ENS Retro Modification to Support Co-Created Reforms

[mikemetagov]

The Metagov research team leading the Retrospective Evaluation would like to provide an update on its work and respond to several discussions regarding the research results.

Overall we want to create more opportunity to co create final recommendations with ENS and to that end the research team is proposing:

1. A three-week, no-cost extension. Under this extension, drafting of the Final Report will begin on April 21 and will be delivered on or before May 5. This extension allows additional time for dialogue that can help contextualize and refine the final recommendations. Our goal is to also include standards, templates, and other practical tools that help operationalize the recommendations, as informed by the feedback we have received so far.

To conclude Phase 2, the research team has held nine hours of office hours, presented findings at two Working Group meetings, posted the preliminary results report for feedback, and provided a publicly available recorded presentation. Despite these efforts, we have received limited direct feedback on the preliminary results. We believe additional time for co-creation can significantly improve the quality and return on investment of this research for ENS.

2. The research team is also proposing the formation of a representative advisory body composed of:

• Two Stewards

• One Delegate

• One Service Provider

• Two members of ENS Labs

• The Metagov research team

This body would have a two-week window to:

A. Develop recommendations on which findings to prioritize and how to sequence implementation — for DAO approval.

B. Develop the initial Master Plan (if this recommendation is adopted).

C. Identify requirements for the final research report.

D. After the final report is delivered, submit the recommended priorities and Master Plan to the DAO for a formal vote.

The important takeaway is that the research team support representative decision making on necessary reforms but the critical issue is that there needs to be a formal process for moving these reforms forward. The Metagov research team is prepared to facilitate discussions within this body and provide rapid research support as needed, all within the scope of the proposed no-cost extension.

While the research team does not endorse any particular structural change proposal , it emphasizes that the research recommendations are compatible with any decentralized governance structure ENS adopts. These recommendations should be viewed as the minimum threshold for sustainable transparency, accountability, and performance. Doing less than this entails accepting, and communicating to the DAO, the associated opportunity costs in decision-making.

No matter what structural form ENS governance ultimately takes, the primary barrier to the ecosystem’s sustainability remains the same: current decision-making processes incur excessive opportunity costs and inefficiencies due to a lack of reliable, evidence-based data. This reliance on circumstantial, anecdotal, or unevenly sourced information contributes to political friction, posturing, and the risk of spoiler dynamics that will continue degrading ENS performance and sustainability.

Please consider the research team a tool to support these efforts so please reach out and let us know how we can best do that given our mandate. If there are changes that can be made to what we are proposing here then please let us know.

Mike- (@MCooperResearch)

[mikemetagov]

As an update on this. The current agreement with ENS states that Phase 3 of the Retro will begin around March 31st so unless the no cost extension is approved the Metagov research team will proceed with the agreement in place and begin Phase 3 on April 1 and prepare the final reporting.

[estmcmxci]

Hey @mikemetagov, appreciate the suggestion to form a representative advisory body — the proposed composition strikes a reasonable balance across the key stakeholders in ENS DAO.

This approach addresses the concern several delegates raised about moving forward on structural changes without first discussing or incorporating key considerations and outputs from the research, and establishes a clear accountability threshold.

To move forward, we’ll need a Temp Check per the Governance Process to gauge whether there is sufficient will to proceed.

—

Regarding the structure of the proposed body: my concern is the methodology for forming it. A standard election process wouldn’t be appropriate here, given that some seats are fixed by design — ENS Labs and the Metagov research team are invariants, not elected positions.

Because the proposal to expand the ENS Foundation Board preceded the suggestion to form the advisory body, it should inform the formation methodology — specifically, the variable seats (Delegate, Service Provider, Stewards) could be nominated by ENS Labs rather than filled through a formal election, given the time constraints and the absence of an established process for doing so.

The reasoning behind this is that we are giving procedural seniority to the entity that created the ENS DAO, respecting that fact, while allowing for flexibility in how the next iteration evolves according to its constituencies’ inputs.

—

Regarding timelines, realistically, the DAO would need at least a week to mull over its options, and since this coming week is ETHCC, I don’t expect any consensus in the short term. I wouldn’t take a lack of a formal position here as a sign that this isn’t something the DAO wants to do—it’s just the nature of distributed work.

To that extent, I’m happy to draft a Temp Check to formalize the proposal. I’ll share one with the community by early next week, prior to March 31st.

[estmcmxci]

Update: I’ve drafted the temp check and am sharing it privately. If you’d like to read it before it posts, send me a message on the forum or on Telegram: Contact @estmcmxci