MetaGovernance Working Group Budget for Term 6, Q1/Q2 2025

🗳️ Meta-Governance DAO-Governance
1

This post outlines the MetaGovernance Working Group’s budget for the upcoming 6-month period, Term 6 Q1/Q2.

Below, we’ve outlined the previous term’s projected budget and actual spend, as well as the planned budget for the upcoming 6 months of Term 6, specifically Q1/Q2.
Descriptions of various categories can be found below the tables.

Previous Term 5 Q3/Q4 2023 (for comparison)

[See this link to the secretary’s Term 5 spending report - to be linked]

Category Planned USDC Planned ETH Actual USDC Actual ETH
Working Group Compensation 294,000 0 294,000 0
Governance 0 5 0 0
DAO Tooling 150,000 0 62,500 0
Discretionary & Sponsorships 90,000 0 12,200 0
Contract Audits 40,000 0 86,400 0
Total 574,000 5 455,100 0

Term 6 Q1/Q2 2024 Budget

Category USDC ETH
Working Group Steward Compensation 294,000 0
Governance 0 5
DAO Tooling* 150,000 0
Discretionary & Sponsorships 40,000 0
Contract Audits 60,000 0
Total 544,000 5

*Includes 50k USDC earmarked for Agora

Category Descriptions

  • Working Group Steward Compensation - Compensation for Working Group stewards, the Working Group secretary, and the scribe.
  • Governance - Fee reimbursements and initiatives related to reducing friction in the governance process. Examples include gas fee reimbursements for voting or delegation changes, or reimbursements for proposal submissions and execution.
  • DAO Tooling - Developing interfaces and dashboards to improve the governance process and increase transparency across the DAO. Examples are agora.ensdao.org and a proposal interface for the Executable and Social proposals.
  • Discretionary & Sponsorships - Funds distributed at the discretion of stewards towards new initiatives, governance experiments, and DAO-specific event sponsorships from the MetaGov Working Group Multisig.
  • Contract Audits - These are funds that will be used to pay for smart contract review and formal security audits. An example would be the code4rena audits on the namewrapper contracts.

$ENS Governance Token Distribution

The Meta-Governance Working Group continually evaluates the distribution of $ENS governance tokens to our various partner projects and contributors whose contributions allow for, and improve, the ENS DAO and Working Group operations.

Distribution plans for Term 6 Q1/Q2 will be discussed throughout Q1 and included in the April funding request.

Current Metagov Wallet Balances

Address ETH USDC $ENS Notes
main.mg.wg.ens.eth 83.627 240,738 4,510* * Reserved for EP5.19 distributions
1 Like
2

Hey all, I’m a bit confused with budget, please help me understand.

It says 294kUSD for 6 months, then 294 / 6 = 49 per month / 3 stewards = 16.3kUSD per steward.

Are we really paying 16.3kUSD each Steward on a monthly basis? To Stewards who are doing this work part time?

1 Like
3

Strategic Analysis of the MetaGovernance Working Group Budget for Term 6 Q1/Q2

Here are critical observations on overspending, inefficiencies, and risks in the proposed budget that demand immediate attention:

1. DAO Tooling: Over-Budgeted & Unjustified

  • Term 5: Budgeted 150k USDC, but only 62.5k USDC was spent (58% underspend).
  • Term 6: Requesting 150k USDC again, including 50k for Agora (no clear justification for the same amount).
    • Issue: Why repeat the same figure if historical spending shows minimal need? This looks like a cushion for vague future use.
    • Fix: Reduce to 75k USDC (50% of prior budget) and require detailed cost breakdowns before further funding.

2. Discretionary & Sponsorships: Uncontrolled “Flexible” Funds

  • Term 5: Budgeted 90k USDC, but spent only 12.2k USDC (86% underspend).
  • Term 6: Requesting 40k USDC despite chronic underspending.
    • Issue: “Discretionary” funds invite misuse. If they weren’t needed before, why allocate 40k now?
    • Fix: Eliminate this category or cap it at 10k USDC, with mandatory justification for every expense.

