[TEMP CHECK] ENS Steward Vesting Proposal

I think the language of these proposed choices help clarify the very narrow issue of this vote being limited to amending last term’s guidance applicable to this term.

However, unless I missed it, I’d recommend your proposal include verbiage that closes the gap that lead to this situation in the first place. Namely, there should be language in the proposal expressly stating whether the terms of this proposal are binding on the DAO or subject to further amendments based on future social votes.

Moreover, the record seems to support the intent of the original guidance passed last term was to: 1) be binding offers to the candidates running for the Steward positions; and 2) avoid this term’s Stewards finding themselves in this situation where there is an active vote regarding the terms of their own compensation packages and/or governance distributions.

In either case, whether this proposal is intended to be binding or non-binding subject to further amendments by social votes, it would be a shame to not improve the process and see these same contentious debates pop up in the forum before distribution of governance to the Stewards under the terms of this proposal in the future. Further, the addition of this type of language, which is standard boilerplate in legal agreements, really should become standard practice for all DAO proposals moving forward or at least for proposals involving offers/payments to 3rd parties for purposes of clarity and minimizing legal risks and potential liabilities such as breach of contract claims where (US) courts will generally construe/interpret ambiguous terms against the party that drafted them (the DAO in this instance) and in favor of the other party (i.e. Contra Proferentem Rule).

1 Like

Proposal has moved from TEMP CHECK to [5.7][Social] ENS Steward Vesting Proposal