🏛️📞 MetaGov Working Group – 2026 Meetings: Tuesdays at 9am ET

🗳️ Meta-Governance Meetings
12

1. Weekly Endowment Updates - @kpk + @Steakhouse

  • /

2. Retro updates - @mikemetagov @eugene

  • The entire evaluation has 3 phases
  • The contract states that unless the DAO rejects or disapproves, phases 2 and 3 will proceed after initial findings are posted.

Phase 1

  • Phase 1 was divided into 2 different phases
    • Phase 1A
      • Stakeholder analysis consisting of interviews
      • Qualitative analysis of the interviews around challenges that ENS DAO is facing
      • Analysis was conducted to determine the factors driving these challenges and their impact on ENS DAO performance, accountability, and trust
    • Phase 1B
      • Focuses on creating a data repository for quantitative analysis.

Phase 1A

  • Informant interviews - did almost 30 hours of interviews.
  • 23 interviews have been done so far.
  • Research design, plan, analysis, and qualitative code book are on Google Drive.
  • This is intended to communicate a benchmark for rigorous governance research in Web3.
  • The analysis was divided into 2 broad categories:
      1. What do people think is the purpose of the DAO?
      1. What do they think are some gaps that the DAO is facing in achieving that purpose?
  • Identified 3 primary purpose areas:
      1. Treasury management.
      1. Protocol growth.
      1. Public goods stewardship.
  • Gpas identified:
      1. Need for better accountability.
      1. Need for a coherent strategy and shared objectives.
      1. Need for stronger coordination for sustainable governance.
  • Challenges:
    • Five challenges were identified as the biggest priorities.
    • Goal: propose recommendations with specific actions that address all challenges.
    • Mapping the relationship between challenges, factors, and impacts shows a messy picture with no clear correlations.
  • Next Steps:
    • Quantitative data from the retrospective analysis in Phase 2 and the comparative DAO analysis will be overlaid.
    • The goal is to determine what relationships to target and what recommendations to make to modify them for more beneficial outcomes.

Phase 1B

  • Goal: Gather relevant data to analyze if desired outcomes from Phase 1 were accomplished.
  • Activities: Built an inventory of publicly available data sources and shared with ENS.
  • Drafted an initial analysis plan with testable hypotheses.
  • Generated a Data Infrastructure Plan outlining the architecture
  • Set up a public GitHub repo and began importing data from raw data sources.
  • Data sources:
    • Forum Snapshot, Tally, Etherscan, ENS grants data, ENS ledger analysis (DAO transactions between 2022-2025)
    • Remaining data sources contain redundant data or will be used for reference and cross-validation: Dune, TokenTerminal, VotingPower.xyz, ENS Wallet, SafeNotes, Forum reports.
  • Analysis Plan:
    • Objective: Map testable hypotheses to data sources.
    • Creates a tangible link between data collection and analysis.
    • Document link shared and will be posted in the forum.
  • Data organized into 3 layers: bronze, silver, and gold.
    • Bronze: Raw ENS data imported from sources, append-only, never edited.
    • Silver: Processed, structured, and tagged data with a taxonomy for easy querying.
    • Gold: Analysis-ready data views to address hypotheses (delegate concentration, voter participation, power structure, etc.).

Phase 2

  • Phase 2 technically started on March 2nd.
  • Comparative DAO research has begun, looking at relevant evidence from other DAOs, Web3 protocols, and decentralized governance systems.
  • Initial ideas: producing preliminary recommendations in a few weeks, creating forum threads for community discussion, holding a workshop for each thread, and incorporating feedback into final recommendations.

Phase 3

  • Phase 3 is the final reporting phase.
  • Discussion point: How far should the recommendations go?
  • They can be shallow or include the beginnings of an implementation strategy/action plan.

Additional info

  • Idea around aligning at ethCC if core contributors will be there.
  • Open to suggestions on how to best present the data from the retrospective analysis.
  • Idea about making it more interactive than a simple PDF.
  • Metagov is open to discussing operationalization, implementation, monitoring, and testing, but their primary job is research.
  • They can help find someone or design the scope of work for implementation, but it’s outside their current scope.

3. Proposal: Committee Model for SPP3 Funding Allocation - @brantlymillegan

  • The SPP3 discussion is ongoing
  • Brantly proposed replacing the Delegate model with a Committee model for the Service Provider Program due to delegate and applicant fatigue.
  • The current model involves all delegates voting on all applications.
  • The proposed committee model would deputize a small group to make decisions.
  • Idea: using AI for initial screening of applications to reduce fatigue and ensure fairness.
  • Some delegates support Committee model; some are still biased towards Delegate model.
  • There’s a suggestion to break the SPP into 2 separate programs
    • 100k-300k for new teams
    • 300k+ for existing teams
  • People are supportive of the Committee Model, but more details around the program and the whole process are needed, such as an Evaluation Framework, a process for choosing committee members, etc.

4. Open discussion

  • /
2 Likes