The proposal aims to launch ENS Contract Naming Season: a time-boxed incentive program with the goal of naming existing and new contracts across Ethereum using ENS!
James gave a quick overview of the proposal
Scope, eligibility, budget, timeline, working group, target recipients, success metrics…
The idea is to put tokens in a multi-sig controlled by one of the working groups
This would be a 6-month-long program
Someone should be assigned to handle outreach and answer questions
Using a POAP or other marketing tools can help raise community awareness
Incentives will be paid out in ENS tokens
Combining token claiming with the delegation process could be beneficial
Leaderboards, social gamification, ENSbeat.com idea.
The plan involves a marketing push to encourage projects to name their contracts using ENS
Currently in review (feedback is welcome)
Feedback around tiers and finances would be appreciated
Next step: post on the forum tomorrow for official discussion
Goal: Increase active delegations within the ENS DAO. Currently, only about 10% of the circulating supply is delegated.
Problem: Many delegates are inactive, weakening the DAO’s defense against attacks. The aim is to incentivize active participation from delegates.
Proposed Solution: A delegation incentives program paid in ENS tokens. A test version lasting three months is proposed, with potential for continuation.
Rewards: Active delegates and holders delegating to active delegates would be rewarded proportionally to their voting power. Delegates with seven or more votes out of the last 10 proposals would qualify.
Program Structure V1: Active delegates receive rewards based on voting power; delegators receive rewards if their delegate is active, also based on delegated voting power.
Program Structure V2: Implement caps for both the delegates pool (0.5%) and the delegators pool (5%) to prevent disproportionate rewards to large holders/delegates
Program Structure V3: Incorporate time held and time delegated as modifiers to counterbalance Sybil attacks. Prioritize long-term holders who delegate to active delegates over new speculators. Holders who have never delegated receive smaller rewards than long-time delegators.
Program rollout: RFC: Details will be available in an upcoming RFC.
Tokens that are not delegated need to be delegated for the security of the protocol and delegated to someone who votes.
ENS referral awards program where incentives will be created for referring registrations or renewals of .eth names.
Trial framework, time and budget constrained (during December and 10k budget)
Budget is defined in USD but awards will be paid in ENS tokens
Focus is on Wallets and Web3 apps to notify people of their .eth names that might need renewal soon, directing them to ENS manager app through a referral link.
Recommendation to chat with James about incentives proposals.
Shoutout to the Nouns community for proposing to name the Nouns DAO Smart Contract.
NounsDAO transitioned from a Cayman Islands foundation to a DUNA.
Uniswap DAO also recently established its DUNA.
Reasons for moving away from the Foundation Model to Duna
Some large token holders were concerned about being seen as a partnership and the potential legal risks.
High-net-worth individuals didn’t want to put their personal assets at risk
There was a fork mechanism in Nouns, and some DAO members considered legal action against the founders and the foundation for letting the fork happen.
The Duna structure allowed the founders to step back and absolve themselves of direct involvement.
The Duna provides clarity and some degree of indemnification for members and administrators.
The foundation model lacked clarity and transparency.
With the Duna model, there’s encouragement for transparency because the DAO owns it, granting members the right to information, unlike the past where there was no inherent right to documentation.
Biggest Challenges and Improvements:
Transitioning from a foundation with closed-door operations to a transparent DAO model.
Getting information out, ensuring the community feels heard, and having constructive conversations were crucial.
Setting expectations and addressing community concerns, like providing IDs and tax information, was important.
Weekly communication with community members was not enough, and including them in decision-making would have been better.
Bylaw working sessions could have improved community involvement.
Proving the Duna’s existence as a legal entity to the non-crypto world was challenging.
Obtaining a bank account took several months.
Paying bills out of personal accounts and getting reimbursed was tricky.
They hope to share documentation with the ENS DAO to make the DUNA model more palatable for the community.
Under the DUNA model, the DAO is responsible for taxes.
They had to turn off a few client IDs that were receiving incentives because they refused to provide the tax information.
Some community members were very cyberpunk and didn’t want to play the tax game at all, and a lot of those members left during the transition.
From a DAO’s perspective, basically nothing has changed other than the fact that when a proposal is looking like it’s going to pass, they’re going to reach out and ask you to complete their KYC workflow.
One other change is that sometimes proposals are filtered through a tax lens, which was not done previously.
Depending on the proposal, the accounting/tax team may need to be consulted to assess the ramifications.
3. General DAO Updates Section
3.1. Upcoming Proposals
ENS contract naming season proposal is moving forward.
Final details are being organized, and the tally draft is ready for review.
Expect 2 onchain proposals this week:
Kpk: More permissions for the endowment to manage the treasury and allocate different protocols.
ENS contract naming season.
4. Open Discussion
Brief discussion on whether ENS DAO should participate in governance in other DAOs, and how we should handle token airdrops from other projects.
