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

I was also confused when i went to vote on snapshot. Personally i was voting for the first two proposals and against the last two because i dont see any harm in taking our time moving responsibility from a proven trustworthy team to an unproven DAO that only just ratified its constitution.

Moving forward in the future we need to use caution when creating a snapshot vote with conditions where people cannot accurately voice their opinions (vote against ).

All in all great post and i appreciate your effort and the teams in remaining accessible and engaged with the community in the forums.

No; voting against all four has the expected effect. Here’s the voting percentages before and after I submit a vote against all four clauses:

Screenshot from 2021-11-25 08-04-26
Screenshot from 2021-11-25 08-30-21

(I’ve since updated my vote to support all four)

1 Like

Alright, that’s good, and definitely not what I expected. The way it is presented is the two options are “Agree” or submit a null vote. Which made it seem to me that only the Agree votes are tallied and that’s the result displayed. Maybe in the future it could be presented like you did in the poll for the retroactive airdrop, where each numbered issue of a proposal has an option for “Support,” “Abstain,” or “Oppose.”

I don’t think Snapshot currently has tri-states for individual options, each option is either selected or not. The actual data that you sign is just an integer array of which choices were selected, like [1,2,3,4]. So in order to allow people to vote on some options but abstain from others on the same proposal, we would have to have 2 options per issue, like:

  • Issue 1 (if selected vote Yes, otherwise vote No)
  • Abstain from Issue 1 (if selected ignore the above line, otherwise ignore this line)

Or 3 options to be more clear:

  • Vote Yes on Issue 1
  • Vote No on Issue 1
  • Abstain from Issue 1
1 Like

Any thoughts splitting the wallets up into subs? For example:

  • Prop1 = treasury.wallet.ensdao.eth
  • Prop2 = reg-con.wallet.ensdao.eth
  • Prop3 = reg.wallet.ensdao.eth
  • Prop4 = rev.wallet.ensdao.eth

Maybe it’s overkill but just a thought.

If you mean names for the different contracts, we have those:

  • DAO wallet: wallet.ensdao.eth
  • Registrar controller: controller.ens.eth
  • Registrar: registrar.ens.eth
1 Like

Oh, I get it now. Yes, cheers!

I’m supportive of this proposal. If we’re seeing active engagement from the DAO and delegates should we consider increasing the minimum quorum? And at bare minimum implement the pr openzeppelin is working on.

2 Likes

The quorum should definitely be significantly higher. The purpose of having a quorum is completely moot if the quorum is reached when 3 or 4 show up :joy:.

2 Likes

I support, as caution is stressed. I think a very gradual (and pre-tested as much as possible) transfer of power to a fresh DAO is always good practice, especially for things that are over-arching. Should this have been the first proposal, many first-time DAO delegates face? Hard to say. I would like to see a timeline of how little power can be transferred at a time, and how long a timespan it can be done over, to take baby steps and make sure all works well as changes are made.

I feel that if Fire Eyes DAO is established enough so as to have already earned the trust of True Names, the ENS DAO here should have some sort of introduction to them, and likely more - some sort of posted CV as to who there are and what they bring to the table.

I’m likening this to establishing an HOA in America. If a HOA management company facilitates the establishment of an HOA for the neighborhood - that management company must be scrutinized. Their efforts are not ever benevolent or altruistic.

1 Like

Hey @Nefty would like to formally introduce myself as a part of Fire Eyes DAO.

Fire Eyes DAO (also seen as :fire: _ :fire: ) is a community governance collective composed of @James @Callum, 0x_lucas and myself.

We’ve all worked deeply in web3 for 5+ years, primarily within the DAO ecosystem. In the past year, we’ve launched the Gitcoin token ($GTC) and the SuperRare token ($RARE) along with doing governance work for Aave (Aavenomics), Balancer (Balancer V2) and Rocket Pool (RPL V3). More on all these projects can be found here.

Our goal is to be a leading voice in decentralized governance and the democratization of public goods.

We’re thankful to have played a small role in the launch of the $ENS token, but are more excited to continue presenting actionable proposals to help further decentralize ENS into the hands of the community.

I’ll let @James chime in on the comments above. I’m personally in favor of this proposal and feel that our reputation speaks for itself as to intentions in which we bring these changes forward.

Cheers!

