the two or three comments from delegates that were constructive)

A lot of you seemed suddenly eager to participate on budget proposals, only when the market is high, and I don’t recall anything of the sort on the past budget proposals we have had, so I beg your pardon, when also your comments seems suspicious on the timing, because a lot of it sounds like if you would have been giving money from the DAO you wouldn’t be here commenting. So please, next time you are here, be constructive, be aware that there are people on the other side of the screen reading, and overall, that ANYONE can make mistakes.


We’ve just posted a TEMP CHECK proposal outlining a vote that would add the discussed vesting to the steward ENS allocations.

There is certainly room for a wider discussion on steward compensation (as the post briefly discusses) but we have 9 months remaining in the current term before we need to have any changes nailed down.

This post has now become a pretty hectic environment, I’d encourage all readers & commenters to give everyone some time to chill & reflect! These discussions are important but as things become more focused on $$$ and impact measurement there’s always going to be disagreements.

The only other open loop is given the current 5.4.1 vote didn’t get to quorum what do we see as the next steps? I suppose getting this vesting proposal up before the next voting period in April would be the only option? Open to any thoughts on this!

We all :blue_heart: the ENS!


pretty highly, actually. I´m one of those show vs tell people and I believe impact is in IRL action which is what I have always been committed to in everything I have done in this space.

Am I always right? Absolutely not, but we all grow and evolve and intention behind the action is what I always hold myself to - it may not be how everyone else sees things but it is authentic perspective that we should aim for. And this is mine.


I’m not requesting accountability in the degree of being right or wrong.

you asked for my opinion - I gave it. Let us move forward.

No, it’s not. It’s misleading to frame steward responsibilities in the diminutive mode. ‘Part-time’ is certainly one way of putting it, but I’d rather acknowledge that the responsibility that comes with being a steward is well worth the compensation, regardless of how many other roles stewards play throughout the space.

In fact, because our current stewards are so actively involved in other ecosystems, that makes them even more valuable.

I acknowledge that compensation should be administered by a nonpartisan entity or individual, but let’s not slander our stewards. We should continue to discuss how we can appropriately manage budget and compensation plans without vitriol.

I also acknowledge that according to Rule 10.5 in the Working Group rules, the ‘Meta-Governance working group is responsible for defining standards for fair compensation (‘Compensation Guidelines’)’, but does that mean the same thing as ‘self-dealing’? I think not.

This is just my professional opinion and does not reflect the Meta-Governance Working Group as a whole, but compensation should be administered according to precepts described and developed by the bylaws, to be executed by a nonpartisan role.

Certainly, the Meta-Governance Working Group can take responsibility for creating the compensation guidelines and incorporate community feedback. However, I believe the compensation plan itself should be proposed by a nonpartisan individual who is not a current steward, and then put to a vote by the DAO. This approach helps to reduce potential conflicts of interest.

Thus, the Meta-Governance Working Group should have the power to suggest compensation, but not to enforce it. Right now, we are all working under the presumption that the guidelines are a mandate, but they are not. They are merely suggestions, which a certain faction has assumed to be conclusive.

I am still of the sentiment that we should honor last term’s compensation guidelines, but given the current discussion, it’s clear that this is still a matter for debate. While we may have agreed that Meta-Governance is responsible for setting compensation standards, we haven’t yet reached a consensus on the implementation and enforcement of these standards.

Thankfully, we can incorporate the feedback from this discussion into the bylaws.

Bingo. I figure it’s a shame that we have to renege on the original agreement.

Here you are (h/t limes.eth), I hope that helps.

To avoid any confusion, I will reiterate here that governance distribution should not be framed primarily as compensation. Governance distribution is a responsibility and empowers individuals to shape the future of the ENS protocol.

Of course, it is up to the individual to decide what they do with that responsibility, and should they choose to exchange their voting power for financial gain, so be it. If an individual values this over their civic duty, then let them be judged on those merits instead.

Fair enough, let’s stipulate this in the bylaws then.


Sorry, I still disagree with framing stewardship in a diminutive mode, e.g., as a part-time role. Additionally, I don’t agree that governance distribution should be primarily viewed as compensation, and I believe it is being framed as such in this case.

I agree 100% that governance should be distributed to encourage long-term alignment, but I don’t understand why a certain faction of delegates are so reluctant to distribute it to stewards who have clearly demonstrated their commitment to the DAO for the past 800 days. Seems a little unfair, don’t you think?


