My Conflict of Interest Pledge as an ENS DAO Steward

🗳️ Meta-Governance MetaGov Discussion
1

As Meta-governance Lead Steward, I want to share a conflict of interest framework that I’m personally committing to follow. Integrity is the foundation of the social operations of our DAO, and I believe being transparent about potential conflicts helps maintain that trust.

Why This Matters

When we make decisions about funding and resources - whether in votes or working group deliberations - the community needs to know these decisions are made for the benefit of ENS, not personal gain. Even the appearance of self-dealing can damage the trust we’ve built together.

The Framework I’m Using

I’m using a simple 2x2 matrix to guide my decisions and participation:

No Appearance Mere Appearance
No Actual Conflict :white_check_mark: Green Light
Proceed normally		 :warning: Yellow Light
Prefer to recuse
Actual Conflict :rotating_light: Red Light
Must recuse
(disclose why)		 :stop_sign: Full Stop
Must recuse
(obviously)

What This Means in Practice:

:white_check_mark: Green Light (No conflict, no appearance):

  • I have no financial stake and it doesn’t look like I do
  • Example: Voting on ENS protocol improvements or reviewing grants I have no connection to
  • My action: Full participation in discussions and decisions

:warning: Yellow Light (No conflict, but appearance):

  • I won’t benefit, but others might reasonably think I could
  • Example: Reviewing funding for a project where a friend works (but I have no financial connection)
  • My action: I will recuse myself whenever practical. In a limited exception, if recusal would impair DAO operations, I’ll let my fellow stewads help guide my particpation. This exception and all conversations around it will always be publicly disclosed.

:rotating_light: Red Light (Actual conflict, no appearance):

  • I would benefit, but it’s not obvious to others
  • Example: Being a silent advisor to a grant applicant or deliberating on project who’s work overlaps with my own
  • My action: Must recuse myself AND disclose the conflict

:stop_sign: Full Stop (Actual conflict and appearance):

  • I would benefit and everyone can see it
  • Example: My own compensation or a company I’m involved with seeking funding
  • My action: Obviously must recuse myself completely

Important Distinctions

Working Groups and Compensation

I recognize that stewards need to participate in their working group’s operations. Therefore:

  • I will vote on my working group’s budget and funding requests (because this is about Working Group operations and not about my personal compensation)
  • I will vote on compensation structures for future terms (since I don’t know if I’ll be re-elected)
  • I will Abstain on any vote on current term compensation changes or immediate token distributions to myself (I will vote abstain to help the quorum, but not influence the outcome)

Proposals vs Votes

When proposals might benefit me (like governance token distributions):

  • I can participate in drafting and discussing the proposal
  • I will abstain from the actual vote, letting the broader delegate body decide

My Personal Pledge

As an ENS DAO steward, I pledge to:

  1. Always recuse myself from any decision where I have a direct financial interest - this means:

    • Abstaining from votes
    • Stepping out of working group discussions and decisions
    • Not influencing the outcome through back channels

  2. Prefer recusal over participation when there’s any appearance of conflict - because perception matters

  3. Always disclose any potential conflict or appearance of conflict

  4. Choose transparency when I’m unsure

  5. Support my fellow stewards in managing their own conflicts

  6. Follow proper recusal procedures:

    • When I recuse myself from a working group decision, the other stewards will select an appropriate stand-in
    • We’ll disclose all recusals publicly
    • If multiple stewards must recuse themselves, we’ll engage the broader steward body to ensure proper oversight

How This Works in Practice

Conflicts aren’t just about formal votes - they’re equally important in working group decisions like:

  • Reviewing grant applications
  • Approving budgets and funding allocations
  • Selecting ad-hoc service providers
  • Reviewing the Service Provider Program providers and their progress
  • Making operational decisions that involve resources

When I need to recuse myself, I’ll step back completely from the decision-making process and let my fellow stewards handle it with full transparency.

My Commitment to Integrity

I believe that in governance, appearance matters as much as reality. Even when I know my intentions are pure, if others could reasonably question my impartiality, I’ll choose recusal. This isn’t about following rules - it’s about maintaining the trust that makes decentralized governance possible.

Invitation for Feedback

I’d welcome comments and suggestions from other stewards and community members on this approach. If you think this framework makes sense, I’d encourage you to comment in support or suggest any changes that you feel makes sense. Together, we can maintain the high standards of integrity that make ENS governance work.

5pence.eth
Meta-governance Lead Steward

13 Likes
2

I’m also drafting a set of examples for each of these situations. Examples that tie these concepts to previous DAO decisions and operations.

I’m also separating out the pledge component of this to something that I’ll pin to IPFS or EAS with a signature.

I might even vibe code a quick web app to make it easy to sign the pledge and pin it.

4 Likes
3

+1 Spence!

I believe the bedrock of legitimacy is transparency. This proactive measure reflects a level of institutional maturity that DAOs need to evolve as a credible new category of organization.

Decentralized organizations aren’t a sure thing—yet. But we can help secure their future by setting the standards others will follow.

By sharing this opt-in, informal framework for organizational conduct, you’re inviting feedback, building consensus, and charting a clear path toward formalization.

I’d encourage other stewards to weigh in. Not just to refine this, but to help define what transparent, legitimate leadership looks like in onchain governance.

1 Like
4

Not a stewart but awesome to see you thinking about this and sharing your thoughts. I know in Nouns, different folks have different opinions but its mostly driven because we have never had this type of discussion as a community. So thank you for bringing this attention and trying to have a conversation around it. Also this looks good on my end!

3 Likes