"Projects that specifically build on or improve the ENS Ecosystem.
Applicable projects are meaningfully building, creating content, or improving the ENS ecosystem."
Would this not also fit the definition and criteria for a “public good?”
"Projects that benefit the entire Ethereum or Web3 space.
Applicable projects should not be ENS-specific but may include ENS functionality."
Is there an example of a project that fits the criteria for ENS Ecosystem that does not also fit the criteria for a public good?
“Should not be ENS-specific but may include ENS functionality”
But why is this distinction made in the first place? ENS is a public good. Anything that benefits ENS also benefits “the entire Ethereum or Web3 space.” Why have an entire separate Public Goods working group?
Is the intention to give an equal amount of support to both ENS-specific and non-ENS-specific projects?
I can think of many examples of a “Public Good” that would not also fit the criteria for ENS Ecosystem. An example is a podcast, apparently. Why exactly is this appropriate for ENS DAO to fund?
“We are not trying to be Gitcoin.”
If our implied criteria and focus for “public good” means “open source,” it should be called that. Otherwise, public good is practically a catchall term for anything that is non-exclusionary and non-rivalrous. It’s almost a joke that anything public and freely available can be a public good. This post is a public good.
- All projects that improve the ENS Ecosystem also meet the criteria of a public good, since ENS is a public good.
- Not all projects that are a public good improve the ENS Ecosystem, and therefore don’t meet the criteria for ENS Ecosystem funding.
All ENS Ecosystem are Public Goods; but not all Public Goods are ENS Ecosystem.
So it will always be confusing to have two distinct criteria, when one can be contained entirely inside the other.
The intention is to give equal attention and focus to each of the two groups individually, how far does the subjective definition of “public good” apply?
ie - Why does a podcast meet this criteria? Would a bitcoin project? Solana? Would a corporate carbon “offset” grift meet this criteria? I’m not asking as a rhetorical hyperbole. This is necessary and important to define if we want to have accountability for what is funded.
It’s already been clarified that something like funding food banks or providing shelter would not meet our definition of public good. Only online public goods, apparently. Although internet access and use of electronics is absolutely exclusionary, and arguably rivalrous.
Basically - Why would we fund anything labeled a “public good” that does not also directly benefit the ENS Ecosystem?
The intention is NOT to give equal attention and focus to each of the two groups, why are they two groups? Public Goods could just fall under a broader “Ecosystem” scope.
I think we should focus our funding and concern on public goods that directly improve the ENS Ecosystem. Anything outside of that is too subjective to ethically fund, in my opinion. Gitcoin already exists for that, and does it way better.
Alternatively, make the definition/name less ambiguous.
Examples, instead of “Public Goods”
- “Open Source Ecosystem”
- “Web 3 Ecosystem”
- “Open Source Development”
- “Web3 Development”
- “Open Source Community”
- “Web3 Builders”
- “Open Source Builders”
- “Broader Open Source”
These would also include anything ENS-focused, but would at least be less susceptible to use as a catchall or interpreted as a vague euphemism.