Delegated Domain Allocation by Questbook

Firstly thank you: @she256 for reviewing the proposal. With your valuable input and feedback, it was shaped this way.


  • We propose launching the ENS community grants program of $393K USDC spread across two quarters to fund a wide variety of teams building apps on top of ENS transparently. Questbook is helping Compound run and manage its grants program through delegated domain capital allocation model.
  • We propose that this budget be managed by four individuals called Domain Allocators. These domain allocators would manage grants for a domain. These domains are strategic areas of focus for which the foundation wants to disburse grants.
  • The performance of each of these domain allocators will be publicly viewable and auditable using rich dashboards. At the end of every quarter, the ENS community can vote to replace, continue domain allocators or increase budgets for each domain allocator.
  • We ( will help facilitate setting up these domain allocators and provide the tooling to run the grants program efficiently and transparently. We have previously set up or currently setting up the grants process for Compound, Polygon, Solana, Celo, and Aave.


An active grant program is a great way to attract and incentivize builders to build on ENS. This proposal aims to benefit all the stakeholders - the builders, the token holders, and the people running the grants DAO.

Running a grant program with a token-based voting system runs into the following problems that this proposal aims to solve:

  1. Limited Perspective: Community voting is based on the opinions of the majority and may not reflect the diverse perspectives and needs of the entire community.
  2. Lack of Expertise: Community members may need more knowledge or expertise to decide which projects should receive grants.
  3. Low Participation: Voting can be time-consuming and requires a high level of engagement from community members. Low participation rates may result in a skewed representation of the community’s needs and preferences.
  4. Inadequate Data: The voting process may need to collect more data or information about the proposed projects, making it difficult for the community to make informed decisions.

By having domain allocators, we will be able to delegate the outreach and disbursements to members of the community who are the closest to builders. Giving them access to capital and authority to disburse will go a long way in improving the efficiency of the grant program for ENS.

Specifically, this program aims to

  1. Increase in quality proposals - Measured by the number of proposals received per month and % of proposals accepted by the domain allocators. Questbook ( is a desired destination for 20,000+ builders each month. We also have a dedicated team responsible for builder engagement and reviewing draft proposals before they are submitted to ensure high quality.

  2. More targeted funding: Delegate domain allocators allow the team to focus funding on specific areas or domains. This allows the team to prioritize the most important and impactful areas rather than spreading funding thinly across many projects.

  3. Better alignment with goals: The Delegate domain allocators method allows the ENS team to align its grants program with its specific goals and objectives. This will help ensure that the team is working towards the outcomes it wants to achieve rather than simply following a general approach.

  4. Strengthen the builder community in the bear market - A crucial component of the community is to keep the builder activity alive even during the bear market. The building keeps innovation and optimism in an otherwise grim market condition. It also drives participation and transparency for the broader community.

In conclusion, funding their grants program using the Delegated domain allocator offers ENS the benefits of decentralization, increased efficiency, lower costs, increased accessibility, and increased transparency.

Program Design

The program structure focuses on having community members as domain allocators. ENS will be required to set a budget of $393K for disbursed by four domain allocators. Each domain allocator will be an expert in their domain and run their domain on-chain for full transparency. The data and performance across key metrics will be visible to the community to evaluate the domain allocator’s performance.

The disbursement of the grant will take place on-chain from a multi-sig wallet controlled by the program manager & the domain allocator. The domain allocator will approve or reject proposals based on their evaluation. The program manager will then coordinate with the ENS community to ensure that the proposal is aligned with ENS ecosystem growth before signing the disbursal. The multi-sig’s sole purpose is to ensure capital is not being siphoned. However, the allocators are encouraged to make independent decisions regarding the approval of the proposal based on their expertise.

Every quarter, the grants committee and the ENS community shall evaluate the performance of each domain using publicly available data. The outcomes could be as follows:

  1. Change the domain
  2. Change the allocator/program manager
  3. Change the budget

Active community members can also initiate a no-confidence motion to initiate a review off-cycle. This can be initiated by one of the active delegates on Snapshot. The program manager can coordinate this, if the situation arises, along with the active community members. The unused funds from every domain will be returned to the treasury at the end of 2 quarters.

Product Screens

Invite proposals to your grants program.

