[EP13][Executable] Support the Protocol Guild Pilot

All very fair points, which is why I am still more positive than negative on this proposal! I am happy to see the DAO take a risk, and even more interested in seeing if the Public Good thesis plays out :slight_smile:

1 Like

It’s important to remember that we’re talking about tokens drawn from a pool which under ideal circumstances wouldn’t have been returned to the DAO in the first place. They’re unclaimed airdrop tokens that were destined for someone.

The intention behind that airdrop was to spread votes around and draw attention to ENS, and spreading votes to and drawing attention from Ethereum core devs I think is in the spirit of the original airdrop.

We also have a self-interest in seeing Ethereum (and by extension their core devs) succeed because we have a symbiotic relationship with the blockchain we exist on.

From a purely monetary perspective, I think that ENS will benefit indirectly from the attention from core devs (maybe they participate in governance, maybe they talk about it more in public, maybe they start using .eth on twitter if they don’t already.)

I don’t see a lot of downsides personally :slight_smile:

6 Likes

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).

all in the name of ‘Public Good’, which still has no rigorous definition.

I wish the OP could provide an answer to that.

While I agree that the term “Public Good” is often misapplied, wouldn’t the core Ethereum protocol (and its maintainers) which ENS depends on be included pretty easily in your own definition? If it’s not included, I’m not sure what else would.

3 Likes

In favor. I think it’s a great idea to reward long-time contributors. I agree with @nick.eth too; this initiative will help to retain talent and motivate new contributors to join ongoing work streams within the ENS Ecosystem.

2 Likes

200k ENS split evenly among 110 people is 1818 ENS (or just under $20k) per person

as a small clarification related to how much each contributor will get: weighting in the split contract is time based (the longer you’ve been around, the larger your share). so some would get more than 1818, and some would get less

Read more on weighting here, and what the first quarter of the Pilot distribution would be here. this will be updated quarterly as the membership and their respective weights shift.

2 Likes

You are right. It does count as Public Good in this case; you have to thank your organisational structure for that. I had commented the same in support of this proposal here. I would be against such a proposal if the value addition wasn’t being cycled back to the developers directly. For instance, if Gitcoin or Nomic Foundation had made a proposal for discretionary funding of $1,000,000, I personally would find that equivalent to money down the drain.

@alisha.eth: Could you please open the TempCheck thread from locked state? While a proposal is still in the pipeline, we should keep the relevant threads open. Thank you!

1 Like

Yes, I used the even split more to illustrate that the sum isn’t too high. I understand that it won’t be split evenly in the proposal. Clarification is always great, though :slight_smile:

1 Like

The contrast between the reaction to this proposal, and my proposal which sought to reward community contributions speaks volumes.

2 Likes

I am refraining from going there on this thread since Nick believes we are going off the road a lot in our discussions. But your concern goes at the heart of things to fix in ENS DAO. Our subWGs are not funded, community is one step further away yet. That discussion is for another place and time :handshake:

No. The temp check has concluded. The proposal has progressed to a Draft Proposal. All comments related to the Draft Proposal can be posted here, so as not to fragment discussion. Please note, if posts are off-topic and not related to the original post they will be removed.

2 Likes

I disagree. TempCheck doesn’t mention the 100k ENS number which it should. It is a point of contention. It should not be in comments of Draft but in the main body of TempCheck.

Let’s just discuss it here! @AvsA posted this earlier, and I don’t want to see it buried:

I believe the current proposal is 200k vesting for 1 year. And @AvsA’s reduces that to 100k.

The “after that we will reconsider” part sounds like it’s something extra that doesn’t need to be codified into this proposal. It’ll just be handled in a separate proposal a year from now, is that right?

So really what we want to nail down here is what should this initial grant be for: 100k ENS or 200k ENS?

I’m personally for 200k.

1 Like

100k ENS for me is a good start. We may be seeing a downturn in the market and any surplus is a good idea.

3 Likes

I guess I’ll create a poll on this to see what everyone here thinks!

What amount do you want the initial PG Pilot grant to be for:

  • 100k ENS vesting for 1 year
  • 200k ENS vesting for 1 year

0 voters

If this makes it to a Snapshot vote then I suppose we could make it ranked-choice as well, right?

This will depend on whether PG is on board with 100k ENS but it is a great idea!

1 Like

The governance process is set out in the Governance Docs. The Temp Check section states:

Temperature checks are informal and optional; it’s up to you to use the feedback to decide if you want to proceed further with your proposal.

There is no requirement to incorporate feedback, or for the details of the temp check to be included in a draft proposal.

This is up to the party making the proposal.

5 Likes

I see no reason not to just do this so we don’t spend too much time debating the amount! I’m pretty confident, personally, that if given a rank vote of 100k or 200k ENS, 200k will win out.

Funding core devs goes toward solving one of the largest vulnerabilities to Ethereum’s (and therefore, ENS’s) long-term success, and in my view there’s no more pure definition of a web3 public good than the Ethereum blockchain.

My argument for the largest amount we’re comfortable with (looks like 200k) is so public goods organizations get the signal that ENS DAO is serious about funding public goods, and we hear from more of them. It’s really important that these groups know we’re going to to do our best to give them as much as we can afford, and not have every proposal be filled with random accusations of “conflicts of interest” (like what?). :smiley:

2 Likes

I do not agree. ENS DAO Treasury is not a tap that anyone can magically open by saying ‘Public Goods’. The number of zeroes on the grant comes with equal exponents of accountability. I’d like to hear @AvsA’s thoughts on this. There must be a reason why 100k ENS was decided by the PG WG. Please let the stewards tell us how the number was decided before rushing to conclusions.

2 Likes

Sounds great to me — thanks for the well written explanation and reasoning!

1 Like

I’m in favor of this. Despite points raised against this, we’re only using 3.7% of the unclaimed airdrop.

These tokens would otherwise sit uncirculated in our treasury. We should be looking for ways to distribute our governance token to people who are value-aligned with the long-term health of ENS and Ethereum.

If this becomes a proxy payment, we can assess after the vesting period. In the mean time, I am assuming good faith.

6 Likes