Voting Report: brantly.eth
Scope question
As discussed in this thread here, the program rules explicitly make provision for projects like EFP (see 9.3) and Alex who wrote the rules said he intentionally left eligibility criteria open/vague. Nick’s interpretation of scope is much more restrictive than the program’s rules. Of course, delegates may vote for whatever projects they want for whatever reasons they want, but I don’t want other delegates to think that Nick’s interpretation of scope is what the rules say.
Votes
Currently, I intend to vote for at least the following (ordered by how they appear here):
I’m still considering a few other projects to vote for, so who I vote for may expand.
Case for these projects:
Namehash Labs
Have already shown themselves to be very capable with the contributions they’ve already made, with lots of great work planned going into the future.
ENS Vision Forge
ENS Vision has been one of the most important projects for the ENS protocol. They’ve proven themselves capable of shipping tools that help ENS. I look forward to their continued work with a focus on open source tooling.
eth.limo
No brainer. They have and continue to contribute massively to the ENS ecosystem. Cloudflare’s unreliable gateway service and ENS Labs’ mismanagement of eth.link would have left the community in a bad place except that eth.limo came to the rescue. Their service has lots of ongoing costs, and they have more great work to do. Fully support. Wish I could increase their funding request.
Ethereum Follow Protocol
I’ve made the case in our application. Reminder that my vote here does not include any of my own personal $ENS tokens, only votes delegated to me. Even recently, people have delegated to me saying they did it to support my efforts. It would be strange to disenfranchise those who most support my work for ENS.
resolverworks.eth
They also have years of proven track record, and I look forward to what else they can do.