4 Likes

I think we kinda need to pass this, to really kick in DAO, you have to be taking some risks to move things forward, seems like in this case there is a very fine line between managing risk and really setting things in motion

and I’m totally onboard with @Premm.eth ([Social] Proposal: Transfer ENS Treasury and Contract Ownership - #14 by Premm.eth) with his argument that everything needs to assessed hands on though

1 Like

I had a look at all discussion around this and I’m going to cautiously approve all 4 points, here are key considerations:

  1. I strongly agree with everyone who voiced concerns over moving a lot of responsibility to ENS DAO at such early stage, without testing robustness and reliability of ENS DAO

  2. That being said we need to make this move to give ENS DAO credibility, without transferring some real authority, it is not possible to give DAO this weight it needs to have in eyes of general public

  3. @nick.eth @brantlymillegan are not having considerable reservations about approving all 4, thats not to say, that ENS DAO delegates should blindly follow core team’s guidance, however both of them are delegates now as well and as such their opinions should be taken into consideration

I’m going to vote YES on all 4

I’m supportive of the proposal, thank you for pulling this together.

The only question I had was what were the “response time” differences between the DAO and multi-sig in the event of a downstream compromise (e.g. Chainlink feed failure). Thanks!

p.s. unfortunately, I’m also away from my signing key, so won’t be able to vote within the window. Will resolve this ASAP.

I really appreciate all the lively discussion and questions. I think that bodes well for this DAO. I know that some people think it’s too soon for some of these proposals and while it may be, I think the best way to learn the best is by doing.

It is also a lot of responsibility, but that’s the great part about Web 3.0 code is contract and it’s all about creating trustless decentralized systems.

I’m part of the Bankless DAO and often it feels like we’re building a bus while driving down the highway at 65 mph. We’re forging new paths here so it’s going to be challenging and we’re going to make mistakes and that’s okay. We just keep talking and discussing and I think we’ll do just fine.

All four measures passed! Below is a copy of the email I just sent the multisig keyholders.

Hi Keyholders,

The day has arrived! You have probably noticed that the new ENS DAO just voted overwhelmingly to request the transfer of a set of key powers from the ENS multisig to the DAO:

  1. Transfer all ETH and USDC held by multisig.ens.eth to the DAO’s timelock contract at wallet.ensdao.eth.
  2. Call transferOwnership on the contracts at controller.ens.eth and 0xb9d374d0fe3d8341155663fae31b7beae0ae233a (the price oracle), passing in the address of wallet.ensdao.eth.
  3. Call transferOwnership on the contract at registrar.ens.eth, passing in the address of wallet.ensdao.eth.
  4. Call setSubnodeOwner on the root, passing in keccak256(‘reverse’) and the address of wallet.ensdao.eth.

Accordingly, I have submitted multisig transaction 27 for your approval. This is a multi-call with 6 actions:

  1. Transfer 4369.256902770582850334 ETH to wallet.ensdao.eth (0xFe89cc7aBB2C4183683ab71653C4cdc9B02D44b7) as per #1 above.
  2. Transfer 10,318,098.311236 USDC to wallet.ensdao.eth as per #1 above.
  3. Call transferOwnership(wallet.ensdao.eth) on controller.ens.eth (0x283Af0B28c62C092C9727F1Ee09c02CA627EB7F5), as per #2 above.
  4. Call transferOwnership(wallet.ensdao.eth) on 0x63FaF46Dadc9676745836289404B39136622B821 as per #2 above. This is the current price oracle address; note it differs from the address above, as the proposal mistakenly cited the original (Maker-based) price oracle, not the current one.
  5. Call transferOwnership(wallet.ensdao.eth) on registrar.ens.eth (0x57f1887a8BF19b14fC0dF6Fd9B2acc9Af147eA85), as per #3 above.
  6. Call setSubnodeOwner(keccak256('reverse'), wallet.ensdao.eth), as per #4 above.

Approving this transaction will transfer the bulk of the multisig’s responsibilities and control over ENS to the DAO; more details are available in the Snapshot proposal linked above. Note that it will not transfer ownership of the ENS root itself, which will remain the responsibility of the multisig for now.

