Service Provider Strategy Forum

[estmcmxci]

ENS Service Provider Strategy Forum

• When: March 19, 2025
• Time: 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM ET
• RSVP: Service Provider Strategy Forum · Luma
• Moderated by estmcmxci.eth

Note: This forum and its links are independently organized and maintained by estmcmxci.eth

About the Forum

The Service Provider Strategy Forum is a curated discussion designed for prospective service providers and interested delegates. Nick Johnson, ENS’s lead developer, joins the call to provide insights and answer questions about ENS and its infrastructure needs, ensuring an informed and meaningful conversation.

Purpose

The strategy call facilitates conversations among service providers in the ENS ecosystem, serving as a sense-making session to explore needs and opportunities.

Nick.eth will not be providing suggestions on what to focus on; applications should come from those who identify a need and have the capability to address it.

This is an opportunity for proactive participants to articulate the specific problem they have identified and how their service will solve it.

Post-Call Summary

Notes and key insights from the discussion will be shared on the ENS forum in the same thread as this announcement, including details on each prospective service provider’s proposed solution and feedback offered.

This ensures that valuable takeaways from the conversation are accessible to the broader ENS community, including those who could not attend.

Participants are encouraged to continue the discussion in the forum, building on ideas from the call and exploring potential collaborations.

How to Join

Prospective service providers must answer the following question when requesting access:

What specific problem within the ENS ecosystem do you see, and how is your proposed service uniquely positioned to address it?

Delegates who wish to attend can select the “Delegate” checkbox in the questionnaire and enter “n/a” for the required question.

If service providers prefer not to share their contact information, message estmcmxci.eth on the ENS forum to receive event access details.

Agenda

The discussion will follow:

1. Overview of Nick.eth’s post: Service Provider Program – Scope & Deliverables
2. Service providers present their proposed solutions and receive feedback
3. Open Q&A: Exploring key challenges and opportunities for new service providers
   • ENS core infrastructure
   • DAO infrastructure
   • Partnerships and integrations

The call will be scheduled for 90 minutes but may end early if discussion naturally concludes.

For full details and to request access, visit the event page.

[Sov]

Thanks for taking the initiative to set this up. I am looking forward to participating if I can align calendars on my side!

[clowes.eth]

Appreciative of the effort that has gone into organising this @estmcmxci but as outlined on the Metagov call I do have some concerns that I that I would like to follow up on.

Context

@nick.eth is in a unique position - he built the protocol/leads ENS Labs, but is also a large delegate.

Over the past weeks I have made two requests:

1. For ‘the DAO’ to clarify what they would like to see from potential Service Provider Program applicants. As ‘the DAO’ is represented by its delegates the path that seems to have emerged for this is delegates sharing their opinions. @nick has done this, and I would implore other delegates to do so as they see fit:

@clowes.eth

Perhaps a ‘Delegate Viewpoints’ section would be useful to supplement the existing categories and allow a public platform for delegates (who are representatives of the DAO) to express their viewpoints on what they would like to see.

2. For a representative of ENS Labs to provide clarity on their work on protocol development.

@clowes.eth

@Esk3nder.eth provided some insight from the ENS Labs end that was extremely useful. I will allow him to clarify as I don’t wan’t to misquote him but my understanding was that Labs would like to focus on protocol level engineering, and would like to see service provision in vertically integrated areas (DeFi, AI etc).

I think there is incredibly important nuance here. I queried this because of my desire to avoid wasted energy and duplication of effort whilst ensuring efficient resource allocation. See:

@clowes.eth

I think more intentionality should be given by the DAO to designing this upcoming iteration of the program so as to avoid unnecessary duplication.

ENS Labs have historically worked on protocol level development, and are funded independently of the SPP. The new ‘Service Provider Applications’ sub tag will allow potential applicants to see what their competitors are intending to work on.

In addition to this, it would be useful for a representative of Labs to create a similar post documenting their positioning so potential applicants can work with complete information when discerning what to work on over the coming year(s).

To be abundantly clear, Labs absolutely have no obligation to do this, I personally just think that it would be useful.

If they were open to providing this information perhaps (noting that @nick.eth wears many hats) another representative of Labs could provide this insight so as to avoid confusion.

Commentary

Noting the above context I am concerned that this proposed ‘Strategy Forum’ is unclear in its intent.

I would like insight from delegates on what they would like to see from the Service Provider Program. My proposal for a sub tag to house these opinions would serve this purpose. I am not averse to a supplementary open call for all delegates (that want to) to discuss their opinions directly with potential applicants.

