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.
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
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.
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.
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.