3. Contract Audits: Poor Planning & Cost Overruns

  • Term 5: Budgeted 40k USDC, but spent 86.4k USDC (116% over budget).
  • Term 6: Requesting 60k USDC with no safeguards against repeats.
    • Issue: Volatile audit costs signal poor vendor management. Why not negotiate fixed-price contracts?
    • Fix: Require fixed-cost agreements with penalties for overages.

4. Governance (5 ETH): Phantom Funds

  • Term 5: Budgeted 5 ETH, but spent 0 ETH.
  • Term 6: Repeating the same amount without explanation.
    • Issue: Unused ETH allocations suggest this is a slush fund.
    • Fix: Remove this line item or reduce to 1 ETH until proven necessary.

5. Ignoring Existing Balances: Redundant Requests

  • Current Metagov Wallet: 240,738 USDC and 83.627 ETH are already available.
    • Issue: Why request 544k USDC more when existing funds sit unused?
    • Fix: Require depletion of current balances before approving new funds.

6. Compensation: Paying for Activity, Not Outcomes

  • Steward Compensation: 294k USDC per term (unchanged).
    • Issue: No performance metrics (e.g., governance participation rates, cost reductions).
    • Fix: Tie 30% of compensation to KPIs (e.g., voter engagement, efficiency gains).

Final Recommendations:

  1. Cut DAO Tooling and Discretionary budgets to align with historical spending.
  2. Audit the Contract Audits process to enforce cost discipline.
  3. Remove the 5 ETH allocation until usage is justified.
  4. Prioritize existing balances over new funding requests.
  5. Clarify $ENS distribution plans (mentioned but not budgeted).

Without these fixes, this budget risks becoming a blank check for waste. Fund efficiency first!

1 Like
4

Hi @SpikeWatanabe.eth - Thanks for asking for clarification! There’s actually a misunderstanding in your calculation. The Meta-governance working group is responsible for compensating all working group stewards across the DAO, not just the Meta-governance stewards.
[EP12][Social] Working Group Rules

The Term 6 comp was set in [EP 5.18] - " ENS DAO Steward Compensation Structure - Term 6"

So the total of 294,000 for 6 months covers compensation for all 9 stewards across the three working groups, plus the secretary and scribe positions. This works out to 3,000-4,500 per month per steward position, depending on whether they serve as a lead.

The Scribe role receives 3,000 and the Secretary role receives 5,500 per month.

All the specifics are in the thread for [EP 5.18] that I linked above and here.

3 Likes
5

Ye I see thanks @5pence.eth , I got scared there for a second

2 Likes
6

:100:

7

Thank you @imrulo.eth for your interest in the budget.
This looks like a wonderful automated analysis of the Budget posted above (the format and structure are characteristic of LLM output), but I think the analysis you used might not have had access to the appropriate contextual information to understand and properly evaluate the items.

I’ll use two examples - in this section:

This isn’t: “a cushion for vague future use.”
The apparent “underspend” actually reflects the Meta-governance group’s commitment to fiscal responsibility. We had allocated 50k USDC for Agora’s work, but the delivery timeline extended slightly beyond the term so we delayed the final payment.
We still need to honor this commitment when delivery is complete, which is why the amount remains in this term’s budget.

Another example:

This suggestion demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how contract audits work in a DAO context. We need to be prepared to audit any proposals that impact the governance contracts, but we cannot predict what proposals will emerge or their scope. Suggesting “fixed-cost agreements with penalties” for unknown future requirements isn’t practical.

AI tools can be really valuable to augment and study and learn about the DAO’s activities, but please don’t just post outputs into the forum without thoroughly evaluating what you’re posting.

2 Likes
8

The $150k includes $50k for Agora. Last term’s underspend was due to timeline shifts, not lack of need. Reducing now would delay essential projects.

Ah, the classic dodge—when you can’t refute the argument, attack the method.

Here’s the reality: The analysis was evaluated. Thoroughly. Based on the data you provided. If the conclusions are incomplete, that’s because the data was incomplete. That’s on you.

AI doesn’t magically fabricate context—it works with what it’s given.

Audits are inherently unpredictable. Fixed-price contracts aren’t practical for our dynamic needs. Overspending ensures thorough security.

