Agree.
Plus it would be healthy to have someone from the DAOs WG to be part of the moderators team, it’s not only a learning experience but also a good way to connect directly with the DAO/TNL when needed.
Added to clarify: with a subgroup and a budget assigned.
All current moderators are members of DAO WG’s that I’m aware of. Learn docs, for example.
Thanks for all the details!
I think it’s quite obvious that ENS DAO first priority should be funding TNL.
The sum is also not high for an annual budget of an organization, so I fully support it.
@vegayp Thanks for your read and feedback! We will add a section on allocation of funds to this proposal.
@inplco Thanks so much for weighing in! I agree that both the educational component and conference engagement is/has been a shared responsibility. In terms of the educational component, the grand vision is to work on what could turn into the "ENS Institute or “ENS University” where people can learn about all things blockchain in general and of course ENS in particular. We can become THE destination for web3 onboarding and education. I wonder if this education vision animates anyone else?
Totally does. We can start by completing and formally publishing the Learn Docs initiative that the (now dissolved) Community Working Group picked up in Term 1. Check it out here: https://ens.gitbook.io/learn-ens/getting-started/welcome
I can’t think of any better way for the DAO to help ENS than this.
Happy to see this included in the formal proposal as well.
That’s a big cheque to write. I hope it will be cashed 
Made a few edits to the draft proposal.
Thanks for putting this together and sharing it @khori.eth!
Looks great. It’s cool to see the TNL team growing and continuing to deliver more and more for ENS.
Getting this stream going will be an awesome way to kick off the next term.
Thank you @TNL!
+1 on continuing that work - it’s imperative to have a good educational framework and perhaps establish some best practices when it comes to better flows for the ecosystem. ENS could lead the way here…
This is amazing Khori!
Thanks for the modifications, I love the roadmap section, I think it’s super important. Great job!
I fully support the this proposal to fund TNL. These funds are much needed to continue the development of the ENS ecosystem and help ensure the long-term viability of the protocol.
Any of my questions have been covered by the other posters. I look forward to the quarterly reports and communications with the DAO.
I am in support of this proposal. Thank you TNL for all your contributions to ENS.
Funding TNL is crucial, probably now more than ever. In favor of this. 
🫡🫡🫡
So, playing devils advocate here. $4.5 million is quite a lot of cash. There is some visibility on what is being paid for in terms of historical work as well as future work but I am curious as to why there is not complete transparency?
Who does TrueNames employ, and how much do they get paid? I appreciate that people might not want their salaries being posted publicly but 5 devs on $500k is vastly different to 25 devs on $100k. Who the devs are also makes a huge difference - same as in a traditional organisation, you’d happily pay money for top talent.
Marketing. The ENS code is really good (I’ve spent a LOT of time reading and tinkering), but I’m unclear of the development direction going forward. Subdomains (that everyone seems to be going mad for) are cool, but not (imo) game changing. The ‘web2’ domain name system is conceptually fairly simple (although under the hood horrendously complex). I am curious as to why marketing isn’t being pushed more at this point?
Not in a team-Twitter ‘shill my bags’ kind of way, but rather in a ‘get more people using ENS to see if there is actually demand for it, and what its actually being used for kind of way’. I think ENS is great, and own quite a few. My friends and family think it’s stupid. Its new technology. In 5 years they may (I hope) look back and think ‘huh, I was wrong’ but that requires them to find out about it from someone that isn’t me.
There seems to be a distinct lack of marketing or desire to market from True Names and I am curious if it is for similar reasons to those that I encounter in my own dev work… namely, that I am a developer I love tinkering/building/learning and have no clue how to market a product. If so, surely more of a ‘plan’ needs to be thought through before just building features that arguably no-one wants?
Hey @clowes.eth,
Welcome to the community! Thanks for chiming in. All thoughts and opinions are valid.
In this thread we’re trying to refine this funding proposal for TNL, so we’re really looking for very specific feedback around items that should be changed/omitted/included in the specific proposal at the top of the post.
For instance, it sounds like you’d like TNL to include the names and salaries of the developers in the proposal.
That could be a valid and specific request to make, although I don’t know how much support that request would get. The DAO hasn’t traditionally managed the TNL personnel on a granular level like that. TNL is in a much better position to make those decisions than the DAO members, and the DAO has typically given TNL the benefit of the doubt since, as you pointed out, TNL has been doing a fantastic job to date.
Your ideas on marketing spend are also valid thoughts, but unless there is a specific ask relating to increasing, decreasing, or itemization in this proposal, it might be better to a start a separate thread around marketing ideas that allows for a more open ended discussion. You might even find some active conversation threads on the forum that are specific to marketing concepts that you can chime in on. There are also other threads focused on upcoming ENS features that you might want to search through and comment on.
Thanks for joining in the conversation. The DAO absolutely needs multiple perspectives, but help us to keep these proposal threads as narrowly focused as possible.
I am in support of the proposal and happy to support all initiatives for bringing more public education, marketing and communications around TNL! (Please share any links to these efforts)
I would respectfully request that the contingency be reduced from 10% to 1% prior to approval.
Here’s why
Assuming that ENS continues to approve their budget for 5+ years at this fixed rate, ENS DAO would have allocated ~$2M for “contingency.” It may be distasteful that each year 10% of funds are unallocated, which is close to half $1M per year 
As a courtesy, 10% contingency shows the love due to TNL, however, we may want to be mindful of the implications of a $1M contingency (~25% of the full budget) in just two years.
I would be happy to also consider a reduction in contingency per year
i.e. 10% - 2022, 8% - 2023, 6% - 2024
Sounds good. Thanks for sharing link!