Hey ENS community!
Following up on my earlier posts about DAO governance analysis — we’ve made a significant change at ChainSights:
All governance data is now completely free and open. No login, no paywall.
ENS in the DGI:
- Score: 7.7/10 (B) — #9 overall, #1 in Infrastructure
- Human Participation: 9.0 (A+) — exceptional, small holders actually vote
- Grassroots Participation: 8.2 (A) — strong bottom-up engagement
- Power Dynamics: 7.5 (B) — healthy, trending up
- Delegate Engagement: 5.5 (C) — room for improvement
Full profile with charts and trends: chainsights.one/ens
@netto.eth @estmcmxci — would love your take on how this compares with what you’re seeing in anticapture and ENS Pulse. The data is all open now, so easy to cross-reference.
— Mario
Update: Delegate Vote Quality Analysis now live
Quick update for the ENS community — we’ve shipped Delegate Vote Quality scoring across the ecosystem.
We now measure four signals per delegate: Deliberation (time between votes), Independence (vote diversity), Focus (category concentration), and Originality (correlation with top holders).
Key finding across 4,300+ delegates and 24 DAOs: more than 75% score below 5 out of 10 on vote quality.
ENS currently shows a median VQS of 3.2 — placing it in what we call the “Consensus” archetype, where most delegates vote similarly. Not necessarily bad for operational proposals, but worth watching as governance matures.
Full analysis with methodology and DAO archetypes: 75% of DAO Delegates Score Below 5 Out of 10 — Here's What That Means | ChainSights Blog
ENS delegate scores: ENS — GVS 7.4 (B+) | ChainSights
Curious how delegates feel about making vote quality visible. Does this create useful accountability, or does it risk becoming another gameable metric? (We address this question in the article.)