[Temp Check] ENS Token 2nd Airdrop

Doesn’t change my opinion. Just another opportunity for greed to prevail. The DAO doesn’t need to do it.

1 Like

TY. This is why a “Temp Check” is here. All feedback and opinions are welcomed. Appreciate you for engaging. :+1:


No problem and thanks for bringing it up! I’m opinionated for sure, but never hurts to ask these things.


What do you think of the specification I proposed? One token each would hardly be considered an appeal to greed, while still allowing for new participants. Recipients would have to pay the gas to claim it, and if they wanted to just immediately dump it, that would cost gas too. So that would only make a few dollars. Alternatively they could hold it and actually use it to vote, or delegate to someone.


Also, especially if this was “Retroactive”, for “EOY 2022”.
Then, those users have 1+ ENS to vote & experiment with.

(*Generally speaking, I am against the idea, *
*…but it could be possible to do this, *
if w/ “greed-minimized” strategies.)


How about utilising subdomains for voting ?

Not even an ENS token air drop.

But introduce a new way of doing this whole thing.

What if only wallets with a reverse record set to a domain were airdropped a couple of subdomains in which allows them 1 vote, for example it might be:


These subs would be set to have special permissions within the wrapper such as non transferable or non sellable. Almost a soul bound token that can only be used to connect into a dapp that needs community votes

All we would need to do is click connect wallet and sign the smart contract to register a vote for or against.

It would be avoid of Gas and a much more decentralised method of gaining actual community votes, rather than giving all the “squatters” more reason to become more “greedy” (not my words!)

Further more, we could even use a scale system of 1-10 whereby it’s a sliding scale of how much we agree or disagree with a particular proposal. For example the subdomains issues would be:

up to

(Yes I love emojis) :blush::sweat_smile:

The community at large has so much to offer and we have so much potential waiting to be put to good work, if there was only a better way of communicating and educating existing and new members.

Perhaps only reward a certain percentage of wallets and run this method as a beta test for those who actively want it. This wouldn’t be for everybody because essentially not everybody knows or sadly even cares about how things are done…but it’s obvious that there are plenty of incredible smart talented and passionate ENSers j who have done the research and the time in the space who rightly need and deserve a chance to vote and be actively engaged.

Please have faith in the wider community, this is web3 after all - we should be celebrating all types of people here! Squatters, Fudders, Builders, Degens, Investors, Coders, Influencers…anybody!

For if we continue to age old mistakes of calling out certain people, canceling or blocking people, infighting, Twitter threads, keyboard bashing whatever the case may be…how does that make “us” all look to the masses beyond!?

I have faith in anybody that believes in ENS. One of the most powerful things the DAO can do is to believe in their community…lift us up and know that it will come back.

The effect you have on others is the most valuable currency there is.” - Jim Carrey

Cheers :v:t5:🫶🏽


Will all due respect, my guy Meta8. Your idea definitely deserves its own “temp check”. Sounds like you want to approach a alternative voting system. This is not on topic for 2nd airdrop. Thank you my guy!


The way @thenftverse.eth framed this temp check maybe it’s more palatable to reframe the idea from a 2nd airdrop to fulfilling the originally intended ENS DAO tokenomics by distributing the unclaimed ~20% of the 1st airdrop. So not an 2nd airdrop but reopening of the 1st airdrop with new eligibility.

If the concern is legitimately greed, then what if the 5M $ENS tokens were wrapped and the voting power were collectively voted by the holders of ENS names. A sort of community subDAO of the actual ENS holders. No actual distribution of $ENS tokens that could be sold, which seems to be a large concern of $ENS holders whenever a 2nd airdrop is mentioned. Also there is no actual added value to ENS names for purposes of the secondary market because if someone wanted exposure to the community subDAO 5M $ENS voting block they could just mint an ENS name to gain access without need to buy off someone from secondary.

Right now this would equal a little less than 2 $ENS per name registered and that would continually dilute as registrations increase but always give ENS holders a voice in governance/voting without the need to buy $ENS tokens which seems pointless for normal users in light of the initial distribution. I won’t kid myself and pretend this would stop or slowdown speculative registrations but the more registrations the more diluted an individual’s power within the subDAO, so there would be no benefit to registrations just to gain voting power.


I like this option too. This “eliminates” the blanket labeling of “GREED” in the community (sad). But…now two options have been provided in this “Temp Check”. Let’s continue to move forward with making ONE of these a official proposal.


I might be a lil’ cynical but I feel we might see a marginal increase of activity in the DAO but I mostly feel it won’t impact anything. In fact, giving a large amount of attention with something like this could actively produce negative PR for the DAO if everyone gets mad they’re not getting another actual airdrop.

