Proposed ENS Constitution

I hope this not a naïve question, what economic benefit would token holders receive?

If I understand Section III. Income funds ENS and other public goods then we would first use all funds to extend the longevity of the ENS system, and I am all for it.

Will there be opportunities to payout dividends to ENS DAO tokenholders with excess reserves? If so, would each dividend need to have a voting process in place? I am curious since I am interested in running a valuation analysis on ENS per token.


I understand, but it seems prudent to me that if we all do inherently believe this to be the building blocks of not only the DAO itself, but at some level contributing to an ETH based WEB3.0 overall scale won’t be the issue.
I get it’s temporary and I’m not a delegate or applying to be, but I think if there’s more engagement retained from the main app then that shouldn’t need to be touched.

I get there are other platforms for interested parties to engage in discussion and such regarding the project, but IMO for all 80 something applicants (at last look), there should be at least some other person replying to you on the internally hosted discussion forums that they wish to help construct. Especially with respect to the gravitas of your proposition.


ENS is intended to be a not-for-profit public good. Section III - and the Foundation’s charter - prohibit it from paying out dividends to tokenholders.


I. Name ownership is an absolute right(Agree)
II. Registration fees exist as an incentive mechanism(Agree)
III. Income funds ENS and other public goods(Agree)
IV. ENS Integrates with the global namespace(Agree)

Just agree all rulesmand hope web3 will change our Internet. Future is web3 and metaverse, and ENS is important with our vision!


As a newbie in this space, I have a question for IV. (Pardon my English as it’s not native)

“ENS governance should grant control of a top-level domain to its owner in the DNS system on request.”

I hope I understand it correctly and I read this as in case a company owning let’s say wasn’t early enough to register fb.eth. and it was taken by someone else, the DAO may grant ownership to fb.eth to the owner of upon request?

As there are numerous dns domains that could be owned by smaller companies with similar names, let’s say or was in fact not owned by the same owner as, how would the DAO decide/rule in a case where there is already legitimate ownership of fb.eth?

Right now, I think this rule is to vague and opens up a lot of questions.
I suggest a clarification of this rule with maybe a few requirements that needs to be verified in case a top domain owner in dns claims ownership to .eth.


  1. The claim need to be documented with:
    A. a proof of ownership of dns domain AND
    B. a legitimate cause of ownership to ens domain
  2. The registered owner of ens domain needs to provide proof of a legitimate cause of ownership by:
    A. proof of registered company with ownership of a corresponding dns domain AND/OR
    B. a legitimate cause of ownership to ens domain
  3. The claim will be voted on by the delegates of the DAO after reviewing the proof from the two claiming parts

I believe it’s referring to registrars. A top-level domain is the suffix in the legacy DNS. As in .com .net .app etc. My understanding of IV was that it will grant registrars the ability administer their already contracted regisitries via the IANA/ICANN.
I could be wrong though, so yes more clarification is in order.


This was my understanding as well but I’m seeing different interpretations here. Could we get clarification or better wording on IV?


The launch of ENS DAO will be a major move in history, which will promote the faster and better development of ETH and the ecosystem, and will have a positive and far-reaching impact on the future


Agree with all 4 rules. I also really like the idea around ENS reinvesting back into the community for the development of other necessary public goods.



That goes against the original vision of #crypto.

Not your keys not your Crypto.

We don’t want ENS naming become like WWW naming.

As in centralized.


No doubt, that ENS and the DAO space have developed enough that now is the right time to award ENS governance over to the community via the creation of a DAO and the $ENS governance token. The only DAO governance is right solution at this time.
Transparency is key of blockchain compare to traditional web domain.
Its fair enough that majority vote amedment to this constitution.
I find those 4 rules is accaptble for present. I Agreed


What will be the future application scenarios of ENS?


I agree with four items. It is not necessary to give incentives to the community and developers in order to work with interest. However, the fact that the token value has risen too much and a large amount of money is required to change the domain is a mess. I think that it is a function that will definitely be required in web3.0, so I think that many people will be interested in it. It is important to get more people interested in the price setting that is easy to enter.

  • Name ownership shall not be infringed: (Agree)
  • Fees are primarily an incentive mechanism: (Agree)
  • Income funds ENS and other public goods: (Agree)
  • ENS Integrates with the global namespace: (Agree)
1 Like

I agree ,it’s so strong

1 Like

I would like to propose following discussion points:
a. sub domain levels. e.g., how many levels of subs can exist.
b. sub domain transaction anonymity. e.g. whether some sub domain transactions can be anonymous.
c. define a funding range (target, limit) on ENS integration to global namespace.

Not having any specific ideas or directions on these, but just thought these points would be worth discussing in the future and maybe come into written down format.

Thank you. Love ETH.


First of all, thanks for an airdrop and all!

Just claimed my token and saw for the first time the Constitution. Stucked at " III. Income funds ENS and other public goods" and ended up rejecting it. Not sure where to start the discussion so I’ll write here.

First of all and most important it sounds contradicting itself: first it says: “Funds <…> may be used to fund other public goods within web3 <…>” and later: " Permissible : ENS governance may offer grant funding for a public good unrelated to ENS or Ethereum".

So what it this, within web3 and unrelated to Ethereum (or ENS) at the same time? As ENS is an Ethereum Name System, and a smart-contract on Ethereum, this sounds contradicting.

And second I think that “grant funding for a public good unrelated to ENS or Ethereum” is dangerous. Why should this be possible? I mean what is the purpose of such possability? To be able to fund something unrelated? It could be an ok paragrath for voting but looks like too specificially permissive for the fist legal document (and then the description should be reworded).

I think that wording in the description is ok, but this “Permissible” example just brings contradictions and highly controversal an it own.


I agree with these four rules.
I look forward to the reliable expansion of the ENS ecosystem.

1 Like

I agree with the applicable provisions I hope that ENS is more advanced and develops rapidly compared to the others I have read everything and I really agree and I am happy about it


Community governance is very important, and our own problems also need to be solved