MetaGov WG Calls, Term 7
Time/Day: Thursday, 4pm UTC. Bi-weekly (every other week), starting July 23, 2026
Meet Link: Link DAO Calendar: Link
Stewards:
Changes from last term
- Meeting time/day: Moved from Tuesdays 9am ET to Thursdays 4pm UTC (the former Public Goods WG slot), to reduce scheduling conflicts and fit stewards’ availability.
- Recording: Calls will now be recorded on video and captured by an AI note-taker. A standardized summary will be posted to the forum after each call. There is no Scribe this term, so the stewards will maintain the meeting record. This makes the calls verifiable for future reference and easier to participate in asynchronously.
- Cadence: Remains bi-weekly, for a higher density of updates and less time spent in meetings.
Delegate All-Hands
The first MetaGov call of each month is a delegate all-hands. Attendance is highly encouraged: the aim is for every delegate to join at least one call per month, so we can coordinate faster and move the important discussions forward together.
Overview
The ENS MetaGov Working Group holds public bi-weekly calls. The calls are open to community members and the general public.
The ENS MetaGov Working Group calls are facilitated by the appointed ENS Stewards and led by the lead MetaGov steward. If you need to get in touch with any member of the working group, please message them on the forum, TG, or on X.
How to Add to the Agenda
If you have items that you would like to add to the agenda please message any of the ENS MetaGov stewards.
How to Use this Thread
Agenda will be posted along with call summaries. Please do not post in this thread unless requested by one of the Stewards.
3 Likes
MetaGov Post-Meeting Notes (July 23, 2026)
Full recording of the call can be referenced at this link.
Discussion Topics and Notes:
Endowment Updates and Conversations Around Options
Kpk provided their customary endowment updates (see call for specifics).
Introduction of Options: A public forum discussion is active regarding the introduction of structured products and onchain options to the IPS. The main goals are to broaden the investment universe, hedge the endowment’s massive ETH position, and gain yield rewards on stablecoins (such as by selling cash-secured puts).
Noted Concerns Around Options:
- Market Regimes & Volatility: A speaker noted that recent ETH volatility has been extremely high (around 35% to 40%), meaning it may not be the optimal time to underwrite cash-secured puts compared to simply deploying funds into lending protocols.
- Complexity vs. RWAs: The strategy introduces notable complexity; it was suggested that a tokenized RWAs money market strategy might offer attractive-enough yields with far less structural complexity.
- Capping the Upside: Another voiced strong skepticism about using a highly volatile asset class like crypto for options, explaining that selling options limits the endowment’s long-term upside for minimal immediate profit, frequently causing it to miss out on much larger market spikes when assets are inevitably assigned.
- Settlement and Fees: Some prominent options platforms use cash settlement rather than physical settlement (meaning the endowment wouldn’t physically receive ETH), and platform fees could create an unfavorable yield gap compared to centralized venues.
Addressing the Concerns:
- Volatility Bands: To address the risk of market downturns leading to increased directional exposure (via selling puts), the team agreed that establishing explicit volatility bands and predefined regimes is non-negotiable. Every position would have to be strictly assessed under the assumption that an assignment will occur, abiding by pre-determined ETH-Stable allocation ratios.
- RWA Progress: Kpk confirmed that RWAs are a core part of the upcoming updates, which will add five to six new venues to supply funds into yield vaults. They noted, however, that the endowment faces strict KYC constraints on certain products.
SPP3 Updates and New Marketplace RFP
- Applications for the marketplace RFP are officially live on the forum. They will remain open for two weeks, closing at midnight UTC on August 5th.
- A public call regarding the RFP is scheduled for next Wednesday, July 29th, at 10:30 a.m. Eastern time.
- Concerns Raised:
- Participants expressed concern over the phrasing of the new RFP, fearing it implied a team could win the contract simply by promising to vibe code a requested list of features without actually proving they have the ability to execute, brand reach, or underlying capability to generate revenue.
- Addressing the Concerns:
- The committee determined that a formalized RFP was the only objective way to address the ecosystem’s marketplace needs fairly while thoroughly vetting applicant considerations. The RFP language was left intentionally broad to allow for both existing marketplaces and new, well-known teams (outside of ENS) to apply.
- Prioritizing Brand Reach: The committee agreed that user reach and brand recognition are disproportionately valuable when judging applicants. Even if a team like OpenSea came in to simply code an ENS add-on to their existing site, their sheer reach and name recognition would warrant strong consideration. Such an application would have a lot more weight than a team without clear track record and distribution channels, despite lofty promises within their application. However, the committee noted they must balance this against the potential downside of undermining the grass-roots, ENS community-facilitated purchasing driven by platforms like Vision or Grails. Judging the pool will become more clear as applications flow in.
Grant Programs and MetaGov Goals
-
The Funding Gap: A member pointed out a gap where experimental, unproven, but innovative ideas from developers are entirely ignored due to a lack of structured grant support, causing developers to abandon their projects, especially since there’s now only one working group to facilitate such programs.
- MetaGov team indicated that they’re exploring the right model for keeping these contributors around—and assessing how MetaGov can collaborate with Labs/Foundation to help with this process. It’s on the roadmap.
-
Public Goods vs. Ecosystem Grants: The group established that public goods and ecosystem experimentation grants are completely separate challenges. True public goods are shared responsibilities that should be broadly funded as a united effort of capitalized Ethereum ecosystem players. Conversely, ecosystem grants operate like a venture capital firm, where the DAO should expect a 90% project failure rate in exchange for one massive breakthrough that elevates the entire ecosystem. MetaGov will have to assess how to frame upcoming grants given many of these public goods projects are harder to attach to clear ROI.
-
Retroactive Funding Pitfalls: The group analyzed optimism-style retroactive funding. While idealized in concept, it frequently devolves into a subjective popularity contest or becomes so programmatic that critical web-based applications get entirely shut out due to rigid criteria. Furthermore, it leaves teams slighted when funding isn’t received despite all the work that they put in. The consensus was that such funding models are suboptimal.
-
Growth and Business Development (BD): The SPP3 team wishes they saw stronger growth and BD proposals. The growth submissions had heavy external dependencies—requiring Labs to implement actual code or requesting extra funds for incentives. To combat this, the group agreed that the word “growth” be distilled into specific, quantifiable terms: integrations, grown revenue, or name sales. Additionally, it was stated that BD/sales teams must have variable compensation tied strictly to performance quotas rather than merely asking the DAO for a flat salary to “hopefully” drive growth. BD/growth/sales-based grant programs are difficult to implement—and yet, with anyone able to create MVPs and launch vibe-coded products, MetaGov agreed that such a program is needed more than ever.
-
Goals and Leadership Duties of MetaGov: Because past working groups have dissolved, MetaGov stands as the only funded body directly representing the DAO. Acknowledging critics who claim DAOs are highly inefficient and stagnant, the stewards were encouraged to step up, own their leadership roles, make hard decisions, and actively pitch concrete ideas to the community. The consensus concluded that making a wrong choice and letting the group course-correct is far healthier than doing nothing and allowing the DAO to stagnate.
1 Like