The initial Temp-Check: Strategy & Discussion Call (Office Hours) seems to differ in its intent to what is outlined in this post.

The original post essentially concerned working group call overflow - the topics that warrant more in depth discussion with active participation from significant ecosystem players including ENS Labs. I am massively in favour of such a call.

TL;DR - This post (and the proposed call) pertains to the Service Provider Program. This differs from the original temperature check and is, in my opinion, not appropriately open or inclusive.

[5pence.eth]

@clowes.eth

I am not averse to a supplementary open call for all delegates (that want to) to discuss their opinions directly with potential applicants.

FWIW, The first metagov call of every month will be a delegate forum with an agenda of updates and Q&A that is tailored specifically to their needs.

Delegate All-Hands: New Focus for First Metagov Call Each Month

The Metagov Working Group is excited to announce a new intention for our first Metagov call each month, designed to improve delegate participation and coordination. What’s Changing Starting next month, the first Metagov call of each month will focus specifically on delegate attendance and participation. This existing weekly call will now serve as our monthly all-hands for delegates, creating a central coordination point within our regular Metagov call schedule. The stewards will curate these m…

The first one of these will take place on April 1st, which falls in between the closing of the SPP application window and the beginning of the SPP voting window.

[estmcmxci]

@clowes.eth

For a representative of ENS Labs to provide clarity on their work on protocol development.

I won’t speak for Nick, but I believe they have signaled their intent to clarify this during the Strategy Forum. The aim is also to identify where Service Providers may overlap with each other and ENS Labs’ efforts. I understand that Unruggable Labs ran into this issue last year, and the forum would provide a channel to discuss how to avoid redundancy in efforts at large.

—

@clowes.eth

The original post essentially concerned working group call overflow - the topics that warrant more in depth discussion with active participation from significant ecosystem players including ENS Labs. I am massively in favour of such a call.

That’s the intention! Glad to hear you’re in favor of a corresponding call where we can dive deep into strategy together, such as handling the ENSIP process. As noted, the existing process may need renovation, and I’d be happy to set up a follow-up call on this, with input from ENS Labs, of course.

—

@clowes.eth

This differs from the original temperature check and is, in my opinion, not appropriately open or inclusive.

This Strategy Forum would be the first in a series of calls, if the community is interested. Given the upcoming Service Provider Program voting period, the first call will focus on identifying overlaps between ENS Labs and Service Providers to minimize redundancy.

—

To reiterate: the call is open to all prospective Service Providers who follow the registration process. Delegates are welcome to participate as well.

[nick.eth]

@clowes.eth

ENS Labs have historically worked on protocol level development, and are funded independently of the SPP. The new ‘Service Provider Applications’ sub tag will allow potential applicants to see what their competitors are intending to work on.

I don’t think this is a good description of the situation. The DAO is soliciting proposals to build ENS and ENS DAO infrastructure; the infrastructure shouldn’t be secret - in fact, it’s crucial that it’s public and well known. Nothing a streaming provider builds should be a surprise to anyone.

@clowes.eth

In addition to this, it would be useful for a representative of Labs to create a similar post documenting their positioning so potential applicants can work with complete information when discerning what to work on over the coming year(s).

I feel like the scope of what Labs builds is reasonably clear, but I’m happy to answer questions about it both here and elsewhere.

@clowes.eth

Noting the above context I am concerned that this proposed ‘Strategy Forum’ is unclear in its intent.

My intention on this call is purely to answer questions from prospective service providers and delegates about ENS and its infrastructure needs, from my perspective as an ENS veteran. Hopefully that will help people get some perspective on their plans and enable them to better put forward proposals that benefit ENS. I’m not attempting to assume any exclusive or gatekeeping role here.

[clowes.eth]

@nick.eth

I don’t think this is a good description of the situation. The DAO is soliciting proposals to build ENS and ENS DAO infrastructure; the infrastructure shouldn’t be secret - in fact, it’s crucial that it’s public and well known. Nothing a streaming provider builds should be a surprise to anyone.

I agree. I am advocating for transparency on what people are planning on building. The applications in themselves will provide insight, as will open conversation amongst potential applicants and delegates.

@5pence.eth

FWIW, The first metagov call of every month will be a delegate forum with an agenda of updates and Q&A that is tailored specifically to their needs.

This is a great initiative, and provides a platform for these conversations. The timing of the first call does mean that it doesn’t give delegates a platform for saying what they want in advance of/during the application process.