9

I think you haven’t realized that not all of my response was criticism.

10

My aim was to provide helpful context about both the budget and the use of AI tools in DAO governance. Sorry if it felt like a dodge.

Metagov is here and happy to discuss specific questions about the budget if you have any.

3 Likes
11

I’d like to discuss the situation around the Secretary’s compensation. With all due respect to @Limes’s work, I just don’t see how it’s worth 5.5kUSD per month.

From what I understand, there are three components to the Secretary’s work - running a calendar, manning a multisig, and doing DAO’s financial reporting.

Running a calendar and manning a multisig are 5 hour per month responsibilities which require fairly little qualification.

In theory DAO’s financial reporting can be a significant component to Secretary’s work if done properly. As a professional financier in the past - how I see the issue is that there are a lot of various deliverables covering the state of financial affairs of DAO and none of them provide a comprehensive overview of the situation.

The problem is that we have this

Steakhouse

and then we have this

karpatkey

on top of that we have this report

ENS ledger

also this

Money flow visualization by AVSA

and that

https://www.enswallets.xyz

and to create even more confusion recently added this

https://safenotes.xyz

That’s like throwing a bunch of numbers into the eyes of the user of that information without any expectation that he will be able to make sense of it. Even having a financial background like me, I can’t read and reconcile all those documents with each other. In my opinion a bunch of deliverables which make no sense for an external reader have zero value. This financial reporting should be designed with the public reader in mind.

As a good example of quality financial reporting see this here - 2024 Arbitrum Token Flow Report.

Not knowing anything at all about Arbitrum, you can open this document, and after reading it immediately get a very good sense of what’s going “under the hood”.

I just don’t understand this - the DAO has all of the imaginable resources at its disposal and yet we are lacking such a basic part as a normal functioning financial reporting. @Limes was holding this position for years now and did not provide so far tangible financial reporting deliverable, which will be comprehensive and will allow to reconcile all of the moving parts within the DAO.

I think it makes sense to reduce the Secretary’s compensation to reflect actual value created for the DAO at present. I propose that we set the Secretary’s compensation at 200USD to cover for “calendar” and “multisig” parts only. Should the situation with “financial” part improve in the future, then adjust compensation accordingly.

It sets a pretty bad precedent within the DAO, where actual value created is severely misaligned with the compensation.

Happy to discuss further.

12

I think the issue here isn’t necessarily the DAO Secretary role or its compensation, but rather the fragmented and hard-to-reconcile state of ENS DAO’s financial reporting. As you pointed out, we have multiple sources—Steakhouse, Karpatkey, ENS Ledger, Money Flow Visualization, ENS Wallets, SafeNotes—each offering pieces of the puzzle but not a single, cohesive financial overview.

Instead of cutting compensation for the Secretary, which doesn’t directly address this issue, I propose we put out an RFP for a comprehensive financial dashboard.

This would consolidate all key financial data into a single, accessible format—perhaps even a web-based UI—for public readability.

A well-structured RFP could outline:

• What key financial information should be included
• How different reports and data sources can be reconciled
• A design that prioritizes clarity and usability for DAO participants

This way, we address the underlying issue—fragmented financial reporting—without conflating it with the Secretary’s role.

Would love to hear thoughts on what such an RFP should prioritize.

13

I’m all in favor of RFP or whatever route to take to finally have proper financials for the DAO, but I think it’s a matter for a separate thread on its own.

Since this is a discussion about budget - I raised my concerns about certain item, which I think requires discussion and ultimately correction.

14

You raise a fair point about the fragmentation of reporting on financials. Proposing to defund the secretary - and then expecting them to work unpaid until you’re happy with the result - is an unreasonable response, though.

15

Maybe my comment was not clear enough, let me clarify bit. It’s been several years since current secretary been working on this, and since there is no tangible result I don’t expect that there will be any in the future. There was more than enough time to build quality deliverable.

I don’t think DAO should be paying for this work anymore, and maybe this money will be better spend elsewhere, for example create something like “Chief Coin Associate” and get on board someone else who would actually deliver. I don’t mind @Limes manning the multisig and calendar, I just don’t see how it’s worth 5.5kUSD / m.