On 25th Jan public goods call - Giveth grants

On this

I have a question / comment

Everyone on the call agreed, that funds can be distributed on any chain such as Celo, OP etc. However since we are ENS, aren’t we supposed to request project to register and provide .eth name, and then since .eth names for now are only available on mainnet, then we can only distribute funds on the mainnet?

That also counts towards accountability, we can clearly see that they’ve recieved the funds and how they’ve been spent.


This is a great example of instances that should be clarified and included in the by-laws.

That’s the purpose of this post.

I’m sure there are many other items to be included other than this. If anyone else finds gray areas that need to be clarified, please include them in the thread above.

We definitely want to see grantees using ENS names. Looking at our last Public Goods small grants round, we see roughly 85% of the 59 submissions with a primary name set. Obviously, 100% would be excellent.

Two things to consider:

  • There’s no DAO-wide rule to make payments only to addresses with primary names.
  • Public Goods funding related to Web3 and as described in Article III may not solely be constrained to Ethereum. Only being able to fund projects on Mainnet with an ENS name might be a constraint.

I’m not sure if it was missed in the notes, but Optimism was explicitly discussed as an option because there is already some ENS Layer2 and off-chain data support. This is something we’re thinking about even as Public Goods as we can kickstart interest in and use of ENS on L2s where there’s already some nascent support. Optinames comes to mind as an early project on Optimism that integrates ENS subnames.

In this specific instance, the Giveth platform lends itself to transparency/accountability even without ENS name support and even with cross-chain donations. The screenshot below is from one of Dappnode’s previous rounds on Giveth. Note the donor information and the link to the Project recipient addresses.

1 Like

My point was that its ok to fund project doing whatever they want to do, on Celo, OP or any network, but all DAO’s finances are on mainnet, and it makes sense to distribute them on mainnet to “primary name” on mainnet as well for accountability and transparency.

To me it comes as eyebrow raising surprise that we are giving away money as ENS and not even making projects to have .eth name, how come?

Common sense doesn’t have to be in the rules to be applied