I’m for this. My reasoning can be found in the old thread, here:
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
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!
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
4 Likes
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.
5 Likes
@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!
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
Yes, sure, tokens are being distributed, that is the point of this proposal. But not to us, and not to current tokenholders or .eth name holders, rather to the developers of an external project of some importance to the web3 ecosystem. If you don’t like how the term “public good” is used so generally, I definitely sympathize with that. But I’d struggle to come up with another candidate more public and good for web3 than the core Ethereum protocol itself.
So is your main complaint just the mere fact that tokens are being distributed at all? Or you just don’t agree with the choice of recipient candidates? Or you just don’t agree with the amount and/or method of distribution?
Again, your use of the word “bonuses” sounds like we’re paying ourselves, like a company that pays its current employees bonuses. But that is not the case here, just the opposite.
1 Like
My primary problem with it is the conflict of interest. The proposal is written by and for the people it stands to benefit, and their associates. My secondary problem is this is presented under the justification of being for a “public good.” That is vague at best and insulting at worst.
4 Likes
Okay thank you! I feel like I’m getting closer to understanding you now.
I don’t think it’s a conflict of interest, because Trent/Tim are not the ones deciding whether the proposal passes, the ENS DAO does.
It seems perfectly normal to me that projects/teams in search of funding will actively reach out to VCs, crowdfunding platforms, or DAOs in order to request such funding. What’s wrong about that, as long as they are not the decision makers for that VC firm or DAO?
Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if the two of them (and others in the PG) are already ENS tokenholders. Is this what you’re concerned with? Would you like to see an edit to this draft with a social contract stating that nobody currently on the PG should vote on this proposal? Would that solve this primary problem of yours?
Hmm, well, that problem you state is also just as vague then, I’m afraid. Why is this not a public good, in your opinion?
Barging in. The way I define ‘Public Good’ is a service or an infrastructure or a commodity (= Good) that directly (or at least tangentially) benefits the public (= Public, in context of ENS users). The vagueness is in the term ‘public’. This proposal funds developers who are building on the Ethereum ecosystem in which ENS resides; this proposal funds the developers, not the public through any tangible service or good. There are four degrees of separation between the Guild members and ENS/Public. One interesting thing to note here would be that how many of the 110 odd developers among the Guild are building directly or even tangentially for ENS? I wish the OP could provide an answer to that. Having said that, I still support this proposal because I want to see how this pans out although I have my internal concerns. Public Good is a very vague and loaded term, and it is being twisted by different organisations to pocket money from DAOs. We have already had Nomic Foundation and now Protocol Guild asking for multi-millions for ‘public good’. Gitcoin will soon be at our door again asking for money as well; all in the name of ‘Public Good’, which still has no rigorous definition.
Addendum: A quick search for ‘ENS’ or ‘Ethereum Name Service’ yields no result in the quotes by the Guild members. In the end, I am afraid we’ll be funding 110 people (possibly 150) out of which 0 have anything to do with ENS.
2 Likes
Interesting points, perhaps @trent or @timbeiko would like to comment/rebut.
I would say that the core Ethereum protocol is clearly a network/infrastructure that is open to and directly benefits the public. Nobody anywhere in the world needs to ask permission to use Ethereum (though they may run into roadblocks if certain providers like Infura get in the way, as we’ve seen).
It’s true that there are degrees of separation between the developers of the protocol and the “public”. Certainly the most direct way to “directly benefit the public” would be to just give out ENS tokens to the public haha. But I don’t think that would be a good use of the ENS treasury obviously.
There are always going to be such degrees of separation, but in my mind there’s no doubt that the continued funding of the people working on the very core of web3, will benefit the public that uses web3.
This reminds me of the very things you chided me for, and rightfully so (being too pedantic and challenging “vague” wording) when it came to the Code of Conduct. Ultimately it will be up to each and every voter in the DAO to decide whether this constitutes a “Public Good” or not, so we’re really just playing with semantics again here, right?
You’re “afraid” of that? I rather think that is a good thing. Not only does that help to dispel notions of “conflicts of interest”, but it also means that such ENS token funding will bring new voters into our DAO! And expert, well-informed voters at that (I presume, anyway). You do want the DAO and its voter base to grow, right? This is part of the reason why a portion of the ENS tokens was set aside for the ENS DAO, so that the DAO can decide to distribute that responsibility to potential new voters!
3 Likes