[EP 6.28] [Executable] Collective Working Group Funding Request (Oct 2025)

[netto.eth]

Abstract

This proposal executes all three Working Group funding requests for the October 2025 funding window, as approved in social proposals EP 6.24.1, EP 6.24.2, and EP 6.24.3. Each was ratified via Snapshot and follows the ENS DAO’s standard funding process. This executable aggregates the transfers into a single transaction set.

Proposal Components

Working Group	Destination (Multisig)	Amount
Meta-Governance	ENS Meta-Gov Main Multisig	379,000 USDC (0 ETH, 0 ENS)
Ecosystem	ENS Ecosystem Main Multisig	470,000 USDC (0 ETH, 0 ENS)
Public Goods	ENS Public Goods Main Multisig	110,000 USDC + 15 ETH

Total requested: 959,000 USDC + 15 ETH

Meta-Governance Working Group

Funding Request (EP 6.24.1): The Meta-Governance Working Group requested 379,000 USDC from the ENS DAO treasury to fund its operations through April 2026. This funding covers anticipated expenses for the term, including stewardship compensation, contract audits, DAO tooling, and discretionary initiatives, while maintaining a prudent reserve to ensure continuity if future funding is delayed.

Ecosystem Working Group

Funding Request (EP 6.24.2): The Ecosystem Working Group requested 470,000 USDC to support its operations through April 2026. The working group is responsible for growing and improving the ENS ecosystem by funding ENS-specific or ENS-centric builders and projects. The budget will support hackathons, grants, ecosystem support (including bug bounties), and community events to strengthen ENS tools and community growth.

Public Goods Working Group

Funding Request (EP 6.24.3): The Public Goods Working Group requested 110,000 USDC and 15 ETH from the ENS DAO treasury to fund its initiatives through April 2026. The funding will be used for strategic grants and builder grants that support impactful public goods, developer tools, and ecosystem projects aligned with ENS’s long-term vision. This allocation, combined with the working group’s existing balance, will cover expected expenses for the term while leaving a small reserve to ensure continuity if future funding is delayed.

Specification

This proposal includes three USDC transfers via the transfer(address,uint256) function on the USDC token contract and one direct ETH transfer from the ENS DAO treasury.

Transfers:

1. Meta-Gov Safe – 379,000 USDC
   0x91c32893216dE3eA0a55ABb9851f581d4503d39b
2. Ecosystem Safe – 470,000 USDC
   0x2686A8919Df194aA7673244549E68D42C1685d03
3. Public Goods Safe – 110,000 USDC + 15 ETH
   0xcD42b4c4D102cc22864e3A1341Bb0529c17fD87d

---

Calldata

Available on Tally as a draft

[blockful]

Draft proposal calldata security review

Proposed calldata matches the expected outcome. The simulation and tests of the proposal draft can be found here.

It can be checked by cloning the repo and running:
forge test --match-path "src/ens/proposals/ep-6-25/*" -vv

Note: draft was done by @daostrat.eth on Nov 19.

[netto.eth]

To clarify in the context of the other proposals currently under discussion:

The funding requests were already approved by the DAO earlier this month. This post follows the established process.

If the proposal to wind down the Working Groups passes, then this budget request will not move forward.

If the Retro proposal passes, or if neither proposal passes, the Working Groups still have commitments and will require a budget.

This will only be posted onchain once there is definition of those proposals. Doing it earlier could create unnecessary confusion for delegates. Open to suggestions on how to proceed.

[netto.eth]

Update: Proposal is ready to be submitted onchain, as we have definition on the proposals mentioned above. It will be submitted in the next days, along with other onchain proposals that are expected to go live.

[5pence.eth]

@netto.eth

the Working Groups still have commitments and will require a budget.

What exactly are these commitments?

We have stewards that have stated they plan to step down at the end of this year, and Term 7 is now going to be very different than what the delegates expected when they voted for this funding.

This is over a million dollars that, if executed, would be sent to multisigs that won’t have the full compliment of signers available or committed stewards to oversee the funds.

It looks like:
Metagov safe currently has over 150k
Ecosystem safe currently has over 200k
Public Goods safe currently has over 50k

Could we wait on this transaction until we have clarity on who will be receiving and directing this funding?

[Arnold]

@5pence.eth

We have stewards that have stated they plan to step down at the end of this year, and Term 7 is now going to be very different than what the delegates expected when they voted for this funding.

From section 10.3 in the ENS constitution.

10.3. Each working group multi-sig must have four keyholders, made up of three current elected Stewards for that working group and the Secretary of the DAO for that Term, with no other keyholders permitted.

Would be it possible to get roll call in this thread who what that would look like? cc/ing current leads + secretary. @netto.eth , @slobo.eth , @simona_pop, @Limes

Depending on the composition, this should indicate how the next proposal should be structured, echoing @nick.eth’s point on WG terms. Which per section 12.1 may be amended via a social proposal.

12.1 Amendments
These rules may be amended at any time by passing a Social Proposal.

As @Coltron.eth stated, this is also possibly the first time we are stress testing the WG constitution as there could be a scenario where a WG does not meet the keyholders defintion.

When an elected steward chooses to retire. Per 7.3 we need to run an election to fill the relevant gap/s.

[nick.eth]

The issue of steward pay for an extended term is also unclear. Absent an amendment, the only way stewards are allowed to be paid is via a collective proposal. 5.18, which is in effect, provides per-steward-per-month, per-steward-per-term and total-per-term values, with no indication of which value prevails if the term exceeds 12 months.

Unless stewards are happy going unpaid, I’d suggest that this proposal needs to include an amendment to the working group rules to allow for pro-rata compensation to stewards in the event of an extended term, and an amendment to the meta-gov WG request to fund that allowance.