This feels unnecessarily hyperbolic to me, and it makes me uncomfortable when it is used as justification to move quickly.
It is worth noting that ENS DAO’s survival is not at risk. Even if all income completely stopped tomorrow, the DAO can function just fine. That’s what autonomous is supposed to mean, right?
Now, if we’re talking about the survival of ENS Labs, and “surviving” means continuing to operate on a ~$4 million a year budget, even conceding that amount of revenue is actually 100% necessary, there are plenty of options that could be explored before experiencing a “catastrophe” or existential crisis.
Here are just a few I can think of off the top of my head…
- solicit/run on donations and/or grants
- implement royalties for secondary market sales
- accept stablecoins and/or fiat for new registrations
- liquidate some $ENS from the treasury
- raise registration prices
This isn’t even getting into the most obvious mitigation, which would be to eliminate unnecessary operating costs. Nor is this touching on any more creative options like selling one and two letter .eth domains, for example.
But I digress. My point is, it makes me uncomfortable when FUD is used as justification for financial decisions. There is no rush, and there are always options.
I am in favor of a less aggressive deployment, like @James said, perhaps across six or twelve months. The endowment fund should not be a higher priority than funding the next 24 months, which would be covered under the proposed Sell ETH into USDC if it is passed.
All of that said, I greatly appreciate what you’re doing, and I appreciate your transparency and patience as we collectively explore DAO governance. Just wanted to offer my commentary, for the record.
Thank you.