“For the current term’s stewards, ENS vesting will be scaled retroactively based on the time since their appointment. ~37.5% of ENS will be distributed to stewards directly from the multisig, whilst the remaining ENS will then be deposited into each steward’s vesting contract.”
— Excerpt from the Specification of the ENS Steward Vesting Proposal, paragraph 4.
—
@James can you confirm the following:
- Liquid ENS Distribution Event: The first liquid distribution event will occur on month 9 when the cumulative tokens vested will be 3,750 tokens, representing 37.50% of the total allocation.
- Remaining Token Distribution Events: The remaining tokens will be distributed on a monthly schedule from month 10 to month 24. Each month, approximately 416.67 tokens will be distributed, concluding with all 10,000 tokens fully vested at the end of month 24.
—
You are right. The reality is that the ENS DAO can only advise on the best use of $ENS. Delegates, however, are free to choose how they utilize their governance distribution. They can choose to either: 1) continue participating in governance by voting and submitting proposals, 2) delegate their voting power, or 3) sell it for cash.
Governance distribution is not categorized monetarily; instead, it is its own category, as described in the Q1 spending summary.
—
Yes, I agree. In its current state, the proposal lacks specificity and can be misinterpreted, as demonstrated by commentary from the Meta-Governance Working Group Meeting Minutes (May 7, 2024).
Before it moves to an Executable Proposal, I suggest that the Meta-Governance Working Group more actively advise the proposer on the structure and content of this proposal, to lessen the potential for misinterpretation and make it “airtight,” so to speak.
As a first step, I’ve prepared a table that can be drafted into the content of the Executable Proposal, assuming that initial distribution event begins on month 9:
| Month | Cumulative Tokens Vested | Percentage Vested |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0% |
| 2 | 0 | 0% |
| 3 | 0 | 0% |
| 4 | 0 | 0% |
| 5 | 0 | 0% |
| 6 | 0 | 0% |
| 7 | 0 | 0% |
| 8 | 0 | 0% |
| 9 | 3750.00 | 37.50% |
| 10 | 4166.67 | 41.67% |
| 11 | 4583.34 | 45.83% |
| 12 | 5000.01 | 50.00% |
| 13 | 5416.68 | 54.17% |
| 14 | 5833.35 | 58.33% |
| 15 | 6250.02 | 62.50% |
| 16 | 6666.69 | 66.67% |
| 17 | 7083.36 | 70.83% |
| 18 | 7500.03 | 75.00% |
| 19 | 7916.70 | 79.17% |
| 20 | 8333.37 | 83.33% |
| 21 | 8750.04 | 87.50% |
| 22 | 9166.71 | 91.67% |
| 23 | 9583.38 | 95.83% |
| 24 | 10000.05 | 100.00% |
How does this look for everyone?