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.
2 Likes
Agenda for MetaGov Meeting (August 6th, 2026)
Details
Time: 4pm UTC
Google Meet Link: https://meet.google.com/fhn-jhys-btn
Stewards:
Agenda
-
Delegation Incentives Program Updates
-
SPP3 Updates
-
Grant Program Continuity
- Maintaining existing funding activities (e.g., ENS Newsletter, socials support)
- Looking to top up intermediary/ad hoc grants while a more formal grants setup is organized
-
MetaGov Program Roadmap (ideation around MG-led initiatives going forward)
- Growth channel for distribution
- Governance (incentives, DAO-sourced delegations)
- Grants, Experiments, and RFPs (identify interesting verticals—e.g., ENS x AI)
- Treasury management
-
[Executable] Next Era of ENS DAO: Empowering the ENS Foundation
-
Open Discussion
MetaGov Post-Meeting Notes (August 6th, 2026)
Full recording of the call can be referenced at this link.
Discussion Topics and Notes
Delegation Incentives Updates
Zeugh provided updates on the delegation incentives program.
- Round One Performance: Month one officially closed in July. A total of 24,000 ENS tokens were increased in delegations to active voters across 28 total delegations.
- The team is organizing the data for the MetaGov stewards to transparently distribute the 5,000 ENS reward pool on the forum.
- Impact of Broader Narratives: The program suffered from low engagement and visibility, pulling roughly 15,000 impressions. Zeugh noted that ongoing discussions regarding the foundation proposal and security council gave governance a smaller perception of importance, hindering outreach to token holders who are not yet active in governance.
- Round Two Strategy: Round two is live with 25 days remaining in the month under tier one parameters (a 5,000 ENS pool). Strategy adjustments include expanding outreach via portals and newsletters, seeking introductions to platforms with distribution to ENS holders, and hosting Twitter live streams starting this week to drive up participation.
SPP3 Application Phase Closure
SPP Committee shared brief status updates regarding the program and marketplace RFP.
- Review Timeline: The marketplace RFP application period officially closed, bringing in nine total submissions (eight of which are currently qualified). The committee started a two-week review period running through August 19th.
- Next Steps for Applicants: The committee is reviewing submissions immediately and will reach out to applicants via Telegram to initiate group chats and schedule formal interviews.
- Flow Rate Management: Active streams under SPP3 officially began on August 1st. Streams for providers legacy to SPP2 who did not transition have concluded, and certain stream flow rates have been adjusted alongside active committee streams.
Grant Architecture and Foundation Flux
The group extensively debated how MetaGov should approach grants and ecosystem support given the passage of the foundation proposal.
- Narrow Scope vs. Active Support: Participants raised concerns about MetaGov overstepping its boundary, arguing that MetaGov’s core mandate is strictly “governing governance” rather than taking over the entire scope of the now-dissolved ecosystem and public goods working groups. Other stewards countered that narrowing the scope too heavily or prematurely conceding territory puts the working group at risk of being completely phased out or minimized by the foundation.
- Spending and Budget Uncertainty: Stewards agreed that spinning up entirely new, large ad hoc small/medium grant programs or allocating fresh budgets right now is counterproductive while the foundation prepares its own overarching spending mandates. Existing operational activities, such as Marcus’s newsletter and community social support, will continue to receive funding.
- There’s Still Stuff Happening: The presence of SPP3 and the new Marketplace RFP indicates that ecosystem initiatives are still occurring. Activity has not dissipated entirely, and so, the forceful addition of new grant programs may not be wise at the present time.
Endowment Status
Karpatkey presented the weekly financial and operational metrics for the ENS endowment.
- Portfolio Health: The current NAV stands at $78.2 million, yielding a blended APY of 3%. The July strategy generated $191,000 gross for the DAO, while August month-to-date earnings have reached $28,000.
- RWAs: An update will move forward soon to add four new RWA yield vault venues.
- Execution Conflict: The team noted that deploying the pending onchain parameter update proposal (P10) might conflict with the foundation’s timeline. Since ownership of the endowment safe is transferred to the foundation’s multisig, launching the proposal onchain beforehand could render the payload null. No rush.
P-256 Migration Impact Report
Marcus presented a retrospective impact report detailing the efficiency results of the P-256 migration executable that went live on March 9th.
- Efficiency Metrics: Since the March 9 implementation, the migration reduced the cost of a single DNS signature verification from 1.34M gas to 10.5K gas, a 99.2% reduction. Across the measured period, this saved a total of 1.12 billion gas.
- Economic Realities: The speaker clarified that due to low total import volume, the total abstract gas savings equate to roughly $2,000 in real economic value.
- Ecosystem & Future-Proofing: Platforms like doma xyz and Cloudflare drive a large share of current imports, and with gTLD adoption sitting at 11.5%, the infrastructure successfully future-proofs ENS against gas spikes while smoothing the technical path for broader namespaces.