[Temp Check] ENS Token 2nd Airdrop

DAO-Wide Temp Check
54

This temp check asks for a 2nd airdrop.

‘No action’ is an action. And remains a well thought out & discussed current state.

This is different to ‘Do nothing’ which is language aligned to the specific temp check agenda (have a 2nd airdrop to achieve x benefits).

Several alternate ideas/models have been mentioned & linked (including the use of current structures & initiatives) as a way to achieving some proposed benefits.

As such this temp check occurs as focusing on airdrop distribution as the outcome, for which i believe it to be unnecessary & not optimal. I support the exploration of the other ideas (edit >> ) which seek to benefit ecosystem & governance and which do not require an airdrop.

2 Likes
55

Good feedback. I am going to assume that adding another option based on your response would be beneficial.
Your recommendation:

  1. Add “Exploration of other ideas”.
  2. **Change “Do Nothing” to “No Action”.
2 Likes
56
  • Distribute 5.4 million ENS tokens to each .eth primary address. Which will also satisfy the original goal of the DAO’s governance balance. (rules will apply)
  • Allowing each .eth a vote without needing to distribute ENS tokens that can be sold.
  • Exploration of other ideas regarding the 5.4 million tokens.
  • No Action

0 voters

3 Likes
57

I voted for 'exploration of other ideas regarding 5.4M tokens’ because airdropping 5.4M tokens (assuming equally) to everyone based on only one criteria (they set up the primary address) is an inadequate strategy for the airdrop, to say the least. It just doesn’t make sense to me. But I am for a well-thought-out airdrop of those 5.4M tokens! If that happens, I’ll gladly vote yes.

1 Like
58

Same. The criteria is probably the most important factor that a consensus will need to be reached over. Not just saying drop this many tokens.

2 Likes
59

To even vaguely consider any kind of second airdrop, there’d need to be a clearly defined goal, and a clear explanation of how the airdrop would achieve that goal - and how it would avoid being gamed. None of those are present here, and “getting more people involved” and the like are too vague to be meaningful goals.

6 Likes
60

The thread I would enjoy being part of is a discussion on the best airdrop strategy and see if we can come up with something everyone approves of. If I understood correctly from previous comments, for this airdrop eligible candidates would be those who did something with ENS in 2022 only, correct? If this is true, then we can publicly discuss airdropping strategy. If not, then publicly discussing it would only put us at mercy of airdrop farmers and I’d leave it in the hands of the people who did the first one. Or some private discussion if acceptable maybe. I don’t have experience in this area.

+1 on what nick.eth said.

2 Likes
61

My understanding of the temp check: Initiation phase of a larger scoped conversation. A temp check is not the “end all be all”. This takes a conservative summary of the topic and compiles preliminary info. This is why I created a poll.

Am I wrong in this approach?

Thanks,

62

‘Exploring other ideas’ isn’t another way of saying ‘let’s have an airdrop’.

2 Likes
63

Did you just make an edit to your original statement prior to posting this response? Please advise.

64

My position has been consistent about concerns & no airdrop.

Misrepresented in a survey are my recent remarks.

Edit history is visible on all posts. My edit is doubly visible through the bracket&arrow to avoid further issue.

1 Like
65

A temp check is typically for a proposal, not a vague idea. You can’t meaningfully measure peoples’ opinion on something without nailing down what it is, and justifying why it should happen is a necessary prerequisite to that.

3 Likes
66

Why it should happen was presented at the start. I have focused on presenting facts in this temp check. Why do I feel like I am getting all of this push back for following the protocol outlined in the constitution. Wow! Is this how every community member will be treated for attempting to freely discuss something that could potentially have a positive impact in the future, if conducted properly?

Some of the energy and words communicated here have been less that welcoming since I posted this topic. I am using my voice as member of this DAO, but I feel like those who hold power use that power to easily silence voices they choose not to hear.

(Me standing on a soapbox)

I AM A COMMUNITY MEMBER HERE. I WILL CONTINUE TO BE PART OF THE ENS COMMUNITY. BUT IF I DISCOVER SOMETHING THAT CAN BE RAISED TO THE ATTENTION OF ENS COMMUNITY. I WILL USE THE METHODS DOCUMENTED IN OUR ENS CONSTITUTION.

(Me smiling after the speech :grin:)

This is my first temp check. I never said it would be perfect. I knew there would be things to work through. But every day I have made an effort to keep this on topic and moderated in the most respectful way. Unfortunately, I don’t feel like it has been reciprocated. But it’s all good. I will continue to work towards getting this to a proposal.

