[EP6] [Cancelled] See EP 6.1 and 6.2

Yes. Doing this procedural task, as described, does not raise a conflict of interest.

Still, I cannot lock threads; only mods can do that


Can you let us know if you agree on this course of action and address @inplco’s issue?


Yes; on the 28th (‘budget day’) I will advance this proposal to Snapshot. If you include a link in the proposal to the delegate discussion thread, that will be in the Snapshot poll too.

As a side note, much of what is currently under “motivation” - particularly the notice to the foundation - should be under a different header.


Done. I have also added the ENS names and links to the three nominations so far (3? @ENSPunks.eth withdrew and we haven’t seen more of @HealingVisions) in another heading below ‘Next Steps’. I am drafting the Snapshot vote and will post that soon when/as I have it.

Don’t forget to add the “abstain” option. I don’t want to ruin my voting participation metrics by not voting on this one :wink:


How about we make a deal that we vote for each other? :disguised_face:


We have the choice of “none of the above.” Of course, you can both delegate all your votes to me! :rofl:

Excellent point. A vote for Brantly, or a vote for None of the Above, is not the same as an abstention.


Here is the issue, @Brantly, @AvsA, and @inplco have votes, their own and others. I don’t think they should abstain, but they should automatically have their votes cast for themselves; because these votes do represent members who support them, unless redelegated, and to do otherwise would have the effect of disenfranchising members who have delegated their votes to them. If AvsA and inplico abstain but brantly does not, then it would give brantly an unfair advantage, same if AvsA and inplico vote but brantly does not. There is nothing in the rules that anyone must abstain.

What I would suggest is a push to inform everyone of the opportunity to redelegate their votes. But add the following into EP6: Each candidate need not vote, but will have their votes cast for themselves, unless they affirmatively choose to cast their votes for another candidate.

@nick.eth please weigh in on this course of action and that it is doable.



Makes sense; I have added it to the draft. Just to make things clearer however, I am declaring that I will wholeheartedly vote for myself with my ant sized share of votes. Having said that, I cannot create a Snapshot vote since I don’t have the necessary 10,000 $ENS delegated to me. I did until a few days ago but then ENS opened the free re-delegation window and my biggest delegate self-delegated. So we need someone with 10,000 $ENS to come forward and put up the Snapshot vote. I honestly don’t want to do it either since it is a clear shot to my foot being a nominee and the vote author :face_in_clouds:

1 Like

i think it is confusing to have an election with brantly as just another candidate as though a vote to remove had been completed. i would like to see a vote to remove pending replacement selection before including replacement candidates in any vote. and in such a vote to remove, i would vote not to remove. thank you for reading.

The choices, in substance, give the community the option to keep brantly by voting for him. But also the ranked voting gives the community the option to make a second selection for director. Please look at my draft above. In fact, brantly is to be listed first and his candidacy is discussed first, to avoid confusion.


the choices make it as though brantly is just one of several candidates in an open election. but he has yet to be removed. so it makes little sense for him to run for election of a position he holds.

One choice is he need not be removed but can continue to serve. It would be worse for him if he was subjected to a removal vote without putting in the alternative for members to weigh. Thus, if you want to remove brantly, then these are your choices, including none of the above. The vote structure is designed to be fair to all permutations, without favoring a certain outcome.


it’s as though dao would be saying, we will let you keep your job provided you can beat this list of candidates for your job. this would presume a power of authority the dao does not posses. surely we cannot offer, to candidates, a job that is not yet available. whether it is worse or not for him seems by the way to the dao function here. if people want him removed, let’s hear a vote on that without commotion.

1 Like

That argument was fully addressed and was my initial position, but legal advice disagreed with both of us and opined that it could be done with one vote rather than two.

please link this. i dont see.

The first sentence was resolved that ENS Tokenholders, DAO, and Council are all one in the same. This began the discussion, which concluded that we could combine the votes.

1 Like

interesting so we began confused and ended up logically inconsistent.