Thank you @alisha.eth and the Public Goods WG for bringing this to proposal!
It’s so incredible that the ENS DAO is in a position to play a role like this for base protocol contributors.
Thank you Protocol Guild. It’ll be a privilege to support this proposal.
This is definitely the type of project that I want more of and I fully support it.
Supporting dependencies should be a goal for any project. The participants, their experience and tribal knowledge represented by the Protocol Guild are some of the most fundamental dependencies in the ecosystem (and for ENS, obviously), which I would love to see competitively compensated.
Retaining this talent is crucial to the health and security of Ethereum, and I will admit to having a micro panic-attack every time I see a tweet (in jest or otherwise) alluding to one of these folks getting poached by some rando not-worth-their-time-but-can-compensate-them-for-it project. 
<3 Protocol Guild
I’m in full support of this proposal.
Core protocol contributors have generated immeasurable value for the ecosystem. The opportunity cost for them is immense. Anything we can do to keep them focused is a boon to all projects built on Ethereum.
200k ENS is a reasonable price to pay for their continued efforts, especially given the way the vesting works.
Could not agree more!
This is pretty much a no-brainer. A devil’s advocate would ask why core devs deserve funds from ENS, but the easy answer is “why don’t they?”
None of us would be here without core contributors. ENS aims to increase the extensibility of Ethereum by providing human-readable names, and Ethereum wouldn’t even be here without those core contributors.
Core contributors are historically under-funded and under-appreciated and ENS is in a good position to help solve that.
Not to mention this is a small percentage of unclaimed funds, so a good talking point when future users complain about missing the window of time is “Hey, at least your unclaimed tokens went to a good cause. You’re directly contributing to Ethereum!” 
There’s understandably a lot of positive reaction here so far, but it’s good to be aware of other viewpoints. I recommend reading the proposal on the Uniswap forums that has some good discussion/feedback.
Also firmly in favor of this proposal!
Couldn’t have said it better.
PG contributors are of course free to do whatever they want with the ENS tokens, but we couldn’t ask for better candidates to extend the responsibility of ENS DAO governance to 
I’m for this. My reasoning can be found in the old thread, here:
As discussed on the latest Public Goods group we support this in the following format: Grant 100k ENS from the airdrop to protocol guild, as a pilot vesting for the next 12 months. After that period we will reconsider and if successful, commit about 400k ENS tokens vesting over 4 years.
Thank you for pointing this out. It had been bugging me to see the amount doubled to 200k $ENS from the 100k quoted in the TempCheck you posted. Seems like absolutely no one read the numbers in a haste to jump on the agreement bangwagon.
Full send, Metaphor is on-board with this. Very critical we secure solid funding from the community for base-layer infrastructure!
I’m against this. I don’t have anything good to say about it, and I’m aware I won’t change anyone’s mind, so I’ll just leave it at that.
I don’t see any such number in the Temp Check thread: ENS Public Goods meeting (may 10): should we use part of the unclaimed airdrops to incentivize core ethereum developers?
In fact, I see that the initial Temp Check suggested 10% of the unclaimed airdrop. The current draft has significantly reduced that to 3.7%.
If there were subsequent discussions/decisions in a WG meeting, then it sounds like those were not communicated in the previous Temp Check post.
For what it’s worth, yes, I read the numbers in this draft. And I agree with them. Please don’t jump to conclusions about other people jumping to conclusions.
I would also be on board with @AvsA’s suggestion of 500k with different vesting periods!
Well I would love to hear your side of the argument! This seems like a very worthwhile use of the ENS treasury to me, in-line with Article III of the DAO Constitution as well.
I am strongly in favor of this proposal and generally agree with @spencecoin that this is a no brainer. We should be doing everything we can to support our core infrastructure across multiple experiments. In transparency however, I’m biased here as I expect it’s likely that Gitcoin makes a similar proposal for core infrastructure rounds in the future.
I’m flexible on amounts, but would defer to @AvsA’s suggestion on how to split out the commitment. We should also clearly define what we mean by a successful experiment, I know PG has a good overview here but it’s worth making sure we are internalizing that and setting up proper check-ins on that front.
You are right, my bad. I cannot find it either, but I clearly remember reading 100,000 ENS somewhere. Yet I cannot find it in TempCheck or the comments. It may have been in a WG meeting… 
10% is crazy in my opinion. Anything more than 100k ENS, which stands at > 1,000,000 USDC today is borderline. I always like to draw comparisons on how the DAO compensates internal contributors. .eth websites has so far gotten only 100 ENS in funds. I won’t harp on this point more and derail the conversation because I support this proposal as well but within limits.
Let’s keep this discussion and the bias for when Gitcoin comes with a proposal
Gitcoin has a serious spending problem and is happy to give away six figures on memes and merch in a bera market under the guise of ‘Public Goods’ – a term which I am starting to slightly detest since it has become a jargon.
I do want to go on record to say that this is quite literally a proposal to pay dividends, in the form of $ENS tokens. Not only that, but pay dividends to an exclusive group of people. You’ve made a really convoluted dance around presenting it as that, and it’s impressive, but fundamentally this is what it is. I would actually be more inclined to support it if it didn’t read like dog-whistle laden, pat ourselves on the back for our selfless commitment to “public goods” but oh yeah let’s provide economic bonuses to ourselves and our peers while we’re here posting for the first time.
@daylon.eth I think you provide an important perspective - there always needs to be people sharing an opposing viewpoint for us all to get a fuller picture of a situation. I appreciate your willingness to share!
From what I understand this amount is split between 110 core Ethereum contributors. 200k ENS split evenly among 110 people is 1818 ENS (or just under $20k) per person. Add to this a vestment schedule. For core Ethereum dev work that doesn’t seem very high to me in and of itself.
It seems sufficient. I again would draw parallels with scores of internal contributors who have gotten 0 USDC (.eth subWG for example). I am sure $20,000 is one of the many streams of income for these devs. By the time vesting period ends, $20,000 will likely be worth more
I agree that it looks bad to fund people not working for ENS before those who do, but I don’t think it’s an either-or proposition and it doesn’t mean that people working for ENS won’t get paid.
Isn’t a dividend where you pay your own shareholders part of your company’s earnings?
This is the opposite, we are not distributing ENS tokens to the current tokenholders or .eth name holders. We are distributing ENS tokens from the treasury to external developers for an external, non-ENS project (core Ethereum).
That distribution will put more ENS tokens into circulation, so if you’re talking about the $USD price of tokens, then if anything that would have a detrimental effect for current tokenholders, not a positive one.
So I don’t know what you mean here by “dividends”.
The rest is hyperbole and not arguing the merit but the tone (or perceived tone).
This doesn’t just fund a public good (the core Ethereum protocol/network), but it also does so in the form of ENS DAO governance tokens, distributed to well-informed skilled developers. Seems like a good extension of the DAO voter base to me.
I appreciate and respect your conviction @serenae. I don’t have anything constructive to say so I’ll leave this to the rest of you. If the traditional definition of dividend is what you’re focusing on, let’s say “monetary bonuses” instead.