We let Manifold’s counsel know we needed to consult the DAO beforehand, and received no objections.
2 Likes
@nick.eth - Thanks for posting this.
Did manifold offer any justification for the $300k? Was there any logical reasoning offered for this specific amount?
1 Like
Agree with a majority of the above post - the voting logic is currently unclear to us though:
What would the outcome be if the DAO votes to approve the settlement but not approve ENS labs reimbursement for legal fees?
For example, vote ends in:
- 100% yes
- 100% no
- 100% no
- 100% no
If this was the outcome of the vote, would the legal outcome be:
A: Allow the DAO to pay the $300k for settlement and the responsibility of legal fees is subject to further discussion.
B: Dismiss the case due to the DAO’s unwillingness to cover the $750k in legal fees at this time, despite offering to pay the settlement amount, meaning eth.link is relinquished.
Does any outcome other than dismissal and relinquishment of the domain (settlement, rebuttal, or continuance) hinge on the DAO’s willingness to cover the associated legal fees incurred by Labs to date?
This post does not represent FireEyes unwillingness to reimburse ENS Labs, just seeks to clarify the voting dependencies outlined above. As well as highlighting the fact that there are two separate discussions here; one about whether or not to pay the settlement and another about where the responsibility for legal fees should sit.
3 Likes
I support for 1, 2 and 4 options. Because I believe this is the most efficient way: about 40% more funding (30k/75k) will get the domain name back for ever without wasting the funding that’s been payed.
Yes. If reimbursement is not approved, ENS labs will act to minimise its further expenses by having the case dismissed.
If Manifold is interested, I’m willing to offer a domain that is in my control ‘node.directory’ as part of the deal for a reduction in demand amount. Of course, if the DAO and all involved parties are interested.
FYI, Labs also now owns eth.page, which is currently unused and could be stood up as an eth.link replacement if necessary.
4 Likes
Okay, the offer is out there. No strings attached.
On another note, after reviewing the nature of Manifolds response that @clowes.eth directed us to “For your eyes only”; I think It is important to take note on the context of which ‘sambcha’ addresses their intent about the use of the domain.
"We wanted the domain name because we had intentions" and then “…could have been held…”
It’s also important to look at the tweet that says
“it was either us or the chinese buyers” - this implicates that there was mere interest in actually obtaining the domain in the first place. It establishes that because the other party at auction was Chinese, was a motivating factor in purchasing the domain. Manifold established their previous tentative intent to use eth.link for the possibility of a legitimate purpose was considered at a prior time, before the auction. This is evident in their context a language using “had” and “could have” and by the use of an example use case that was described with minimal description.
Now we can move forward in this timeline and see that this potential intent; which again is vaguely established, had quickly shifted into willfully and explicitly soliciting eth.link back to ENS within a very short while after the auction taken place without hesitation or serious compromise. If Manifold would have offered the domain back but with clear and obvious hesitation, aggressive demands or supporting their own case and providing more of a reason why their possession of; showing clear intention of implementing their previous infrastructure plans, then maybe a justification exists that supports their demand for damages in the amount of $300,000. Given that those elements were of speculation that they “could have” done or “had” intent to was emphasized without providing a comprehensive and certain plan for infrastructure use, the decision to solicit to ENS immediately stems not from a legitimate use but motivated by monetary gain.
Otherwise, intent for legitimate use would not invoke such an immediate solicitation.
It’s likely they acted in good faith to keep the domain in the community of certain persons but when acquired, the idea to extort this asset for profit seems to be presented without justification of amount demanded.
1 Like
Given this, aren’t the first 3 votes are null & void in the event of vote 4 not passing?
It doesn’t feel beneficial to the DAO or ENS as a whole that all of the work towards the $300k settlement is contingent on covering the $750k legal fees without a deeper discussion considering the DAO was not aware of this previous spending.
Are we able to make these two separate proposals? Given that this is the first the DAO is hearing about both the 300k and the legal fees - why don’t we problem solve for eth.link then for the legal fees?
We’d be in favor of structuring the proposal in a way that the DAO can first vote on whether or not to pay the settlement, and then have a further discussion regarding the legal fees. We want to balance ensuring that Labs feels supported for its efforts on behalf of ENS and the DAO, but also that the DAO feels that it has had sufficient opportunity to make this decision in a measured and open way given the lack of previous context.