Anyone from the community can view and comment on the proposals

Invite community members to review proposals based on an evaluation rubric

Make milestone-based payouts directly from the multi-sig

Track the performance of the grants program

ENS Grants Committee

The program will consist of

  1. A Program Manager
  2. 4 Domain Allocators

A Grants Safe, with 3/5 multi-sig, will be set up between the program manager and four domain allocators. In addition, we will have 4 Safes for each domain with a 2/2 between the program manager and the specific domain allocator.

The funds for the grants program will flow from the ENS treasury into the Grants SAFE. This SAFE will hold the funds related to operational costs, committee compensation, and the grant budget. Funds disbursed to the proposers will reside in the domain-level SAFEs. In addition, the program manager will update the community about approved proposals and their details through bi-weekly community calls and reports over discord.

We have identified the following domains relevant to ENS.
We are open to adding more domains and incorporating changes based on the community’s feedback.

Domain Credentials Needed Individual/Orgs Why is it relevant
Multichain & Cross Chain Strategy Experience with managing multichain strategies for popular Web3 applications TBD This will help ENS roll out to multiple chains and increase its market share.
Integrating ENS as a login solution Familiarity with building authentication solutions TBD This will help ENS onboard new dApps to its ecosystem.
Education & research Proven expertise in developing educational materials, managing large communities, and organizing events for new user onboarding and hackathons. TBD These tutorials and guides will help new users understand the benefits of using ENS and the Ethereum network.
Integrating ENS with developer libraries and tools Familiarity with building SDKs and lower-level libraries TBD This will help build critical tools, libraries, and dApps and streamline the development process within the ENS ecosystem.
Integrating ENS in consumer-facing application Experience in building Web3 dApps. TBD Integrating ENS into consumer-facing applications can help make the ENS ecosystem more accessible and user-friendly, which can help increase its adoption.

Domain Allocator Roles & Responsibilities:

The following will be the roles and responsibilities of the selected domain allocators.

  1. Time commitment per week: Estimated 8 hours per week for the program manager and 8 hours per week for the domain allocator, which might vary based on the number of applications. The program manager will ensure that the workload is evenly distributed.
  2. Program Manager:
    1. Communication:
      1. Coordinate between the ENS team and the community regarding funding requirements.
      2. Communicate the information regarding the approval/rejection of proposals to the ENS community regularly.
      3. Attend community calls, actively participate in the community forum, keep the community updated, and take their feedback on the program.
      4. Regularly update the progress of the grants program to the ENS community over Discord and community calls.
    2. Grants Program Oversight:
      1. Source good-quality proposals from developer communities.
      2. Sign the transactions for the approved projects.
      3. Ensure a quick turnaround time for proposers regarding their proposal decision.
      4. Coordinate between the domain allocators to ensure that the workload is evenly distributed and take their feedback consistently.
  3. Domain Allocator:
    1. Review proposals received for their domains based on the rubrics set by the domain allocator.
    2. Reject/Approve proposals and coordinate consistently with the program manager.
    3. Source applications by reaching out to developer communities in their network
    4. During scheduled meetings, discuss program improvements with the other domain allocators and the program manager.


The grant budget will be $300K, with $75k for each domain. The committee compensation will be $78,800 for domain allocators and one program manager for six months. Note that this is the proposed budget. All unused funds from every domain and committee compensation will be returned to the treasury.

Role Hourly Cost (USD) Number of hours per week (Total number of hours: 24 Total
Program Manager 80 8 15360
Domain Allocator 75 8 57600
Miscellaneous (Including operations cost) NA NA 5000
Total Amount Required 78000


    1. We are inviting applications for the domain allocator role for all the above mentioned domains. All interested community members and delegates can apply in the comments section of this post.
  1. All payout amounts will be done in USDC


What does success look like?

  • Objective
    • The prime objective of this model is to have domains that align with ENS’s priorities. This way, the contribution of the projects as part of the grants program directly adds value to the community and the token holders.
    • Increase in the number of proposals projects and projects live on top of ENS.
    • Increase in the homegrown leadership to run grant programs (measured by the number of people running grant programs).
    • Increase in the community members’ participation to keep grant programs accountable (measured by the number of people looking at the dashboard and participating in the program)
    • Diversity in projects being funded across technologies, geographies, and demographics, to name a few. We encourage the community to regularly review the project domains during the ENS community call.
    • Increased engagement in builder community’s
      • Discourse
      • Discord, Telegram
      • Social media (Twitter, Reddit)
      • GitHub, Radicle
      • DAO Tools - Safe, etc.
  • Subjective
    • Improved community involvement in the grants program
    • Strengthened builders’ sentiment towards ENS.
      • Enhanced ENS brand recognition in builder circles.

