Damn, this is beautiful. There are a lot of good things here. This is what Iām talking about. This is very useful, thank you! This moves my thinking in a different direction. Do you happen to have the token eligibility criteria for the first airdrop? Iād actually love to see that.
I agree with this 100%.
I fully support this.
Ok so as you said here:
The only thing that makes sense to airdrop tokens for would be 2 main things, with the bigger focus on the 1st one:
Governance participation ā Discussion forum participation, Snapshot voting, On-chain voting, maybe Discord activity, Working group meetings and activities, and so onā¦ and itās possible and probably ok from the ethical perspective, to exclude anyone who hasnāt participated in any voting or discussions whatsoever. (Huge topic for discussion on āhow to do the airdropā).
Rewarding ENS super users (wallets that did not immediately sell ENS but rather delegated their ENS tokens, ENS name owners who experimented with text records, .limo service, the volume of names minted and traded, alpha product early testers and contributors, Goerli NameWrapper contract testers, and so on and so on).
Iām obviously writing things off the top of my head. If we decided to do this, a lot more careful consideration would be needed to figure out how to best conduct this. But I hope you see where Iām going with this.
And as I said before, this is a discussion that would be about āhow to do the airdropā whereas this temp check is āis it worth doing itā if I understand correctly.
At first, I was at 50/50 about doing the airdrop. Then I was 55/45 in favour of doing it. Now Iām at 50/50 again.
One other thing just occurred to me. Iām playing devilās advocate in my head ā the fact that less than 0.5% of all ENS governance tokens in circulation participate in governance is definitely a sign that we should have some type of plan to stimulate and incentivize governance participation. How do we rank compared to other DAOs and their tokens? Does anyone have any info there?
I guess itās arguable that a carefully thought-out airdrop majorly focused to improve governance participation is definitely one way to go about fixing/improving this while at the same time rewarding the power users of ENS.
These are good stats to have, but should be taken with a grain of salt. We donāt expect everyone to be actively involved in governance; that would be unsustainable. Thatās why the delegation mechanism exists; a better set of stats would combine participation statistics with delegations.
Disclaimer: The poll results here are unofficial and in no way serve as a final determination of any decision regarding the 2nd airdrop. This poll allowed me to gather external feedback outside (via Twitter) of the forum with the community. This information will be part of the record. Thank you.
Generally speaking, the 2nd airdrop is a risk to the ENS DAO & token price. Although a 2nd airdrop is possible, there would be a lot of gamification to prevent.
If releasing so many ENS tokens to many users who are not active with the DAO, then this risks the governance token price crashing, and allowing for negative or neutral actors to control cheap ENS DAO voting tokens, thereby adding risk to the voting protocol.
The outcome of a 2nd airdrop would need to have a net benefit to the ENS DAO & Web3 ecosystem; and not just distributing free money to users who spread their ENS names across multiple addresses.
Limiting criteria to 2022 āprevents users from gaming the potential systemā, with these forum post ideas being commented on in 2023.
Just a quick note-idea:
A retroactive 2nd-airdrop
ā¦but only for addresses that:
had actually taking the time to had āDelegated their ENSā tokens in 2022, or
had ENS delegated to them, AND, they had a ~good ENS DAO āvoting recordā.
Other criteria could be added, like: The address had their RR set, & X-records completed in 2022.
This way, tokens would be distributed to users who actually participated with ENS and the DAO, and would not be distributed to user that would just dump free money. Many casual observers of ENS would seek to gamify a 2nd airdrop; (and gamification would need to be limited, as much as possible).
Anyone who want a 2nd airdrop, and actually cares about the ENS DAO, would have had their 1+ ENS tokens delegated (and/or voting in the ENS DAO), in 2022. Again, other criteria could also be added to increase the quality of the airdrop address qualification list.
Thanks for the feedback GaryP. I am working with a couple of people to nail down the eligibility criteria as it is something not finalized in this Temp Check. The final proposal document will include a couple of identifiable metrics for qualification. Hoping to have something ready to go within the next two weeks.
That seems sudden and counter-intuitive to be working on the āfinal proposal documentā.
To seriously be working on the eligibility criteria & āfinal proposal documentāā¦before we even conclude what the goals are for a 2nd airdrop, and how a 2nd airdrop would achieve those goals, and how it would avoid being gamified, and justifying what should happen as necessary prerequisites and railsā¦seems to be the wrong order of operations.
Seems difficult to have a serious āfinal proposal documentā without all that pre-work and information to be hashed out āas a decentralized organizationā; otherwise it would be a proposal to give people money with no goals or risk prevention of vector attacksā¦and it would not be a complete proposal.
I would hope to have all this pre-work done (and generally agreed upon), before a final proposal document is presented, in order to be meaningfully inline with the tenets of the ENS DAO, (which is composed of many different decentralized people and organizations, whom would want that meaningful information to know we are benefits the DAO [w/ ENS Governance Responsibility Tokens] & not giving free governance tokens for disconnected users [who do not care about ENS protocol] to simply dump).
If we are to seriously consider a 2nd airdrop, then the objective is:
To Prevent Damaging the Protocol.
To Primarily Help ENS Protocol & Ecosystem.
Not to Waste ENS governance tokens for the sake of giving an airdrop.
Itās understandable that people are excited about the prospect of a 2nd airdrop for the ENS DAOā¦but itās very important to carefully consider all the factors before making any decisions.
Itās important to approach any āfinal proposalā for a 2nd airdrop for the ENS DAO with a careful and thorough consideration of all the necessary pre-work & information that must be hashed out beforehand. Without a clear understanding of the goals for a 2nd airdrop and the potential risks and benefits, it seems premature to be working on a āfinal proposal documentā or eligibility criteria.
