[EP1] [Social] Proposal: Transfer ENS Treasury and Contract Ownership

[nick.eth]

@serenae

Great writeup. Just so I’m understanding correctly, the root node and DNSSEC contract isn’t being requested at this time because there is no notion of a Registrant for TLDs besides .eth , so technically speaking the root could update the controller for any of those second-level domains at any time, right?

It’s more because the .eth TLD is “locked” - it can’t be changed by anyone any longer - while the same is not true for the other TLDs.

@serenae

Just wondering and may be a tangent, but are the second-level domains for the other non- .eth TLDs also technically ERC-721 tokens as well, it’s just that they’re all just owned by the root account?

They’re not; presently only .eth 2LDs are 721 NFTs. We’re working on a name wrapper contract that would let you wrap any name at any level into an 1155 NFT, though.

@simona_pop

Agree - a bit more detail would be very helpful. Also, re “These powers are not being requested immediately” - when would they be requested, is there a cadence etc. does this prop need to be broken down in phases etc.

That’s really up to the DAO and the keyholders. Personally I’d like to see the DAO demonstrate a track record of sensible governance before asking the keyholders to hand over the most easily abused of the powers.

@daylon.eth

This is essentially a symbolic first step then, right? What other purpose would ownership serve without control? Not to downplay your petition, it’s great, I just want some clarification on this part. Because obviously there are not any mechanisms in place yet for how the DAO would or could control these functions, other than proposals and voting. However I do understand and agree with the symbolic intent behind this being first, if that is the main purpose.

It’s worth enumerating the powers.

Ownership of the price oracle gives the DAO the ability to:

1. Set the contract used to get the USD-ETH price.
2. Change the price per year of each length of domain name.

Ownership of the registrar controller gives the DAO the ability to:

1. Replace the price oracle contract.
2. Withdraw accumulated funds to the DAO treasury.
3. Set the minimum and maximum period between the first and second transactions of the registration process.

Ownership of the .eth registrar gives the DAO the ability to:

1. Add and remove controller contracts.
2. Set the resolver contract for .eth

Ownership of the .reverse TLD gives the DAO the ability to:

1. Replace the reverse registrar for Ethereum addresses.
2. Create new types of reverse resolution (For example, bitcoin addresses) and update them.

@lefterisjp

What is the reason for holding this one back at this point? Just to do decentralization in stages since at the moment the team fears the DAO may not be ready for this responsibility?

Of all the powers it’s the only one that can be easily abused to deny someone else ownership of their ENS name. I don’t think that’s likely to happen, but I think caution is warranted.

@lefterisjp

As others mentioned in the thread it would be nice to also then think a bit on how the DAO should manage its treasury. Should all fund movements be requiring a vote + proposal? (super slow).

Should a smaller amount of funds be transferred to a treasury manager multisig for easier/faster management and act as a kind of a hot wallet? etc.

@lefterisjp

As others mentioned in the thread it would be nice to also then think a bit on how the DAO should manage its treasury. Should all fund movements be requiring a vote + proposal? (super slow).

Should a smaller amount of funds be transferred to a treasury manager multisig for easier/faster management and act as a kind of a hot wallet? etc.

I would like to see the DAO establish budgets for each working group, that can be accessed via a multisig controlled by representatives appointed for each WG. I think @alisha.eth will be working to roll out proposals for this based on Gitcoin’s experience in the coming days and weeks.