With feedback from @brantlymillegan, I’ve been working on what an SPP3 committee model could look like. The short version: two proposals, voted on concurrently.
- [Social] SPP3: Program Authorization: Are we doing SPP3? What objectives should it fund? How much, tied to protocol revenue?
- [Social] SPP3: Committee Model: Who evaluates and selects providers, and how?
If Authorization fails then SPP3 does not move forward. If Authorization passes but the Committee Model fails, the program reverts to the existing selection process from SPP2.
The full SPP3: Committee Model is below for feedback. Both Gists linked above. These aren’t final. I expect feedback and revisions. If we can get to an agreeable version of both I am willing to progress the governance process.
Summary
This proposal specifies the composition, roles, selection process, evaluation
criteria, and conflict of interest rules for an SPP3 Committee. The goal is a
vote-ready spec by the time SPP3 nominations open.
The design is intentionally compatible with the structural governance reform work underway in the Into 2026 thread. The DAO-ratification model, published rubric, and CoI framework are reusable governance patterns. They are not one-off SPP3 mechanics.
This proposal is intended as a companion to a separate SPP3 program proposal
covering ecosystem objectives, eligible service provider types, and total budget. Those parameters are set by the DAO; this committee executes within them. The budget and compensation figures referenced in this document take effect only after the companion program proposal is ratified.
Committee Composition & Roles
| Role | Count | Compensation |
|---|---|---|
| Chair | 1 | $40,000 / cycle |
| Member | 4 | $25,000 / cycle |
Term: Aligned with the SPP3 funding cycle. Renewable once by DAO Snapshot
vote on the same quorum threshold as initial ratification.
Payments: 25% lump sum upon submission of the final allocation recommendation to the DAO. Remaining 75% streamed over 12 months. Post-selection responsibilities covered by the stream include at minimum:
- tracking KPIs of funded service providers;
- monitoring cohort progress against stated milestones;
- reporting to the DAO on a quarterly basis.
Upon dissolution, each committee member receives only the compensation earned to that point. If the final recommendation was submitted, the 75% lump sum is owed. If it was not submitted, no lump sum is owed. No stream payments are issued on dissolution, and any stream already in progress stops immediately.
A replacement member inherits the remaining stream of the member they replace. They do not receive any additional compensation.
Quorum: A minimum of four members must participate for any committee vote to be valid. Decisions require a simple majority of participating members.
Ongoing Disclosure: Committee members must disclose any new potential conflict of interest as it arises throughout the full term, not only at nomination. Failing to reasonably disclose a new conflict of interest after ratification is grounds for removal.
Role Descriptions
The overarching goal of these roles is to qualify, evaluate, and select the funded nominations for SPP3.
Chair: Responsible for overall process: timeline, interview calendar, forum updates, and DAO communication. The Chair posts the final allocation
recommendation on the forum and voting venues.
Member: Score pre-qualification applications, read every qualifying submission in full, participate in structured interviews, vote on allocation decisions, and approve the written rationale before publication.
All five votes carry equal weight. The Chair is the overall administrator of the committee and has no unilateral authority to disqualify applicants.
Removal
A committee member who misses two consecutive scheduled obligations without prior notice is subject to removal by majority vote of remaining members. The Chair may be removed by unanimous vote of the four members with documented cause. Qualifying cause includes: persistent non-performance, material conflict of interest breach, or public conduct that compromises the integrity of the selection process. Upon removal, stream payments to the removed member are discontinued immediately.
Vacancies are filled by the next-ranked nominee from the original ratification
Snapshot result. If the committee falls below three active members, the selection process pauses and the DAO convenes a special Snapshot vote to reconstitute.
Conflict of Interest Rules
A committee member may not:
- Be a current or pending SPP3 applicant
- Be employed by, contracted to, hold stake in, or serve in any advisory
capacity to any current or pending SPP3 applicant - Have received direct compensation from any SPP3 applicant in the 6 months
prior to nomination - Acquire any of the above interests after ratification
Breach triggers automatic suspension pending a DAO recall vote. Self-disclosure is required at nomination. Failing to reasonably disclose a new conflict of interest after ratification is grounds for removal.
