The submission period is now closed. The Meta-Governance Working Group will begin to review submissions and announce the selected party to the DAO through a post on the forum. To reiterate, we reserve the right to refrain from appointing any party in the event that there are no acceptable submissions.
If a suitable party is selected, the Meta-Governance Working Group will work closely with them to draft a new set of bylaws according to the precepts listed within this RFP. These will be available for review and comment before submitting a social proposal to the DAO for their adoption.
whats the point of DAO governance if in the end, you get final say?
Also @estmcmxci you have been intentionally not replying to my messages. You log on after I send, you read them and disregard them. Please respond to my messages as it is a critical responsibility of your paid role as a Meta-Governance Steward or any other persons in a paid position in ENS DAO.
The Meta-Governance Working Group is pleased to announce that @KarelLemma, representing Lemma Solutions, has been selected as the party who will share the responsibility for drafting the ENS DAO Bylaws. The Bylaws will be made available for review and comment in advance of a social vote that will propose their adoption.
We thank all interested parties who submitted bids and encourage their continued participation in the ENS DAO’s Working Group initiatives throughout the year.
I think the idea behind “steward institute” is that you elect certain people to have executive power, then they do the work, to make the whole process more efficiently, so it kinda doesn’t make sense to question every single decision they make
That being said, some transparency about the process would be nice, if Metagov group could share some details, how the process went on, who were the candidates, any highlights would be helpful I think
And thirdly this is some seriously bold statement, to avoid sounding like a troll would be a good idea to provide some references for that. I personally for instance frankly would never dare to make such statement without some serious backup
Well, I too enquired repeatedly about the process and got no reply, they just refuse to answer any questions, what can you do? If they refuse it’s not like you can force them somehow how to do it
I’m extremely disappointed. I think it’s safe to come to a conclusion on who Lemma Solutions is or should I say what they are about. This literally took me less than 30 minutes to dig up.
If you look at the PDF proposal they made to Ape Coin DAO, The proposed that BAYC would need to be handing over almost all of their credentials to them.
@SpikeWatanabe.eth - Fair point. There is no ill intent or malice in us not being more transparent on this one. We try to be transparent about selection in these processes. I think we generally do a good job at this. Our streaming provider selection would be a good example of transparency after the fact re: the criteria used for the decision.
In this case, the RFP was started in the previous term so we’ve had involvement across both current and former Metagov stewards that defined the criteria and interviewed respondents. Not an excuse, just highlighting the complication in retrospect.
Give us a moment to compile some data and try to provide an overview of how the decision was made.
@accessor.eth - I’m not sure how to respond to your accusations yet. Although it looks like you just deleted them.
Thank you for your interest in the transparency of our selection process. We understand the importance of clarity in these matters. While we cannot disclose the identities of all the applicants out of respect for their privacy and due to the sensitive nature of this process, we are happy to share more about how the decision was made.
The Meta-Governance working group followed a rigorous process in selecting Lemma Solutions. This included following the RFP Process to a T and evaluating each applicant against the criteria outlined in the RFP. We assessed factors such as relevant experience, proposed approach, and alignment with the project’s goals. The process was competitive, and all applications were given careful consideration.
Highlights of the process include a diverse range of proposals, each bringing unique perspectives and solutions. The decision was made based on a comprehensive evaluation of how closely each proposal met our requirements and the potential impact on the project’s success.
We are committed to balancing transparency with applicant confidentiality. That said, I am personally interested in improving our capacity to make these matters more accessible to the public. Therefore, I appreciate your feedback on this matter.
We hope this provides some insight into our process and decision-making. Please feel free to ask if you have any more specific questions we might be able to address without compromising applicant confidentiality.
To preface this post, I’ll quote myself from March 2022:
I have no doubt the process was rigorous in the minds of the Stewards. However, there is very good reason my suggestion in March 2022, included creation of a legal subgroup for the management of these types of matters.
To insure everyone is on the same page let’s start with the Nick’s written RFP:
The RFP speaks for itself and solicited qualified individuals or firms to draft the bylaws.
Bylaws are a legal document. Legal documentation is typically drafted by qualified lawyers.
Lemma Solutions is not a law firm nor a legal service provider. According to their website they act as a middle man between DAOs and service providers including lawyers.
Either the best candidate to draft legal documentation was a non-lawyer or alternatively the best candidate was a middleman that will hire a lawyer to draft the bylaws on behalf of the DAO.
In either case the selection of a non-lawyer is fundamentally incompatible with Nick’s written RFP seeking a qualified person or firm to draft the DAO bylaws, and highlights why I previously suggested the DAO create a subgroup for legal matters back in March 2022.
For an independent and unbiased perspective I’ve asked ChatGPT the bare minimum questions, and I hope this helps the Stewards moving forward hiring professionals to complete legal work:
My questions in no way compromise applicant confidentiality, but in the interest of transparency and fairness I submit the following:
Were the applicants interviewed? In a career of over 10 years in law I’ve never been hired without first talking to a potential client. I’ve certainly never been hired for a client by a third party, which again appears to be Lemma’s role as a middleman between DAOs and lawyers.
Were writing samples requested from the applicants? One or more applicants might have years of experience drafting documentation for business organizations as a practicing attorney, while others may have never drafted bylaws.
