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

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

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?

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!

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.

2 Likes

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

1 Like

:100:

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

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.

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

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