Okay, fair enough. Let’s move to include this in the bylaws discussion.

Okay, accessor.eth. Simona has already cited several examples of how she’s made a demonstrable impact throughout the space. If you’re worth your salt, you wouldn’t antagonize this individual at the first opportunity. Instead, you’d take responsibility for your oversight.

Agree 100%; bumping this so it gets a little more visibility. :slight_smile:

1 Like

ok show.

[quote=“estmcmxci, post:90, topic:18883”]
Simona has already cited several examples of how she’s made a demonstrable impact throughout the space.

If you think I’m being pretentious…It’s just me saying what nobody else will.
we can chat about it if you want?

Ugh. Here you are:

I’m good.

It is literally textbook self-dealing and there is no wiggle room here. I cannot possibly make it more clear other than sit you with a lawyer and have them explain it to you.

You can’t include every single possible malicious scenario in bylaws, Stewards should exercise integrity and apply common sense to avoid situations like this on the go. There doesn’t have to be community backlash everytime something controversial happens, only to inform everyone that you are going to add more bureaucratic water to the soup.

Yet rule 10.4 in the Working Group Rules state: “Meta-Governance working group are responsible for defining standards for fair compensation” — this proposal was ratified by the DAO with a 99.4% approval rate.

If the DAO approved this motion, then it would not be considered ‘self-dealing’, because the DAO had formally recognized and entered into this agreement based on the outcome of the vote.

You’re welcome to challenge this dictum, but it requires a social proposal that would override the original rule.

This statement leads the reader to believe that there was a malicious intention to begin with. There was not. This funding request is simply adhering to the compensation guidelines defined by the prior Meta-Governance Working Group as instructed by the Working Group Rules. According to Rule 10.4, the Meta-Governance Working Group are well within their right to define these compensation guidelines “prior to the Nomination Window for each term and can only take effect for the following term”.

I believe that the Meta-Governance Working Group from 2023 Q3/Q4 acted with integrity.

Despite this, a faction of the participants in this thread believes otherwise, and so that is why we have to “add more bureaucratic water to the soup”. In any case, this conversation has been extremely helpful in defining bylaws in collaboration with @Lemma — so I appreciate the insights we’ve gathered from this discussion.

I’m bumping this, because I believe that it is a good idea to formally introduce a proposal that outlines the compensation plans and put it up for a DAO-wide vote.

Who is the DAO? The voters. So when you say that the DAO approved the motion, it is you as a voter who has approved the motion because you are the DAO! When you say the DAO formally recognised, it is you through your vote who has formally recognised. When you say that DAO entered into agreement, it is you who has entered into an agreement through your vote to… give money to yourself. The DAO is you and you/DAO decided to pay yourself. You can try to twist this as much as you want, but it is textbook self-dealing. Like I said before, there is no grey area.

Plus, the DAO can make whatever rules they want for themselves; those are internal and the court wouldn’t care. None of this will stand in court of law because they will take one look at the vote like Lefteris and conclude it as self-dealing and unresolved conflict of interest. At that point, if you gave them the argument that you gave me above, they’ll probably increase your fine by 50% on the spot and recommend you a basic course in Business Ethics and Compliance.

The only way to avoid this is to never vote on a resolution which decides your compensation directly or even indirectly. Always abstain in such cases.

I did not vote on the amendment to the Working Group rules; you can check for yourself. I did vote ‘Yes’ on this specific funding request because I believe, as a Meta-Governance steward, it makes sense for me to take the responsibility of ensuring that Working Group stewards are compensated, as initially outlined in rule 10.4.

Alleging embezzlement and malfeasance is unwarranted. Each Working Group has measures in place that ensure we act with integrity and hold each other accountable for managing the funds appropriately.

Okay, noted. I partially agree with this phrasing, and we can continue to discuss it when drafting bylaws. I believe that although Meta-Governance should continue to set compensation guidelines, a nonpartisan should be responsible for executing those guidelines, working both in accordance with and in tandem with the Meta-Governance Working Group, following a DAO-wide proposal.

No need for all the vitriol, we’ll find a solution together.

This proposal has failed to reach quorum, the thread is now closed. Further discussion is happening on DAO bylaws, vesting for term 5 and ENS governance distribution.