Regardless of how we feel personally ENS DAO and DAO FUNDS should remain neutral unless it’s put to a vote. Not tweeting out about things that would require a vote to do before it’s been put to a vote.
I imagine Nick didn’t think it would be such a big fuss, probably just a passing thought.
We have a whole process for voting on things, and it starts with a temp check. No vote is ever just posted to Snapshot or onchain without prior discussion.
Besides, I don’t think you want a world where I submit a vote for every passing thought that crosses my mind - no delegate would get a moment’s rest!
I get that. But there are people really upset about these tweets. Just putting it out there I saw all your tweets and replies.
I don’t understand why people are so upset. I think it’s a nice sentiment and I don’t see how it would impact anyone negatively. Besides, it was just a tweet.
“Should remain neutral”
That’s up to the community to the decide which is the point of the DAO. Nick is not the only person in the DAO, TNL is not the group in the DAO, the community is the DAO. So let’s decide.
I’m for donating the funds, it’s a good will gesture and broadcasts an important message regarding openness in the community. Frankly, several key figures in the more public ENS community (Twitter) seem to have very strong opinions on political issues that most would consider unacceptable and unfair. And the same people voiced their opinions against this good will gesture of donating funds.
If you’re a leader, your responsibility should be to maintain the attitude of the community to be as fair and open as possible.
I could be wrong, and others might feel strongly against this but I feel I should speak up.
Having strong political views as individuals is a completely separate issue than wanting to use the DAO as a platform to make a political gesture.
As it stands, it would, in almost every circumstance, be a breach of the DAO’s constitution to use DAO funds to make charitable donations to organisations or initiatives outside of web3.
Article 3 of the constitution is clear: DAO funds may be used to support ecosystem growth and development—any remaining funds may be used to fund public goods within web3.
With respect to the idea that the DAO should set aside registration fees from objectionable name registrations for some specific purpose, I fear that this would be both a logistically and socially challenging exercise.
How, for instance, does one determine what is objectionable, while also taking into account the intentions of the registrant?
Perhaps a compromise could be acknowledging that the DAO does receive protocol revenue from the registration of objectionable names, and seeking to acknowledge the situation, in part, by rolling out a public goods grants program that attempts to boost the participation and success of different groups or communities in web3, as the DAO sees fit.
There is a Public Goods working group weekly call at 2pm ET on Tuesday, September 6th. You can join the call through this link. Anyone interested in discussing this further is welcome to join.
We discussed this topic at length at the PG group today. While I can’t speak for all this is my impression:
We’re still too early. While the KKK.eth name registration is what started this process, we don’t know if it’s actually going to be used to support the KKK organization. It’s reasonable to assume it could be just a 3 letter collector (the registrant is a 1000k club member). It could be very well used as an anti-KKK site. We should wait until something is being used for something clearly objectionable.
There’s few instances in which the DAO might be considered as making considerable money from objectionable names. The most expensive moment is the premium release of a name, in which an auction happens, but we don’t see what the name is for yet. For an active decentralized website it will probably be paying a few bucks per year. In that case we can easily gather donations to an anti-cause if we’re talking about a few dollars per year. If we were using harberguer taxes it would mean that more popular domains would pay more money for their renewals but it’s not the case.
If we were to see a objectionable use then we should discuss this again. It might require either an amendment of article 3 to allow compensation of externalities (something I’ve always believed to be necessary and said so on my delegate candidacy thread) or to really stretch the definition of “web3 public good”, like saying it was an initiative to bring more people in the ecossystem.
TLDR: We don’t need to think about it now.
The tax you mentioned and political view both need to stay out of ens DAO eco system. End of story. If you fill politics is your way run for city council. Just my thoughts. But as always when the time comes it should be put to a vote.
Harberguer taxes were one of the initial ways that we imagined renewal fees would go and are quite crucial to a lot of ethereum projects. You should get more acquainted with them and the history of ENS.
Votes are fundamental politics. It seems you are saying “stay out of politics” in the same way natural food is “chemical free”. Of course, something like this would be up to vote. But it is not being considered now so we can leave the heated debate for later.
I am well aware of this tax sir. This tax is take is only being brought up again because of Vitalik tweets his thoughts. Thanks for your input though. If this tax was put in place it would allow people to force people out of identities they have created doing this. One negative out of a lot more.
On the topic of kkk.eth-
I believe that this a focal point and testament of the decentralization values that ENS has proclaimed and intends to comply with in all aspects. This is to include the infringement of names or discrimination towards any and all names. It’s Important to remember that once a name leaves the grace period and enters the premium stage; ENS DAO or any official counterparts shall have no basis and will not have basis on contributing to when an end user decides to claim and register a name for ’X’ price.
In this instance or any other future instance; regarding the DAO and any name should remain neutral and free from discriminating on name registrations utilizing ENS contracts for transferring, receiving or acting as a mechanism for any interaction involving assets or funds from any sale and registration of any name that —
is socially appropriated and or deemed as an unacceptable social group, enclave or subculture in society.
exhibits sentiment and general consensus of any personal or institutional views that would include religious, spiritual or moral constructs that a majority have favor against.
arbitrary or obvious sequences of letters or words that may or may not be broadly accepted in a public or private manner and or represent specific groups of any institution
sentiment of active ENS DAO members, community or governance deciding who can and can’t use ENS is a conflict within a global namespace as a public good / service / item made available to all.
And the matter shall only be put to vote if the said namespace and ENS name is used specifically to:
-promote any obvious and deliberate acts of violence or influence with intent to carry out such acts that would cause real physical bodily harm on any persons, animal or multiples of.
-promote any obvious and deliberate acts of terrorism or influence with intent to carry out such acts that would cause real physical bodily harm on any persons, animal or multiples of.
-promote any obvious and deliberate acts of mass chaos or influence with intent to carry out such acts that would cause real physical bodily harm on any persons, animal or multiples of.
–promote any obvious and deliberate acts that would threaten the national security of any nation or cause issue to severely disrupt functions of a government or influence with intent to carry out such acts that would cause real physical bodily harm on any persons, animal or multiples of.
Until we see such instance(s) occur, for the purpose of practicing decentralization the matter should remain neutral and not be infringed upon.
I have not intentions of support or affiliation of said name. Please do not misconstrue the nature of my response
And what are you suggesting to get the donation out in: $ENS or $ETH tokens?
I brought it up because that’s the firs system that I proposed for ENS names as far as 2016. We decided against it and I’m showing another reason it’s good not to have it.