About Questbook:

Questbook’s role in ENS Grant Program

  • Saurabh from Questbook will be the program manager. After that, the program manager will be elected from the community. Saurabh previously worked very closely with the Program Manager of Polygon, facilitating the disbursement of approximately $1 million in grants. Saurabh has received a grant from IoTeX to establish their grant program, and he works closely with the Program Manager of Compound Grants Program 2.0. Saurabh has spoken to more than 100 builders and teams over the last 6-8 months and understands what it takes to make a grant program successful - from both program manager and builder perspectives.
  • Questbook Grants tool will make sure the workflows are systematic and transparent.

Product Flows

  1. Posting a grant - Link
  2. Reviewing and Funding Proposals - Link
  3. Settings - Link
  4. Communicating with Builders - Link
  5. Funding Builders - Link


  • Questbook (YC-W21) is a decentralized grant orchestration tool that Compound, Polygon, AAVE, Celo & Solana currently uses.
  • Saurabh from Questbook will be the program manager. After that, the program manager will be elected from the community. **** Saurabh previously worked very closely with the Program Manager of Polygon, facilitating the disbursement of approximately $1 million in grants. Saurabh has received a grant from IoTeX to establish their grant program, and he works closely with the Program Manager of Compound Grants Program 2.0. Saurabh has spoken to more than 100 builders and teams over the last 6-8 months and understands what it takes to make a grant program successful - from both program manager and builder perspectives.

Product Compensation

  • Questbook: 5% fee for each disbursal
  • For any specific asks from the grants team, we charge for the additional features based on the development overhead to run the process more smoothly. From our previous work experience: We propose a budget of $50K be kept aside for specific features.

Community buy-in and next steps

This is a temp check to gather interest to execute such a grant program during the bear market. We will also involve more community members to identify the right domain allocators and the top 4 domains that are most relevant to ENS.

I’m concerned about the efficiency of the model presented here. It seems awfully expensive to distribute 225k to grantees at a cost of 139k.

Disbursed Grants 225,000
Total 225,000
Domain Compensation 78,000
Questbook Fees (225k x 5%) 11,250
Additional Features 50,000
Total 139,250

I can’t see the justification for this. Elected stewards are already in charge of distributing grants and we already have a small grants program running monthly. This just adds another layer of expense and takes money away from projects that could use the funding.

I share @Coltron.eth’s concerns that this is effectively a request for $139,000 to distribute $225,000 in grants. Do you really think it is reasonable to request $139,000 to distribute $225,000 over six months?

I would rather these resources were put into small grants that go directly to the people and projects who are building, with no middlemen taking a 38% cut. There are a number of improvements we are in the process of making to improve the transparency and efficiency of the existing grants infrastructure without incurring any additional costs.


38% is a massive cut, seems like a cash grab and taking jobs away from a system already set up

Thanks @Coltron.eth , @alisha.eth and @Theth.eth for sharing your comments and concerns with us. We have carefully considered all the feedback from the community members, and we’d like to respond to the comments as follows:

I would like to provide some clarification and clearly layout the distribution of the funds. We will be requesting a budget of $300K to be distributed evenly across 4 domains, resulting in $75K per domain - this is the amount that will be given out as grants.

  • The domain allocators will receive compensation at a rate of $75 per hour, with a monthly cap of approximately $1,000, for a period of 6 months, totalling $24,000.
  • The program manager will receive compensation at a rate of $80 per hour, with a monthly cap of approximately $1,000, for a period of 6 months, totalling $6,000.
  • An amount of $5,000 will be reserved for miscellaneous expenses such as legal fees, KYC verification for the grantees, and subscriptions.
  • This means that the total operating budget amounts to 35,000, which is 11.6% of the total grants budget. The money that is not been used will be returned back to the treasury.
  • Questbook will be providing the tool to ENS DAO for free.
Grants Budget 75k x 4 300000
Committee Compensation 35,000
Total 335000

Happy to take any questions or concerns or regarding this. Appreciate more feedback and thoughts on this.

