EP4.9 Voting Reports

🗳️ Meta-Governance MetaGov Discussion
5

Voting report, matoken.eth

A few delegates with large votes asked my analysis of the submissions (as someone who has been working at ENS labs for over 5 years as a dev). Rather than giving my own picks, I categorised the submissions and ranked (1-5 where 5 is the best) each within the category so that it aids delegates to pick their choices based on what aspect of ENS protocol they want to advance.

Submission categories

Each category is listed in the order of importance (the justification to follow).

L2 & Offchain subnames

While L1 subname makes ENS easier to obtain, the need to pay gas on L1 is still a big hurdle. Offchain resolver is currently a popular way to issue subnames without any gass with the drawback of the ownership of the names being centralised. The more decentralised way to issue subnames (aka “L2 integration”) is still actively underway and more resources will help accelerate the time to the market.

Contenthash/dweb

Contenthash allows users to set ipfs/swarm hashes so that users can host sites without relying on centralised entities. Though this is one of the killer use cases for ENS, less than 10% of the ENS names currently sets contenthash and is currently under utilised.

dev toolkit

Multiple projects have been developing tools to enhance existing ENS contract API and frontend libraries (either making it easier or more secure) helping more Dapps to integrate with ENS. Done it successfully, this could potentially increase the number of integrated ENS apps which is one of the key strengths of ENS name service as opposed to other competing projects.

.eth registration improvement/referral

There are a few projects proposing to introduce a referral program for boosting .eth registration through UX improvement and referral program. If done correctly, this could boost the ENS protocol revenue.

L1 subname

Subnames (eg: makoto.argent.xyz) allow users to obtain ENS names without paying a registration fee on L1, making it more crypto beginner friendly. When surnames are issued on L1 using NameWrapper, the names are NFT with the ability to burn the parent’s power to make it “unruggable”.

The importance of categories.

“L2 & Offchain subnames” is the most important focus in my opinion (L2 is my focused area so I am a bit biassed) and being unable to deliver it until the next bull market will make ENS obsolete against competitors most of which are in the more gas cheap chain. The runner-ups are the categories that directly improve the utility and integration effort of ENS. .eth registration fee is critical to the sustainability of the protocol but only becomes effective once ENS’s utility is maximised. Though L1 subname is useful, I find it least important due to my biases towards L2 initiative.

Special category, “If a meteor strikes the next ENS Labs team retreat, will these projects be able to keep the ball rolling?””

As the proposer of the streaming initiative stated here, the initial intention of the proposal was to create more of a “shadow cabinet” where these teams can potentially replace ENS labs when we stop serving the expected duty. This means that the team must know how to tweak and customise core ENS protocol by developing custom resolvers, registrars, spot bugs, and so on. The focus is mainly put on their understanding of the ENS protocol and the ability to make modifications at smartcontract level.

Ranking

I only list 3 or above which are worth considering for the votes. You can examine my full report at

L2 & Offchain subnames

  • 5: Unruggable, resolverworks.eth
  • 4: Wildcard labs, NameSys
  • 3: Blockful

Premm from unruggable has been actively contributing to the discussion of the layer 2 strategy. Slobo.eth of resolverworks.eth runs https://namestone.xyz which is one of the key players on offchain based subname issuance.

Contenthash/dweb

  • 5: eth.limo, NameSys
  • 4: 1w3.eth
  • 3: dappling

dev toolkit

  • 5: Namehash
  • 4: Blockful
  • 4: ESF tool
  • 3: ENS anti-abuse
  • 3: ENS vision forge

I marked down “ENS vision forge” not because of the lack of the tracking record but because the company itself has received VC funding and therefore other projects need more funding. If funding source is not to be considered ENS Vision Forge should be marked as 4

.eth registration improvement/referral

  • 5: Namehash
  • 4: Blockful

L1 subname

  • 5: ESF tool
  • 4: Namespace
  • 3: ENS vision forge

Special category, “If a meteor strikes the next ENS Labs team retreat, will these projects be able to keep the ball rolling?””

Out of scope

  • Any governance-related projects (eg: Tally, StateLab, Pairwise, GnosisGuild, GravityDAO) should be out of scope
  • ENS-like protocol and EFP build on top of ENS but not directly enhance the feature of ENS itself
  • Alpha Wallet and Interceptor may indirectly improve ENS but not directly integrate with ENS

Flags

Even though it is not disallowed, delegates should be aware that these projects have the advantage of voting for themselves (unless they abstain).

  • Ethereum Follow Project = the core member brantly.eth is top 3 delegates (169k, 16.9% of necessary threshold) and cory.eth is top 18 delegates (60.3k, 6.03 % of necessary threshold) according to Tally | ENS delegates.
  • Blockful = the core member alextnetto.eth is top 8 delegate (106.23k , 10.62% of necessary threshold) according to Tally | ENS delegates .
  • Unicorn.eth & Referral Ambassador, Pairwise = the core member griff.eth is top 12 delegate (94k, 9.4% of necessary threshold) according to Tally | ENS delegates . GeneralMagic has also submitted three projects but didn’t state how to work around when two projects receive grants
21 Likes