Committee Selection Process
- Open nominations: two-week window, open to any ENS community member
- Eligibility: Must not be ineligible under the Conflict of Interest rules above. Nominees must demonstrate familiarity with the ENS ecosystem on a technical and/or non-technical level as justified in their nomination application.
- Ratification: DAO Snapshot instant-runoff ranked-choice vote on the final slate, separate from steward elections. A minimum of three nominees must be on the slate before ratification proceeds. The nominee with the most votes assumes the Chair role and must accept or decline within 48 hours. If they decline, the role falls to the next-ranked member under the same 48-hour window.
This committee is ratified directly by the DAO and operates independently of the Working Group structure. It is not accountable to or appointed by any Working Group steward.
SPP3 Application Evaluation Process
The committee sets and publishes the full process timeline before the submission window opens. All dates are binding once published.
Week 1–2: Submission and Pre-qualification
-
Submission (14 days): Applications are submitted privately to the
committee. The committee has discretion over the submission method, provided content remains confidential. Private submissions protect applicants’ competitive information, preserve evaluation integrity by insulating the committee from external pressure, and prevent unsolicited outreach to applicants during the review period. -
Pre-qualification (concurrent): The committee screens applications against a published eligibility checklist as they arrive. The checklist is written by the committee, posted publicly to the forum before the submission window opens, and locks once applications open. Pre-qualification is a binary pass/fail on structural completeness (required fields, format, scope definition). It is not a subjective quality judgment. Applications that fail pre-qualification receive written feedback on the specific deficiency so the applicant may correct and resubmit before the window closes.
Week 3: Review
- Review (7 day minimum): The committee reads every qualifying application in full and conducts a structured interview with each team, focusing on the evaluation criteria. Same format for all applicants. The committee may negotiate scope, objectives, or award amounts with any qualifying applicant during this period. All material changes to a submitted application must be documented in writing and included in the committee’s public rationale record prior to submission of the final recommendation.
Week 4–5: Recommendation and DAO Approval
-
Recommendation: The committee formulates a cohort recommendation and
submits it publicly to the DAO with a written rationale for every funded and unfunded applicant. The recommendation must include selected applicants, justification for each selection, individual award amounts, and total program cost. -
DAO Approval: The final allocation goes on-chain as an executable. If rejected, the committee revises and resubmits within 14 days. If the committee fails to resubmit in time, or a second on-chain rejection occurs, the DAO shall dissolve the committee and the SPP3 program. If a funded applicant withdraws after ratification, the committee may reallocate remaining funds to the next-ranked unfunded applicant without a new DAO vote, provided the total does not exceed the ratified budget. The committee must post the reallocation and its rationale to the forum within 7 days of the decision.
Suggested Evaluation Criteria for Applicants
The following criteria are defaults. The committee may adopt, modify, or replace them when it publishes the evaluation rubric. The DAO vote on this proposal does not lock these criteria.
- Prior delivery history within ENS: Has the team shipped what it committed to in previous ENS work? Incomplete or abandoned prior grants are weighted negatively. New teams without ENS history must demonstrate comparable delivery track records elsewhere.
- Scope clarity: Is the team’s intended work clearly defined? The committee looks for a coherent problem statement, a credible approach, and a clear articulation of what success looks like. Flexibility in execution is expected and acceptable. The committee evaluates whether the team can credibly deliver meaningful outcomes, not whether they have followed a prescribed format.
- Milestone structure: Are deliverables broken into realistic and verifiable checkpoints with dates? Proposals with lump-sum outputs and no interim milestones score lower.
- Ecosystem fit: Does the work advance ENS’s stated objectives for this cycle? Applicants should map their work explicitly to the objectives ratified in the companion SPP3 program proposal.
Teams below threshold receive written feedback and may reapply in the next cycle.
Budget Authority
The total SPP3 budget, committee compensation, and process timeline are ratified in the companion SPP3 program proposal before the nomination window opens. The committee operates within that envelope with no authority to exceed it. Any unspent funds at the conclusion of the SPP3 cycle return to the DAO treasury. They do not carry over automatically.
The Meta-Governance Working Group is responsible for coordinating the
disbursement mechanics, including the payment stream, in accordance with the
ratified budget.