@estmcmxci

The aim is also to identify where Service Providers may overlap with each other and ENS Labs’ efforts.

This provides clarity. Essentially, in its current form, this is a conversation amongst teams who are/may be funded by the DAO. In this case you are speaking as a representative of ENS Labs and not in your role as a delegate.

@nick.eth

My intention on this call is purely to answer questions from prospective service providers and delegates about ENS and its infrastructure needs, from my perspective as an ENS veteran. Hopefully that will help people get some perspective on their plans and enable them to better put forward proposals that benefit ENS. I’m not attempting to assume any exclusive or gatekeeping role here.

Clear.

@clowes.eth

For a representative of ENS Labs to provide clarity on their work on protocol development.

It seems like this conversation will be a useful platform for this.

@estmcmxci

Delegates are welcome to participate as well.

It seems like a missed opportunity to not push for delegates to get involved in this conversation too.

@estmcmxci

the call is open to all prospective Service Providers who follow the registration process

I still believe that this should be an open conversation.

[estmcmxci]

Update: Order of Presentations

I’ve just sent an update to registered participants with the call agenda. Presentations will be conducted in the order of registration. Each prospective Service Provider will have 5 minutes to present, followed by 2 minutes of open floor feedback.

Presentation Order:

1. @Arnold
2. @lightwalker.eth
3. @hidayath.eth
4. @justghadi.eth
5. @chomtana
6. @Premm.eth
7. @brennan_agora
8. @PYOR
9. Web3 Labs / Chainlens

New registrants will be added to the presentation list in the order they register. If you sign up late, we’ll do our best to accommodate you, but priority goes to those who registered first.

—

After the presentations, we’ll move to an open Q&A, where delegates are encouraged to participate in the discussion. If you have any questions or would like to raise an issue, please message me here on the forum or via Telegram. Thanks, and looking forward to the discussion!

[estmcmxci]

What to expect at today’s strategy forum

​Hello everyone—I’m excited to moderate today’s discussion. Nick Johnson, ENS’s lead developer, will be joining us to share insights and answer questions about ENS and its infrastructure needs.

Our focus will be on the ongoing development and enhancement of the ENS system, as well as how your service is positioned to contribute to that progress.

You can review the agenda here.

We’ll kick off with a brief overview of the Service Provider Program, covering its purpose and key dates.

​Just a reminder—you can now submit your application here.

Next, we’ll speed-run through presentations, where teams will have the opportunity to articulate the specific need their service addresses and how they are best positioned to deliver value and drive improvements to the ENS System. This will be followed by immediate open-floor feedback.

Lastly, we’ll open the floor for a roundtable Q&A, where participants can engage directly with Nick and get their questions answered.

Please note that participants are also encouraged to attend the weekly Meta-Governance Working Group calls on Tuesdays at 2 PM UTC for further guidance and discussion regarding the Service Provider Program (SPP).

If you need further assistance, or would like more guidance, feel free reach out to me on Telegram.

Call notes will be shared shortly after the call (within 48 hours). Thank you!

Note: The setlist is now finalized, so we’re unable to accommodate new presenters. However, if you’re a delegate and would like to join the call, feel free to reach out, and I’ll be happy to send you the meeting link via direct message.

​estmcmxci.eth

[estmcmxci]

Service Provider Strategy Forum — Summary & Insights

Expressing Gratitude

I’d like thank everyone who attended and participated in the ENS Service Provider Strategy Forum. The call was incredibly productive, with valuable insights shared across different domains of ENS infrastructure, governance, and strategic growth.

Feedback suggests that there is a strong demand for more focus group-style discussions. I acknowledge that accessibility is important, and I will make an effort to improve on that front moving forward by making these sessions more inclusive—such as providing a public access link—while ensuring that participation remains meaningful and constructive.

Project Summaries

Project	Category	Description
Lighthouse Labs	Governance Tooling	Accelerates onchain decision-making through DAO operations and governance client integration.
Namehash Labs	Name Discovery & Indexing	Develops NameAI, NameGraph, and ENS Node for multi-chain ENS indexing and name discovery.
Webhash	Decentralized Web Hosting	No-code decentralized website builder for ENS with a focus on permanent storage and onchain content provenance.
JustaName	ENS Integration & Identity	Facilitates easy ENS integration into dApps with subdomain claiming, AI tools, and decentralized identity frameworks.
Chomtana	Decentralized Web Hosting	Building a platform similar to Vercel for deploying decentralized websites and encouraging second-level domain adoption.
Unruggable Labs	L2 & Infrastructure	Developing L2 solutions for ENS scaling and Unruggable Gateways for secure resolution.
Agora	Governance Tooling	Improves capital allocation transparency, DAO participation, and governance security with visualization and voting tools.
PYOR	DAO Analytics	Provides DAO governance transparency through data dashboards, distribution channels, and research reports.
Web3 Labs / Chain Lens	Smart Contract Naming	enscribe.xyz project simplifies smart contract naming at deployment time for a decentralized, immutable system.

