I believe that we should move towards a more egalitarian distribution of voting power. Thus, the focus should be on targeting and engaging the delegates who fall below the third quartile ( <667.92 voting power) — I myself belong to this rank.
For example, there are plenty of developers in the ecosystem (our unsung heroes, in fact) who have demonstrated valuable contributions to the ENS Protocol. In addition to the nine service providers selected for streams, Meta-Governance should take responsibility for identifying and distributing governance power to those individuals building on ENS.
I have been thinking a lot about this recently and have concluded that instead of regulating the $ENS token, we should acknowledge it for what it is, ipso facto: both a currency and a measure of a delegate’s influence and voting power. It should serve as an incentive in both regards.
That’s why I believe @avsa’s solution is elegant; it was created with respect to this. Although I personally believe that delegates should primarily use their governance tokens for their intended purpose, I cannot deny the temptation to sell. I think that this is a feature, not a bug, and any ‘rational actor’ will understand the opportunity cost when they exchange their influence in governing the ENS Protocol for liquidity.
—
Sure, I partially agree with this motion. If a solution hasn’t already been built for this, I suggest using Axiom to look up historical onchain data to filter out delegates based on your and others’ suggested criteria. However, I’d argue that tokens should be vested and delegated according to avsa.eth’s proposal.
Wasn’t there a discussion about how many times one steward can be elected/reelected? What was the verdict of that discussion? And how or does that affect this? I can’t seem to find that discussion…
I proposed a couple of mechanisms to regulate that, there was no verdict, the discussion got thrown off the track a bit, but I’m planning to bring it back to light again, maybe in a different amended post, incorporating some of feedback we managed to gather at a time.
EDIT: This place is maze , takes some true forum warrior to navigate around here!
Hey Cap, we can discuss this at length in the bylaws thread — @Lemma are currently collecting feedback and preparing to submit a first draft of the DAO’s bylaws for community review.
Would you consider contributing this issue to the bylaws discussion? At present, there are no rules stipulating the length of steward terms, and I believe it would be beneficial for the DAO to address this as we prepare the bylaws for a social proposal.
—
I am looking forward to the next steps in the ENS Governance Distribution Program. AFAIK, there have been no dissenting voices in the discussion thread, and it sounds like this proposal is being well received by the community.
This brings important consideration to the method of which governance token distribution is measured. I would assume that there is a master log that is available between the stewards that should be; if not exact mirror of what reflects all ENS DAO wallets, a more comprehensive detailed record of each incoming and outgoing payment. Specifically one that notates who the payment is being sent to as well as particularly describing it’s purpose. I also assume that one exists already,
If such master sheet does not exist (which it should), then expect that contentions may or may not arise from recipients or not-recipients in regards to distribute amounts. Also, if under the condition that a master sheet does not exists, I would suggest this two options in providing further clarity of information that (in my opinion should be public already)
make the document publicly accessible for viewing on one of the many websites ENS has information.
Develop a schema and code reference for non-revokable attestations for publishing along with each outgoing payment, with any further details as to the who, what, when, whys. Base would be a great option for this, rather than mainnet.
This will prevent any objections towards calculations of any future weights or other distributions granted.
One year ago, I put this topic the forum. It sparked good conversation but did not receive as much attention that I was hoping for. But now it shows the importance of participation in DAO discussion or contributing development work, deliverables or just supporting the DAO in any way that you are able
In this topic I find this the most true of all the responses
Three months ago, which at the time was ten months after original posting; I added this remark
@estmcmxci This is my substantially compelling reason. So I can continue to promotoe discussion around this very topic.
edit sorry @nick.eth didn’t meant to reply to your response.
Hmm very interesting accessor.eth, do you think that some well supported temperature checks that have translated into actual proposals could be also considered for an ENS Governance Distribution Program?
Is it possible to have an onchain forum planned to be deployed in the future that can be verified as per onchain analysis and would incentivize participation?
For me the 2FA and email, instead of just SIWE has made a bit troublesome to easily login to the forum and for the sake of convenience sometimes I discuss on socials and/or talk directly to the person/communities, e.g. https://x.com/amboscoboinik/status/1768714800530436193?s=20
This is where official conversation takes place. There realy isn’t other platforms outside of private messages between parties that discuss in-motion line item.
Your last time you accessed this forum was 6 months prior to your most recently log in data. So other than the ample time to solve that issue, I really have no other suggestion.
The metrics are not set in stone. This isn’t my temp-check and I’m not sure if I understand your question. @bosco
, takes some true forum warrior to navigate around here!