Mainly, itās important to understand why a 2nd airdrop is being considered. Is there a clear and justifiable reason for it, such as a significant change in the ENS ecosystem that would warrant another distribution of tokens? (The Name Wrapper has not even been released, yet.) Without a valid reason, or valid objective/goals, then a 2nd airdrop may not be necessary; AND could potentially cause more harm than good.
Again, (like I outlined above), the order of operations is critical; and itās important to avoid any rush to judgment or hasty decision-making. A proposal for a 2nd airdrop must be based on a clear and well-defined set of objectives, with a focus on preventing damage to the protocol, helping the ENS ecosystem, and avoiding any waste of ENS governance tokens.
Itās important to consider ALL of the potential impacts of a 2nd airdrop on the existing ENS DAO community; Will it really be fair & equitable to all stakeholders to drive the objective? Without this pre-work and information, any proposal for a second airdrop risks being incomplete and potentially damaging to the protocol & ecosystem.
Before pushing for a 2nd airdrop, itās important to take a step back and consider all the relevant factors, the objective & goals, and the potential consequences. Itās essential to take the time to fully consider all factors and engage in a thoughtful and collaborative process in order to arrive at a proposal that is truly aligned with the tenets of the ENS DAO, which benefits the greater Web3 ecosystem & public goods.
Totally understandable. Maybe āFinal Proposalā are the wrong terms. It would be more like a āfinal proposed outlineā covering the majority of the topics you mentioned. Sorry for that confusion.
The final proposed outline will be posted here, in hopes to gather more response clarification instead of instant declines of the request. I am the type of person who likes to see things moved forward and not be bottlenecked. This is why I have been so hands-on with this temp check. I know how things can easily get lost in the shuffle.
Again, this the first temp check I have ever authored and managed. As a former Project Lead, I like to see tasks and milestones accomplished. I truly believe the next outline will help push the discussion to the next steps.
The ENS governance token is used for DAO āgovernance & votingā;
The ENS governance token price of the is an attack vector for voting.
It seems irresponsible of you to say we/the DAO shouldnāt be worried about the token price,
WHEN this entire thread is about distributing 5MM $ENS governance tokens, which can damage the DAO (and ENS/.eth protocol), by irresponsibly airdropping & dumping 5MM ENS tokens onto the open market; (currently, there is 177,000 ENS tokens on Binance, which takes ENS to $1, which could allow negative-chaos or negative-neutral influences to overtake voting power in the DAO).
Again you are thinking of the ENS token as a security
Itās not, well itās not meant to be
Itās a Governance token that has been given a value by some
It shouldnāt matter what the value of it is and the DAO should not worry about it in any way ( i know they will), itās a vote on how the DAO is run, itās not a security
Yes, if they become really cheap then there is a chance that someone could buy up votes and upset the voting process, BUT, itās a Governance Token, if someone wants to vote on something and they own the token then itās their right
Worrying about the floor price of the token is wrong, Iām not saying there should be a 2nd airdrop, but using the floor price of the token as a reason is wrong
if you are worried about 5 million tokens coming onto the market I wonder how you will feel in the future when a larger number gets distributed which I believe is the plan that will happen over many years
Thank you for sharing and helping to clarify! I really appreciate your input, and I understand & agree your point that the ENS token is primarily a governance token, and NOT intended a security.
However, I do believe that the potential flooding of the market with governance tokens is a valid concern that should be taken seriously, and with care. While yes, we agree that the value of the token should not be the primary focus, itās important to consider how a sudden increase in the supply of governance tokens could impact the voting process, and potentially allow for vote manipulation.
Right, I am not suggesting that the floor price of the token is the direct reason to be cautious about a second airdrop, but rather one of several factors that need to be considered in order to make an informed decision.
I believe we agree that any decision about a second airdrop should be made based on a thorough and thoughtful analysis of all the relevant factors, including the potential risks and benefits. (I am not opposed to the idea of a second airdrop in principle, but I do think itās important to proceed with caution and carefully consider all the potential consequences.)
" itās important to consider how a sudden increase in the supply of governance tokens could impact the voting process, and potentially allow for vote manipulation."
You could also argue the counterpoint that without the airdrop there could be potential for vote manipulation as the larger holders airdropped amounts would have been calculated on the forward planning that all the airdropped tokens would be claimed, thus without doing another airdrop the larger holders have a bigger % of the vote and thus every single vote so far has been biased to them and their views
You make an interesting point that the lack of a 2nd airdrop could potentially allow for vote manipulation by larger holders, who may had planned their holdings based on the assumption that 100% of all the airdropped tokens would be claimed.
However, generally, I think the risks and potential for vote manipulation is substantially greater with a sudden influx of 5MM new governance tokens onto the market, as this could allow for the creation of new voting blocs that could potentially dominate the voting process, if the DAO is not careful about the many potential risks.
Also, I believe that the ENS DAO is already significantly decentralized with its 15+ governance voters, whom each have 100K+ ENS delegated to them. In comparison to other DAOs like Uniswap, ENS already has a more distributed and diverse group of voters, which helps to prevent any one entity from dominating the decision-making process.
At the surface level, I am not 100% for or against this question of the 2nd airdropā¦but the decision to proceed or not with a 2nd airdrop should be made based on a careful consideration of all potential risks and benefits, as well as the overall objectives/goals of the ENS DAO.
Quick update. I am in the process of finalizing an actual draft document. I will look to post in a new āTemp Checkā. The reason to post it in a new āTemp Checkā is to move into Phase 2 of this process. In Phase two, we (community) will request a specific response to the document from the DAO Leadership team on why this cannot not be facilitated. This must be supported by factual data.
We hope to gain the support from the highly delegated DAO members/leaders/community to gather enough support to send the document for official approval for a community vote.
I hope to have the new āTemp Checkā posted this week.