Potential Concerns for the DAO Service Provider Program

Several discussions during the call surfaced important concerns related to the ENS Service Provider Program (SPP), particularly around funding scope, redundancy, and capital allocation efficiency, I encourage @Meta-Gov_Stewards to have a look at this:

• Overlap & Redundancy: There was broad recognition that multiple projects in the pipeline have overlapping scopes, particularly within governance tooling and DWeb projects. This raised concerns about inefficient spending and the potential for duplicative efforts.
• Funding Scope Debate: A discussion revolved around what should and should not be funded under the SPP. @brantlymillegan argued for a broad interpretation that includes ecosystem projects, while Nick Johnson emphasized that the program should be focused on core ENS infrastructure rather than general ecosystem initiatives.
• Capital Allocation & Strategic Planning: Acknowledging concerns around inefficiency, @nick.eth conceded that there should have been more discussion on funding allocation before committing capital, while also noting that this is a broader issue within the DAO space that has yet to be properly addressed. The challenge of balancing funding between governance tooling, DWeb projects, and infrastructure was highlighted as a point requiring clearer strategic direction.
• ENS DAO Revenue vs. Value Creation: Some attendees raised the question of whether funded projects should directly contribute to ENS DAO revenue versus providing long-term ecosystem value through adoption and infrastructure improvements.

Key Takeaways from the Discussion

1. Governance Tooling and DAO Coordination

   • The need for better governance tooling was widely agreed upon, with projects like Lighthouse Labs, Agora, and PYOR’s analytics platform offering solutions to improve transparency and participation. However, the concern of redundancy was raised, urging delegates to carefully assess which solutions bring the most unique value.
   • The idea of a signaling mechanism (Signals) for gauging DAO intent before voting was proposed as a means to better prioritize funding requests.

2. Decentralized Web (DWeb) & ENS Expansion

   • Several teams presented DWeb-related projects, focusing on ENS-powered website hosting, with some emphasizing second-level domains over subdomains.
   • While DWeb projects align with ENS’s vision, some delegates expressed concern over the need to prioritize direct ENS infrastructure over broader ecosystem applications.

3. ENS Infrastructure & Market Growth

   • Projects like NameHash Labs and JustaName aim to improve ENS adoption through better indexing, AI-enhanced discovery, and subdomain expansion.
   • A key discussion revolved around the role of subnames in ENS adoption, with some arguing that gasless subnames are essential for onboarding, while others noted that they do not directly contribute to DAO revenue.

4. Funding Structure & Capital Efficiency

   • @Premm.eth proposed a multi-pool funding structure to allow delegates to allocate specific budgets for DAO tooling, infrastructure, and ecosystem growth, avoiding inefficient spending.
   • There was broad agreement that ENS DAO needs a more structured capital allocation strategy to avoid funding unnecessary redundancies and ensure efficient use of treasury funds.

Next Steps & Proposed Follow-Up Discussion

Given the discussions and key concerns raised, we propose scheduling another strategy-focused call to address the following open questions:

• Refining the Scope of the SPP: Should funding be strictly for ENS infrastructure, or should it extend to broader ecosystem initiatives?
• Capital Allocation & Budgeting: Should ENS adopt a multi-pool funding structure to prevent inefficiencies? If so, how should funds be distributed across categories?
• Overlapping Project Proposals: How can we better structure proposal evaluation to minimize redundant funding?

I encourage further discussion and welcome any feedback on structuring the next strategy call for maximum impact.

—
For questions or further input, please reach out via the forum or Telegram (@estmcmxci).

[PYOR]

Unable to create a “New Topic” in the “Service Provider Category.” What is the solution/workaround?

[estmcmxci]

Reach out to @Meta-Gov_Stewards for guidance.

[184.eth]

You need write address. The Request Access button is in the top right hand corner.

Looks like you also found it. Your request has been received and permissions updated.

[PYOR]

I’m still unable to add a new topic in the Service Provider Application Cateogry.

[184.eth]

Select the ‘subcategory’ (below)

Service Provider Applications