I like your process. However, in my opinion, it’s more applicable that stewards who talk with the ENS builders everyday determine how to effectively distribute the funds in addition to our grants programs that are voted on by the ENS token holders.


Spot on. We totally agree that the stewards from the community who speak to ENS builders every day should be the ones who determine the distribution of the funds. We suggest that these stewards/domain allocators and domains should be chosen by the community, or they could even be from the ENS core team. Here are the reasons why:

  • They have more context of the ecosystem.
  • They can better judge the roadmap.
  • They have technical domain expertise.
  • The decision-making is faster.
  • They understand the ethos of the ecosystem better.

Moreover, they can run the entire process transparently, enabling the community to have a better understanding of which proposals get accepted or rejected. This will also encourage the community to share feedback or collaborate with the projects.

The stewards are currently chosen by the community, just as you’re suggesting. There are steward elections every 6 months, and sometimes the elected stewards are also members the core team as you’re suggesting.

How do your thoughts differ from the current model?

1 Like

Thank you so much for sharing the details of the current program. I think steward elections is great step towards engaging the community. We are suggesting improving the process by making the process more transparent.

From our experience, the following information would be extremely helpful for the community to get more involved and contribute to the ecosystem.

Questbook is a Polygon funded initiative and they go to every dao forum asking for grants of 6-7fig size. Hardly they’ve funded anything that has become substantial in the space, literally funding their friends throughout 2022.

They were in Euler a few days back for a 7fig grant, before the hack with the same pitches.

I’m surprised how less everyone researches here and just asks silly questions, @alisha.eth be more responsible and fund some real projects that could take ENS ahead.

Besides Polygon, we work with ecosystems such as Compound, Celo, Solana, IoTeX to run and manage their grants program. Compound Grants Program 2.0 is completely run and owned by the community.

The initial figures quoted by us for this proposal are based on our research and 1:1 feedback calls with the community members. We are happy to update the grants budget and compensation figures based on the feedback of the ENS community and proceed with what is best for ENS.

Grants team and domain allocators of an ecosystem use Questbook to decide which projects to fund based on an evaluation rubric created by them. Questbook has no role in deciding which projects gets funded. Using Questbook, any member from the community can view all the proposals, domain allocator and their evaluation rubric. Some of the known and high quality projects have been funded through Questbook. For e.g. : Gains Network, Tetu, Insurace, Komet, and RoboVault. I would love to attend the next community call to seek feedback and answer any questions from the community.

Thank you for taking the time to write up the proposal and answer questions.

Allocating grants based on token voting has issues. Few would disagree with that perspective.

In the Ecosystem WG the minority of funding is done via token voting.

Small Grants are done via token voting.

Working Group Purpose

The ENS DAO uses working groups to manage the DAO’s work-related activities.

Working groups allow decisions to be made, and funding to be distributed, without the need for every initiative or decision to be passed by the DAO as a Social or Executable Proposal. source

Working groups work by empowering the stewards to make decisions as relates to working group operations, including how grants are disbursed.

As a group, the Ecosystem Stewards are in the best position to decide which projects should get funding. As a group the Stewards have:

  1. First-hand context built by being on the ground in the ENS community;
  2. Technical and business expertise;
  3. Access to data and experts within the ENS and Ethereum ecosystems to inform decisions

The stewards are also highly accessible to any builder in the space via open DMs here and on twitter. We also hold weekly ecosystem calls where anyone can participate.

Given the amount of funding successfully disbursed to a variety of builders and projects and the fact we are still evolving our in-house grants infrastructure, the Ecosystem working group is not interested in using Questbook at this time.


Thank you for your response. We would want you to consider implementing the DDA model. We believe that this model could bring an additional layer of transparency and accountability to the decision-making process, which is essential for ensuring the success of the ENS ecosystem. Transparency and accountability are important values that we strive to promote, and we are confident that the DDA model can help us achieve this goal. We would be grateful for the opportunity to further discuss this idea with the Ecosystem Stewards and explore how it can be incorporated into the existing decision-making processes in a way that benefits the entire group. I would love to attend the next community call to seek feedback and answer any questions from the community.

@Saurabh happy discuss; added this topic to tomorrow’s agenda.


Thanks, I will try to be there