Whilst arguably true, there is nuance to a statement like this, namely that which I outlined last year in Toward Accountable and Strategic Funding in ENS:
I accept that not all value can be quantitatively measured and documented but in my opinion the majority of Service Providers don’t even pass the qualitative sniff test for having added value in excess of their cost. I’ve seen a lot of cool stuff come out of SPP and yes we should incubate interesting and promising ideas but the DAO is not a charity.
I do appreciate some of the recent transparency from ENS Labs employees regarding how they view their positioning. The below from Tate is a fair take.
That said, whilst I accept that relative to other protocol teams ENS Labs may be cost-effective, that does not necessarily mean that ENS Labs itself should be exempt from scrutiny regarding value delivered relative to cost - particularly when considering marginal value-add year-on-year.
I think as DAO participants we need to drop the ego and hold ourselves accountable. Constructive criticism should be welcomed, and effective collaboration between teams prioritised.