Very interested to hear any other delegate’s thoughts too 
1 Like
Thanks for sharing, Nick.
I’m on board with this approach.
There are essentially two decisions here:
- What to do about eth.link.
- Reimbursing ENS Labs for legal costs.
To ensure fairness in the DAO’s decision-making, I’d be in favor of not tying one decision to the other.
Personally, I support taking care of ENS Labs for their efforts, although it would’ve been better to decide this sooner. I suppose there were necessary reasons for the delay, like confidential information or ongoing negotiations.
As for eth.link: Sure, it’s a valuable domain. But considering ENS Labs already has eth.page and eth.limo is doing well, it raises questions about rewarding questionable behavior from Manifold Finance.
Thanks again for bringing this up.
3 Likes
eth.link has been functioning very well ever since Manifold started operating it. It was non-existent before. If ENS Labs spends over $1M on it, they should ensure that it stays alive 
My bad, I had wrong info
Yes. If that’s ambiguous in any way I’m open to suggestions on how to reword it.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to open Labs up to a situation where we could be expected to foot the bill for the litigation, while the DAO pays only a settlement amount. The two are not separate; without the litigation, the settlement would not be on the table.
We believe that pursuing the lawsuit was in the interest of the ENS community and the DAO, but if the DAO believes Labs was wrong in pursuing this case, it has the option of refusing to reimburse us. I don’t see a rationale for endorsing the settlement but not the legal case that led to it.
eth.link is a significant asset used to provide access to ENS+IPFS sites (e.g., vitalik.eth.link). If Labs were to proceed with an interstitial, I imagine it would damage existing relationships and lessen users’ confidence in ENS overall.
On the other hand, alternatives like eth.limo have existed and offer nearly, if not equally, the same benefit.
I agree that it is unfortunate that the expenses incurred by pursuing this litigation were not communicated prior to this proposal. At the same time, I can also sympathize with the sensitive nature of this matter and understand why Labs might have been reticent to communicate.
It helps to frame the legal fees as a sunk cost; it would be churlish not to support Labs in their decision to pursue this case. Therefore, I believe that the DAO should furnish both the settlement and the associated fees. However, I believe that Labs should have better anticipated this outcome and communicated it to their constituency with more notice.
2 Likes
I was going through the documents, pretty interesting read if you ask me
It appears, that there is a fairly strong case here, although common sense tells me that avoiding courts is always a good idea
I would vote:
1 - YES
2 - YES
3 - NO
4 - YES
There is no doubt that True Names is acting in the best interest of protocol. Frankly I don’t see how is this a problem, that it wasn’t disclosed sooner - so there was a situation, True Names was stuck within the process, what else is there to discuss. It is what it is.
Total cost comes to 1mUSD, but that is not unheard of in the industry and in fact, not the largest amount. Some precedents:
30mUSD - Niue is suing a giant Swedish foundation over a domain name
30mUSD - Cybersquatting Trial Against GoDaddy Begins
3mUSD - UZI Nissan VS Nissan car manufacturer
and so on
It appears, that it’s just cheaper to cover the cost and move on. In addition I think it’s a good thing that True Names made all this effort to fight the case. Let’s say they’ve choosen not to fight the case, and not to spend all this money - what do you think would’ve happened then? The circumstances could’ve been way worse.
In my opinion it is optimal to cover 1mUSD rather than fight the case and blow a couple of more millions on the air.
3 Likes
Am I mistaken or is there no way for someone to vote “No to everything”?
Simply click ‘vote’ without selecting anything:
hmmm ok. i tried it and it works. not exactly intuitive or clear tho that this is an option. seems strange we’re doing a vote where voting “no to everything” is this unclear
Adding my 2c here-
RE litigation costs: I actually remember @khori.eth talking about costs associated with securing eth.link back in August (minutes here) as part of the Labs 2022 Financial Breakdown (linked here). Can’t imagine it’s been an easy process so I’m glad to see light at the end of a long tunnel here.
I am voting YES to reimburse labs for the legal cost. Getting to settlement has probably meant endless nights and hours spent on this case - kudos to Labs + legal counsel for getting to this result. I will be approving the settlement as well.
Continuing litigation at this stage will no doubt only lead to more hours + cost spent on this case, without a necessary guarantee of a better outcome for Labs.
To that end, my voting choices will be YES to 1, 2, and 4, and NO to 3.
5 Likes