Thanks,

1 Like
67

I was not trying to misrepresent you on any account. I took what you said and applied it to topic at hand. It’s a poll, if you feel that it misrepresented you. I do not want you to feel that way. I am more than happy to take it down and republish. No problem with me. Let’s not make this bigger than what it is. A “Temp Check”.

1 Like
68

I think this is fair regarding the criteria/eligibility, but I think consensus on the goal of distributing the 5.4M unclaimed tokens might be an important first step.

In other words maybe it’s helpful to look at this temp check as two prongs:

  1. Is distributing the 5.4M unclaimed tokens from the airdrop and fulfilling the initial tokenomics (25M tokens total distributed to the community) a valid goal?

If no, then we can stop right there.

If yes, then:

  1. Assemble a committee to develop the eligibility/criteria for distributing the 5.4M unclaimed tokens to best fulfill the original tokenomics consistent with the meaningful goal of widely distributing the governance/voting power while minimizing any potential gaming and put that plan before the community for review/revision before the final version goes to a potential proposal.
4 Likes
69

@thenftverse.eth please do not use all caps.

Nobody is treating you indifferently. There is a process that is required to be followed by everyone.
If you feel like you are getting push back then the Temp Check is effectively doing it’s job. You are receiving negative feedback that doens’t quite support what you are proposing. There may be a lot of support for the idea if you present it in a way that covers all concerns that individuals might have.

Also please be mindful that; right now – in Q12023, an airdrop is not the main focus of the DAO, people are very busy working on projects that have been discussed for months, people are traveling to conferences and networking with other Ethereans. ETH Denver is coming up, the name wrapper is about to launch.

What you are presenting is a much larger project than most of the DAO would care to focus on right now.
That’s my take on it and I think many people would agree with that.

In the meantime if you feel super strong about this, maybe presenting some questions to the forum like this to start…

1.) What incentive to the community will second airdrop provide?

2.) Looking at the first airdrop, what are some challenges that were faced? What was successful?

3.) How many tokens were sold by recipients immediately after? How was the market affected by that?

4.) How many ENS Governance token recipients still have all or percentage of their tokens today?

5.) How many of those who are still holding are actively taking part in governance discussion on forum ?

6.) What percentage of token recipients have voted at least one time in the past year?

7.) What is the incentive for another airdrop ? Why are the tokens wanted?

8.) Will another airdrop stimulate more people to build or will builders who dont receive them feel left out again?

9.) Should a token claim be open to all .eth holders? Or should we look and measure discussion forum
contribution statistics to use as a weighted reference.

After all the token is for the DAO Governance voting and is not by any means a security.

So who would benefit from a drop more? Individuals who are already contribution daily, weekly and for the past year or allowing someone to claim the tokens and then sell them off into the market without considering contributing to DAO

70

See. This is the type of energy I am talking about. Is there a policy I am unaware of regarding using all caps? I am doing my best to follow all rules. I used all CAPS to preface my little speech - After all, I was standing on a soapbox. Damn, why are yall so sensitive and emotional. This is a “Temp Check”.

I have made an effort to respectful throughout this entire process. I never said my “Temp Check” is the epitome of format. It’s my first one sheeesh! I have never stated at any point that this should be a main focus.

I am just to end this response here. I am not the type to keep going back and forth. I will review the info outlined in your response. Shout out to ALL the first time people in the community who submit a temp check going forward. Let my experience serve as the example of how it could possibly be received.

I would appreciate people not put words in my mouth or take out frustrations on me due to a “Temp Check” topic.

2 Likes
71

Yeah, No worries. I just provided you some guidance and gave you my time of day. We are not here to argue about perceived brevity from the context of text.

On that note. Good Luck with your initiative.

72

Thank you. Have a great day! :beers:

73

Actually, I believe this discussion has surfaced multiple current issues which are likely to perpetuate themselves.

These are structural in issue, and DAO members would do well to accept that these issues can be improved with more distributed governance.

Instead of framing the issue as a mercantilist issue, it might be more constructive to truly consider the underlying issues that are being proposed.

I also believe that the concerns with forum or ENS governance participation can be alleviated with outreach from DAO members to the community in natural areas of congregation. I see more and more community members coming on board, much less the other way round.

Also, I dont understand how @thenftverse.eth survey and his approach has been not followed the process?

Seems pretty respectable, SMART (Specific, measurable, actionable, relevant and time based)

  1. Temp Check, gathering comments and feedback
  2. Survey
  3. Review and round up (with further actions to take)

How should participants do otherwise?

2 Likes