[TEMP CHECK] ENS Steward Vesting Proposal

[estmcmxci]

@James

We propose that all ENS disbursements to stewards be vested on a linear 24 month schedule from the time of distribution. In line with the 12 month term that each steward serves plus an additional 12 months of vesting to encourage longterm DAO alignment.

Wait, wasn’t it originally suggested that the first tranche would be distributed according to the Term 4 Guidance? See below:

@James

Only assigning the first 6 months worth of steward incentives, with the remaining incentives to be discussed by the wider DAO (Distribute 5k ENS tokens to each steward, with the second half of the allocation to be thought through more purposefully) - Especially given that the term was increased from 6 months to 12 months in the last term.

—

@James

we feel 2 years allows for there to still be significant value distributed during a stewards term, as well as baking in longer term alignment

I agree that this is a reasonable timeline, but why are we reneging on the prior term’s guidance if it’s what was agreed upon? It is essentially a vested distribution already, as the voting power is being delivered in two separate tranches, six months apart from each other.

Reneging doesn’t set good precedent moving forward. This topic would have otherwise been left alone if it were not for the intense and persistent framing of the governance token as compensation, probably due to its price benefiting from market conditions, imho.

That being said, I will not be obstinate in supporting a change of governance distribution to Term 5 stewards, provided there is consensus. I must admit it feels somewhat like a ‘gotcha,’ this coming from a first-time steward, how do you think future stewards will feel if delegates can freely change the rules?

Without observing or respecting decisions that have been made in the past, I am afraid that the DAO is subject to low-integrity maneuvering.

—

@vegayp

it sets a bad precedent and bad governance, of quid pro quo: we can change the rules anytime regardless of previous commitments.

That’s exactly right. Maybe the logic behind the governance distribution has been naive up to this point, but it doesn’t mean that current stewards should be punished for it. If delegates voted for the current Working Group body, then they should trust them to handle their newly endowed voting rights with a sense of responsibility and duty.

Otherwise, it casts a shadow over their efforts over the last 800 days. I believe we, as a DAO, would be remiss not to reward steward efforts with sovereign voting rights.

—

@AvsA

It’s important to note that there are actually two things being put forward in this proposal: approving the concept of vesting itself and making it retroactive for the current term. There should be an option for voters to express their opinion on both matters.

—

Yes, I agree, good call. BUT, we should take a step back and get to the heart of the matter, which is, should the Term 5 guidance stand? Going straight to a vote without acknowledging this seems like we’re skipping steps.

I believe that the first social proposal that should be put up for a vote is whether or not the Term 5 compensation guidance should stand. Then, and only then, should we follow up with a proposal for governance distribution.