Violation of DAO ratified actions in EP6.3, EP6.13, and active ENS Service Provider contracts with ENS
In the currently proposed timeline, the rubric for SPP3 proposals will be published from May 14 or earlier and SPP3 proposals must then be built and submitted by June 2.
There’s a major scheduling issue here. If SPP3 proposals need to be built and submitted between May 14 - June 2, that completely interrupts work on deliverables that we (and other SPP2 1-year teams) are already under contract with ENS to deliver by May 26 and then to prepare and submit Q4 reports (which is formally part of our contracted and scheduled scope of work for SPP2) by June 10.
Thanks but this is not the concern. It extends the period of conflict rather than removing it. The concern is that if the currently proposed schedule for SPP3 proceeds, it will require SPP2 year-1 teams such as ours to break our contracted commitments to ENS for SPP2 Q4 deliverables and the SPP2 Q4 report.
The DAO already ratified the scheduling solution in EP6.3. Here, @avsa wrote:
… and we will add another 3 months of runway to make sure the program is not interrupted by eventual delays in the 2026 vote.
The proposed schedule is forcefully interrupting the SPP2 program through the 2026 vote. The currently proposed schedule for SPP3 is directly in contradiction with the DAO’s earlier ratified actions.
The DAO has further already ratified this allowance for SPP2 streams to have a streaming allowance (up to 3-months) for the optimized transition of SPP2 to any successor program as specified in both the EP6.3 social vote and the EP6.13 executable vote.
Therefore SPP2 streams have an already DAO ratified allowance for the transition to SPP3 through Aug 26.
There can be no argument that an effective and efficient schedule solution to harmonize SPP2 with SPP3 does not exist. The updated scheduling proposal we shared includes a clear timeline: SPP2 Q4 delivery wraps May 25, Q4 reports are submitted by June 7, the committee uses May 14 to June 7 for context-building and structured review of SPP2 outcomes, and the SPP3 submission window opens June 27. SPP3 funding decisions are still locked in 33+ days before the SPP2 cushion expires on Aug 26.
Stepping back: it is a bad sign when a funding program is optimizing for how to allocate tomorrow’s dollars without full consideration for what is being delivered for today’s. The DAO is currently spending real money on large teams doing real work. The proposal as drafted moves directly to the next allocation decision without an ROI assessment of what the current allocation produced. That is not a proper capital allocation process, and it is not how the DAO should be modeling future funding cycles. The DAO deserves to know the ROI of what it got for $4.5M+ before it commits the next $3M+.
The burden is on the currently proposed timeline to explain why it is calling for SPP2 1-year teams to break their existing service agreements with ENS for SPP2 Q4 while also contradicting the DAOs previously ratified decisions in both EP6.3 and EP6.13. What exactly is the case motivating each of these destructive and unnecessary actions?