Please vote for ENS on Optimism Protocol Delegation Elections

I nominated myself as a ENS protocol delegate on Optimism.
Please vote for ENS if you have $OP and want to see more close collaboration between ENS and OP . If not, please RT my tweet for more awareness.

5 Likes

I want to reiterate that this is absolutely nothing personal. I just think that This is a subject that we should reinforce and place standards and set guidelines as to what determines and qualifies for a vote.
I think collaborating with other protocols is a must for the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem. We should have shared delegation and a voice of representation in other sectors of the Ethereum ecosystem to provide different aspects of opinion, knowledge, and skill that can be utilized accordingly to enhance the functionality between layer one and layer two protocols, as well as future developments.

I think it’s great that you decided to nominate yourself and take responsibility for that position as a Delegate to represent ENS on the Optimism protocol. However, I think that taking it upon yourself to nominate yourself as a delegate to represent ENS in their delegate program without notification or proposal to the DAO, oversteps the functionality and basis of the governance.

This should have been addressed by the META Governance working group as a proposal to the DAO, for any contributors to nominate themselves to represent the ENS Protocol to act as a delegate on the Optimism delegate program.

This is why we have a voting process and this is what The DAO is for. There are too many things that are happening within the DAO and the ENS protocol that go without approval from the DAO. We shouldn’t be going weeks or months without having a vote over topics and proposals. We have the system in place for a reason, and we should be taking advantage of it. This system was developed by the community, for the community to decide on matters. For the idea, vision, and general consensus of Ethereum and the ecosystem to function flawlessly, we can’t just continue to make decisions on behalf of everybody without seeking further approval from the community. Our voting system is underutilized, and to have a community that’s pleased with everything, the community needs to have a say on decisions such as who is going to represent what, who does this, or who does that. Otherwise, the community is going to end up being displeased.

But please don’t misconstrue my words here. I believe that you are capable of doing this. I believe that you hold a responsibility to do this. But again, I firmly believe that we need to exercise the voting system. Going months or weeks on end without having a vote gives token holders a sense of feeling that there’s really no point of having a governance token if there is only a vote once or twice a quarter, maybe. I think that there was a really good turnout in numbers of individuals who voted for the last Stewart election. People want to vote, and they want to have a say. It doesn’t matter how many tokens that they have. But you can see how many people who had a very little amount of tokens still voted, which really shows that people want to voice their opinion about ENS as an open-source, community-driven project. So, I think we need to give the opportunity to people to have a voice, regardless of how many tokens they have. We will continue to see a declining interest in participation if we’re not continually giving the opportunity for people to utilize their tokens as a voice. Otherwise, it’s going to be more valuable to them to buy tokens and not hold them, and not participate, rather than holding them and waiting around every quarter or a month or two, and maybe accidentally missing a vote here and there.

I want to reiterate that this is absolutely nothing personal. I just think that this is a subject that we should reinforce and place standards and set guidelines as to what determines and qualifies for a vote.

Hi, thank you for raising your concern. If the meta gov decides to set a rule for the process of self-nomination to other DAOs representing the ENS DAO, I am happy to oblige.

Again, I’m not trying to chop down your tree and have absolutely no qualms or nay says, per se. I want to be 100% up front about that. I personally didn’t know anything about Optimism doing a cross protocol delegate program it until I read your post. Maybe that was a lot to say and if so, my apologies.

Acting as an official representative of the DAO; to me-- is a pretty big deal and is a very reasonable responsibility, no doubt. I think that this should at least be outlined in the by laws that gives guidance for anyone in the position to represent the DAO in an official capacity. I think it would be a little different if it was super small business in your hometown, for example By popularity alone, Optimism has a lot going on as do many other protocol’s.

It’s all for the fluidity of future DAO2DAO representation. Without guiding principles, it tells the community that ENS DAO is okay with anyone approaching another project, entity or business and claiming to represent whether qualified to do so or not. I mean, people can essentially act on behalf of themselves with interest pointing to the DAO if said person is or is not competent, qualified and able to accurately be a limb of the tree.