It’s been a great pleasure working with you all and we would not have gotten here without you. Every one of you has been a crucial part of helping ensure ENS’s success, and you have my everlasting gratitude for that. I hope to see you participating in the future of the ENS DAO as it takes on the responsibilities you have held for ENS during its infancy.

Regards,

Nick Johnson

BEGIN KEYBASE SALTPACK SIGNED MESSAGE. kXR7VktZdyH7rvq v5weRa0zk98BKe6 QZTKISVF3kFZn7x k1Q2RrnAiDWji6m o2FdKbdxo4pWeGT iVhe8vBW1v0H3oB fsw1JBSTKNxOD7S mgAgfspHAM9fBgo bfmxBXg0bVXnvzl MliIciHJYz0eu3G hlNfXimOrIEq0q2 fRFcRM5pbHYucXe 94hP18XtNumw6S1 QdOPBeSQl9JgH3A awFNZSiocOCXXAd GMqtE5VL0MK16UZ ATOAQMo3vMFrCYS qPR7goCxMxLXSu7 BR2tyBaAnVdSVPt 5nDdB3xMvMtmRZV VRNPWs16EONh1Mp 5baEzYHGyKs9jMc MUT5ThuW7uqaBxO 3XhWmDiXXek6YMw uolBHPmPF4k4IPa Kq17GoPNS2257gv KUOyD4nzEo2N8Gx wGsryUqTi3SonR3 luJdONOf3X7h9TR 92VQsWReB7X5nPd GytSVvXCQGLdTOV jbmGLVW1JkC77ex SGJlaTxjp3B3jjc kaVi6DkglfKqxhB QPRLs0RbRHr48Zg ZOqlTCR7RGYXsjG saSroM1Ro6LH7wC wObk7hK3i1UcHeB upyKFz2J4EufoeI AloihzhpGqJcxxk n4IqKBd3DOQSlJM JhvJGZ1bXZBdC2z LjQGsuNStGCCKOl QBv10sezxVYvIUP 6hYlUtmgOnGjvBg 7J45HddOLEjVGNz rb5C1bNhVLGV1qe VOwqBhLF9aAb69Z 2b98dp8VkUy9ali i70OcmpuRfwoR3K ELgpHWgIsYLhPy2 dJvCvpGzsOkpHNT QF1DQk3BmyOafdK IznbsCDlQyeKwDv b6LCidSFydSGYzi JJwh3bgNiO75mID GpkxCCSHhDwnfzL DZ46JQBv0xwvO8R h60T01Iub60ojJt EH3DL9l4pc1sbjq 2ehRMnRhtCUCLwQ 8EaXuLZITBaskW0 uYCKeF97SgT9DEP WRMVSiUltBMoJMo utOwubFeLKGJoEY OX5Rmf26JIJI227 h9TR934VT49Oo4m d8yPdOuUVUowhXP gSzHO0jcqKFMri3 qOfn9MfdLVjEdzt 46k0dQYltWamjX5 rfNBFBSamFODTk3 8LmFh7hYLvr9XsD vgAGh1ACGRLxRo4 EmCSTrvo7efMcV9 yHUMBdnUfcMmDal EGZyFLJWFpmmzBL GA9SnDN5obxGJBx uS12IksK4AHFuvc 8TUpcsHzQsNS8ny Wf4jRIbRr8KiaYc pBzO23wKhqdUOBJ 3VR1mWhR6e7IXkD bfDpZTK7stpaWZj drzXYo7HL6mtuiU df8PfS3XDiJFi6N C8nfmvpcth5m20t slDMrDS3e6jAhkL w5OsT4kmXkw9GO0 8nxDGIZY0wSjoz7 3lpzr6YIsuM5X2L jZb6YzPvu30BQaS Wb3PFab7HOEc7dL 2nOQWkxbOLIn3FJ mUGklqzWXRDDVUk 6TWrfmnEMy9btQ7 93baxsyf1LQ8hcY liCBXkSPheZHQ8Z SYjrpAkt713q45X gqjn8aYKPfXi4XU S6xkEFydSGYzT7u r6LgIgTxgRXr21T