However, I could also see a world where positive PR is generated for the DAO because we’re making a second effort to invite people to contribute more. But then the go-to response to that might be “why would we participate in the DAO without incentive, give us money blah blah” idk

Some random thoughts above, mostly, but I’m not wholly against the idea.


I have yet to get a response from someone that wants a second airdrop saying that my idea wouldn’t be an “actual airdrop” but I get where you’re coming from. Thanks for sharing your views.


The beautiful thing about discussions like this is the ability to look at the situation from various angles, not just one. I respect the fact you are willing to explore it. Thank you for not be so reactive. Instead, you took a step back and said to yourself “hmmm :thinking:” maybe this could be a good thing.


You were very specific in some terms you used in your response. Could you elaborate on the usage/foundation on these: “Singular Claim” - “Reclassifies Them” - “Muddy Waters” - “Compromising Governance” and “Farmed”. Ty sir. Your clarity is needed to help push the conversation forward. I appreciate it.

1 Like

I support using the unclaimed tokens from airdrop in a way that supports outreach campaigns for newcomers. I do not support the concept of a 2nd airdrop because it would stimulate greed, inauthentic behavior and we would be forever be asked about the 3rd or 4th airdrop.

YES: Use the 5.4M to give away in hackathons, scholarships, grants, conferences etc, for newcomers whose identity and contribution is verifiable. These would be recurring programs in small scale with the purpose of onboarding members of the community.

NO: create a second airdrop with similar terms of the first.


There was a single claim period. That claim window is closed following a vote.

Unclaimed tokens are now dao treasury. They are no longer unclaimed. Unclaimed is their past tense state.

To conduct another airdrop after governance structure was set is not straightforward without consequences and may have implications by regulatory bodies.

Implications which may impact a young dao which is governing per design and whereby its token is then operating as free money.

Users carrying out a tactic which replicates their chances of gaining extra in the airdrop.

Governance comprises multiple levels. Its available through participation on dao forum. Social environments like twitter are communication channels with delegates, others, ideas creation, etc. ENS tokens are available for further participation in governance.
Community has multiple touch points and entry options.
Private industry remains its own blue ocean.

These are my views.

I see your points. But in short, I’d rather the 5.4 million fund the relaunch of the Community Working Group. These funds could easily be budgeted over a 5 year plan to identify community builders and creators (spaces, youtube content, social posts i.e. threads or other ENS related content). The final definition of the working group could be discussed further.

Aside from that, words like greed and inauthentic behavior are broad. Have you ever engaged with the community to explore some of the things being explored and built? I think the term “builder” has been minimized to a specific group and not looked at in a broader perspective.

A 2nd airdrop to many in this community isn’t about greed, but more about funding personal projects that include the very spirit of ENS, ownership and decentralization. I never want to be lumped into a single group labeled “ GREEDY”, because that is not how I have ever represented this protocol.

Thanks for engaging in this Temp Check.

Sorry for the long post.

I’m neither for nor against this idea. But gun to my head if I had to choose I’d lean towards doing the second airdrop for some reasons but primarily because it attracted a lot of smart people to the ecosystem.

Before I start I have to say – I participated in quite a few spaces recently where people have expressed their negative feelings towards the ENS DAO. Mostly feel left behind, out of touch with ENS even though they think they are the ones responsible for ENS’s success, lack of communication from the DAO, etc. Most of this is a lack of knowledge about how to navigate the entire ENS space since it requires some time to figure out all aspects of how everything works + bear market feelings. And after I provide answers they still feel like it’s a mountain to climb before having the opportunity to be heard and even after they think their voice has no influence whatsoever. This is only what I observed recently.

Back to the airdrop – I, unfortunately, cannot afford to buy a lot of ENS tokens yet so my vote can matter. But I do consider myself still a very small and yet somewhat significant part of the ecosystem given I participate in all ecosystem calls, discussions, and Twitter spaces (hosted by new communities looking to get into ENS) AND I’m building something that literally depends on the ENS. And I’m sure there are others like me. Therefore, it’s obvious I would like to increase my governing position, and prob will as time goes by. Hence a little tilt towards doing the airdrop. But I’m aware and transparent about my biases because I don’t care at the end of the day. I’m here to build and stay.

More importantly, beside the superiority in tech of this protocol, its reputation and development plans, the amazing governance structure and DAO processes around it, as our strong foundation, a new pillar of stability was born last year and that is the strength of the community of buyers, traders, owners, collectors, etc. Therefore, I know it’s not much of an argument to say we’re due someone something for their support but it feels like that sometimes.

