Firstly, I want to acknowledge that Tally provides a polished and valuable web frontend for Governor-based proposal creation and execution.
However, as a founder building in this space, I’d like to raise a few concerns with how this proposal has been framed and the broader implications it has for the ecosystem.
Problematic Framing: “Dedicated Governance Provider”
Using language like “dedicated governance service provider” sets a dangerous precedent that undermines competition. It suggests exclusivity in a category that should remain pluralistic and permissionless.
For example, Snapshot is a critical vendor that also provides DAO tooling and with broader usage. If we’re comparing facilitation:
- Snapshot has supported 82 off-chain proposals
- Governor has handled 44 on-chain proposals
Governance is not just proposal creation, it includes delegation UX, voting incentives, metadata indexing, notifications, delegate engagement, and more. Consolidating this complexity under a single vendor creates fragility, not resilience.
Long term impact
While ENS has the luxury of a strong revenue base, the tooling it funds sets a precedent for the wider DAO ecosystem.
If we want to see more Web2 organizations adopt decentralized governance, we need:
- Governance tooling that is cost-effective and modular.
- A procurement process that encourages innovation and diversity.
- Transparent benchmarks for deliverables and pricing.
Let’s not forget: more DAOs → more use of ENS → stronger ENS network effects and revenues. Supporting a diverse marketplace of tools is in ENS’s own long-term interest.
A question: The DAO has already allocated $4.5M via SPP2 to ENS tooling, which includes Namechain indexer work. What makes this proposed integration substantively different?
Stifling Open Innovation
As I raised in the Metagov call: if Tally is in early discussions around the requirements for zero-day support for Namechain, those conversations should happen in public.
Anything less and it actively harms other vendors who are independently investing their resources and capital to build alternate approaches like Agora, Snapshot and Lighthouse.
Final Thought
We respectfully ask ENS stewards and delegates to consider what has been brought up many times before:
“How do we support vendors who clearly add value while also allowing new participants to compete and innovate?”
For context, the Compound governance stewards received a similar proposal from Tally and decided to turn it into a tender process for all vendors.
I would hope to see something similar that also builds on some of the ideas presented in this thread.