JlSFN7UjkrRXQFH cn7QBrG8EekSDn9 HXlOa11jFn3k1ub Fkk2mKOKS8saPRg aOgrhZrjHy4cgRZ yb7kUkuOA5K6epm yWT5MTbLDnq4q1N WH9trdViLJbg28H 359gcxmSwNEjecp PgIaSzTYfoasFyd SGYzT7ur6LgIgTx gRXr21TJlSFN7Uj krRXQFHcn7QBrG8 EekSDn9HXlOa135 R6DP3acZfxlqcbR n3v9lgt5Cr5Dzbf DOAmaMI5eieFjRK wOBQ07Hs3W64kQk iU8BhlR3swMamZF 9AuUzr8Jpz0x33l vemOGjMLJUX8E4E PYAKQfCpVVhT7mJ llT5BUZa6991vfG pj2RJj7wS3ZWfKx cPOHUjsd0gU1lUJ 912YEmXZVwDCI6u M8cB6JYsoEKHQEl 7h9TR932zqDHHqK IdXky0JfRRnQIat symaZofGzinX2Ok pHQPPgdwAG0imvA fWySZLW08bbMKFv 415f60iFgTgQQVB hQ792lcg6dMgJ5k ephKjKpc3vifcAW Lp4tqwU3g7g0QbP R4IEf737zAMY8SG FMhS6u2L4dPWf9G gH7v8TpQMb7Qv1a fqsp6ZGiCEDTuta NoubqfuT3HIuaTZ emIHoCcOOBgMt16 JEyLMJ8sz2S0XhN Wb2KkFnDxiPGoMv gqfOERL4dTx2fW3 GO7SsG4TGImSfYd HRtnDhxjV6Y8n4t 6Ms1qKSDxdqLKYd T1s8RLCnp4AuuDU 5PSNlZdP8IddLBR 8fOR0wF5lpP9bDU Rl48Ni3xWl4KsMJ VZTC3fn58j0CO3S yL23zQxymFOnUdB Qmu9z8hDHq7OQPr 1oCk1Ot9sJN5obx GJBxxX8YWcRE1zG 8agZte5xZaXPQXe rqG7dr3W7h9TR93 0j7hAsjutDp3N0Q VB92zMNE8DIWBZh uFzlYp7g3u8qKPF 19wbmPxZWMogmWA ZBlWncMArhu7B73 PvRPE1HmNSSvIKA 3ulDmZHR3OfxjX3 mWG9tl6u5cK2oAa 8GRbRHr4uAPU9s5 rLp8inyI1nNKVwD Wgwcttr7hkNb6Ip S4etxakTgnYwB51 3SZtYjoqYCFzJ6U paEpB9qNwz7vnOH RM3LegcoV3xCN1I jwNWqhdGcTXjKhf 983elIF724yRMZA vwN13Jq1cDdx5Gf FU1kPAUsAwQz3jr ALwXgjjVYQQHCCE DzZp4b5cBHmoCR2 YuBoktMgaqqgLfE LscG3jSQQmHE4y0 9ZoA6LQnhbTgNV7 mX9jzw9RHLxG6QL wqCE3QQVKLKbfmS 5fY3CuLr7H05uVy RzMe8biDKp0NkZc e7I7goCxJGTiWZM vks69TRZfF24GGn wkw54A9dxT9Lngx LRmnLED6RtavUmB GCFVskUqbqpb7br B9nGwez1kHt5b1R 8mUSK1fPLzSE8Cb bJ3YWP18TZLn3j6 oHyAZbExVarmJiX WR5RmMlFz6hOt7T 3aTGY6riIW9oVG0
WwuZx7WGDlR8GPu ea7f40EGA79pCf5 yKsOhSgmiknx90i 1E24y50qQQO7Ot4 NELNJHqeU0DJErV C6mkthI9psZmx3s RQXa9gRbRHr5rq0 es6tyfuSUuEtcGE PZ2QiBPZ0dm5cpm 0JsWRb2RvsP421s eqCHezJI15Qqu5p ekW1CQT0AXoTxzv QNRm0Ukij6rsxJ2 l1LinLUAKBTxHgc NF6055ofIqCEdSr N3XGrNrqaGDRtGR uwFesTmQdjljaUb UuoUOal2M. END KEYBASE SALTPACK SIGNED MESSAGE.

8 Likes

coinbase didn’t vote

so angry at that

This has now been executed!

https://etherscan.io/tx/0x39effaa3280ee43c84af8db7936d0bf982bc72ea2f50af30bdcd5461eff6cdb5

10 Likes