Does Lemma Solutions have a track record of participating in ENS DAO? For example, the DAO governance documents are on GitHub and anyone can actively contribute to improving them without payment. Again, this might be relevant had one or more applicants publicly contributed to the ENS DAO governance documentation without compensation, while others had not shown that level of commitment to the DAO. Prior public contribution to the DAO’s governance documentation on GitHub would have shown, at minimum, which candidates have previously read the DAO governance documentation, are familiar with both the governance documentation and also the unique style of opensource governance documentation management on GitHub, and attention to detail in these matters.
Thank you for your attention and professionalism in this matter. I look forward to the answers to these basic questions in the interest of transparency and fairness.
frankly I only have one question here, can you share list of applicants please, I think it would answer all the questions the community might have, it would show how many applicant there were, demonstrate the extent of how competitive process was, some particularly inclined individuals might have another look into candidates
i don’t see how this information can be sensitive, if you feel that it cannot be shared, please explain how it is sensitive and can be damaging to anyone
so far all the bids were open, like bid for the fund manager for example, and no harm done
as investment banker, I did indeed see sometimes situation, where the very fact that certain party participated in the process is confidential, but these were soooo niche very very specific cases, and those were very rare, it can hardly be applicable here
AND
Actually I do like some of the questions by @ENSPunks.eth, again my thinking is that it’s not exactly prudent to interfere with the work of stewards, like let the people work, but sharing some details would be nice.
Agreed. It is very important to acknowledge the difficulty of working in the open and having their work subject to public scrutiny. However, I also believe it is equally difficult to speak up at times and there may even be a chilling effect that discourages questions which might ultimately improve transparency and fundamental fairness.
So long as all parties act in good-faith and fair dealing with the aim of balancing transparency, maintaining confidentiality where appropriate, and minimizing potential risks, then I trust in the process and those elected to uphold the Constitution and tasked with making these decisions.
As I recommended in March 2022, the DAO and Stewards can best achieve this through delegation to a subgroup/pod/committee particularly where legal matter are involved.
or be that they are entirely familiar with ens at all.
I disagree that by bringing this to attention shall be considered interring with a stewards work. Except I feel that it was quite the opposite and then some. This was simply me being proactive and taking notice to small nuances that would in any other situation, still produce a level of suspicion that would have lead me to continue investigating until those nuances were otherwise proven to be a legitimate asset of associated contribution to the service it provides. This could have gone completely unnoticed for a long time. I don’t want to boast but, I’m happy that I uncovered this information.I firmly believe that this entity is a threat to the ENS DAO and the ENS ecosystem and I believe that I have presented substantial preponderance of evidence to support that claim. Speculatively, it’s arguable that there was/is potential for this entity, an adversary to either do damage to DAO members on a personal level or damage at an organizational level which could have suffered financial losses in multiple ENS DAO assets. We should absolutely always be on our best cybersecurity postures. Especially here on this forum where different media is passed and presumably deemed as safe zone in comparison to platforms like twitter where people come and go so quickly. But really I think the attack surface needs to continue to be surveyed but also add awareness in areas that we may look over, ports of entry–per se.
Either way we look at this, the facts are this name “lemma” is notorious for financial fraud. That being said, I’m really curious to know about the rigorous selection process. Could we get an explanation of what steps were implemented in selecting this candidate and perhaps why other candidates were not selected? It doesn’t require any breach of confidentiality because it’s a process, regardless of their being an identity variable in the process or not. I would really like to hear a formidable opinion about this or at least be communicated any information discussed on this matter not only from stewards but also other DAO members. In fact, I’m asking for other opinions please DM or here is okay. This is important to me and for the security of the DAO and ENS and its ecosystem.
(note see me deleted posts, you should be able to still see them if you open the post. I removed the supporting evidence because I felt that it was loud and could create too much unwanted attention)
We received applications from both law firms and non-licensed, qualified individuals.
Yes.
Yes, we received samples.
Yes. They applied to this RFP.
As I understand it, this request is not compatible with the nature of this RFP:
You may ask @nick.eth why he chose to have applicants submit via forum DM. The Meta-Governance Working Group is simply adhering to the author’s preference. That being said, applicants are free to disclose this information themselves.
Out of the five applicants we considered, only two met our qualifications. During interviews, we asked applicants to explain their past experiences, specifically whether they have ever written DAO Bylaws. Both finalists proved to be almost equally qualified; with the exception that one was a full-service business law firm headquartered in New York
However, we ultimately chose Lemma. This decision was influenced by Lemma’s thorough preparation, demonstrated by providing copies of bylaws they had previously created for DAOs, their ability to convey the importance of DAO Bylaws and describe how to implement them, and a more favorable price point.
What about the nature of the information I brought forward? @estmcmxci
Applying for an RFP alone does not qualify as participation in the ENS DAO,
There is a very obvious reason that you won’t find any user profile across other DAOS they have “participated in”.
Applicants that did not win the bid are likely to NOT talk about this.That leaves one applicant, ‘Lemma Solutions’
to speak on the matter, which so far they have not.
So let me ask you this, are you still going to continue using them for drafting of the by-laws?
If so, have you paid them?
Please don’t put me into the position to where I have to publicly show more information that supports my thesis. I’d rather not teach effective fraud techniques on behalf of a fraud proof concept proxy that will ultimately benefit exploitive syndicate.
