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

Thanks for all the replies nick, learning much from your responses


In regards to the PR you linked, it only handles the case of below quorum → above quorum. For cases that low quorum is already reached with overwhelming concensus, people may still not be go vote and a whale or group can flip the results last minute (not sure how feasible it is to round up that much vote)

1 Like

Absolutely; this would need to be accompanied by increasing the quorum. It means that we only need to take seriously those proposals that reach quorum.

The quorum was set so low initially because we did not know what level of participation we would get. It can be raised by the DAO in future.

1 Like

I don’t understand why there wasn’t a “none of these” option, which is yet another reason voting felt pretty trivial in this instance. Heck, Fire Eyes DAO could pass the proposal with only their own delegated votes at this point.

1 Like

There was a bug in the snapshot UI that wouldn’t let you vote for none. They’ve since fixed it - and if you already voted you can revise your vote. Just click “vote” without any options selected.


That is great, but the outcome is counted as the percentage in favor of each of the four sections. Since there is no percentage displayed for not voting in favor of any of them, it reflects in the results as if I didn’t vote at all.

1 Like

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.


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:.


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.



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