I also believe the airdrop can be done in a way that only positively benefits the DAO but that is a discussion that deserves a new private discussion. Because publicly discussing it would only put us at mercy of airdrop farmers who live off of stuff like this. So, I’d trust the ENS Labs to do a good job here as they did in the past. But I would focus on builders, NameWrapper Goerli testers/users, Name owners, Subname issuers, regular Name owners, traders, and volume of trades, etc., combined with governance voting participation on Tally and Snapshot and overall participation, etc., and work out the precise criteria for the airdrop to maximize efficiency and incentives to encourage DAO participation instead of selling for profit.

So prior to the airdrop, I would focus on providing the educational materials of governance, the value of the tokens people will receive (outside of selling them for quick cash), and easy to use interface for them to immediately after a claim they could either delegate to themselves or someone else.

Alisha is always saying how Delegate attention/participation is the most scarce resource in web3. And there is probably the loudest and most active community out there advocating, talking, educating, hyping, and screaming about all things ENS literally every day in different Twitter spaces and beyond that is looking to direct their attention somewhere who at the moment feels like they are not heard.

ENS will maintain its superiority and market dominance due to its tech stack and people associated with it and its strategy of building for builders, I have 0 concerns there. But cementing the market dominance with the strongest community would be an additional benefit I believe. Again, I’m neither for nor against the idea of the second airdrop, but I just haven’t seen any concrete argument against the airdrop that is unsolvable that will make me go Ohh, ok, I get it. Open to being wrong.

Just my 2 cents.


Thank you for your feedback and participation. This was well thought out.


@thenftverse.eth, thanks for shepherding the discussion here.
I’ve thought about your idea through a few different lenses and wanted to share a thought.

An 81 Million Dollar Perspective

Note: This is just a thought exercise, the $ENS token is a governance token and was not intended to be a store of value. That said, because it is currently redeemable on the open market, we could look at this proposal in the following light:

This proposal asks the ENS DAO to distribute 5.4 million $ENS tokens from the treasury to individual ENS users. Because an ENS token can be traded on the open market for $15, this proposal effectively asks the DAO to invest $81 million worth of resources into your proposal.

From what I see in the thread, the ROI on the $81 million would be in two categories:

  • Retroactive - An award to ENS users for using ENS names, growing the ecosystem, encouraging usage, etc.
  • Strategic - An investment in the community that would strengthen protocol governance.

Our constitution dictates the treasury is to be used to support the protocol and other public goods. Does this $81 million fit into those defined constraints and help us deliver on the DAOs mission? Or, are there better ways the DAO could invest these resources to more efficiently achieve the goals?

*The data from the first airdrop shows that less than 20% of the distributed tokens are delegated to governance.

Avsa pointed out some great ways the DAO could use these resources in his comment above, and for perspective, this amount you’re asking for could fund ENS Labs for 20 years.

Personally, I struggle to see a positive outcome commensurate with the size of the investment you’re asking the DAO to make. I can’t see how two ENS tokens dropped into a couple of million individual wallets would get us to the goals you listed above.

I’m open to the conversation though, and I’d really like specific examples of downstream effects that justify the investment.

Could you help me to see it your way?


Wow! Now could you imagine if that level of detail was communicated to the entire community regarding ALL things voted on :thinking: :rofl:(slight sarcasm)? I will keep this short. To answer your first question, the answer is “Yes it Does”. The goal is mass adoption for the ENS protocol and becoming the largest Web3 community in the world with UTILITY. We would not be where we are today if it wasn’t for a consolidated community effort. We all know that, no matter how bad we want to gloss over it, the community created the value you see on every ENS marketplace. A marketplace does work with out users. ENS can’t succeed with out community. Prove me wrong.

For the 2nd question, I have presented the best option which is the 2nd airdrop. You are acting as if the DAO would be bankrupt if they distribute the 5.4 million tokens to the community. I seriously doubt that would happen. The higher possibility is that most of it would be reinvested back into ENS. That is MY opinion.

Let take another approach. What if half of the 5.4 million was airdropped and the other half was dedicated to expanded a TRUE community GROWTH fund. This would be strictly for building a Community Outreach Team (Dedicated Weekly Spaces Team, Local Community Organizers to Onboard Normies, Local Charity Outreach). That smells like a successful plan towards building a world ecosystem to takeover Web3 by empowering those in the community everywhere. This adoption can move like a snail or we can be a locomotive and never look back. But thats just my aggressive strategic vision, but I’m a just a community member who wants to be #1 in this Web3 game.

1 Like