I would say a 2nd airdrop is unnecessary. But if those “unclaimed” tokens were to be distributed, give them to users eligible for the 1st airdrop, since that was the initial intent. Since that is going to piss off a lot of new users better leave it as is.
2 Likes
This “temp check” is for everyone to share their thoughts. Regardless, whether you are “For” or “Against”, your voice has been heard and documented. TY sir.
2 Likes
I would be against a second airdrop for sure. My thinking lines up with what @AvsA said, pretty much.
History has shown that airdrops are an absolutely terrible method of building a good, sustainable community of contributors. We should instead seek to distribute ENS governance power in earned programs, to those who demonstrate they want to actually contribute to the protocol and ecosystem.
5 Likes
Hello Carlos,
First, thank you for your response. Second, it’s interesting how you quote this:
‘We should instead seek to distribute ENS governance power in earned programs, to those who demonstrate they want to actually contribute to the protocol and ecosystem.’
Especially when a working group designated for the “Community” was dismantled. Wouldn’t these have been the same people you refer to as “those who” in your statement above? 
. I would say pushing the number of ENS addresses (adoption), capital and volume to record highs didn’t happen by itself. Sounds like earned to me. Then define “demonstrate”, as an example, there are many who demonstrate a passion for the protocol every single day out here, but then maybe what defines “demonstrate” is discussed privately and then secretly concluded as “That doesn’t count”. Without the community of 2022, we would be no where close to where we are today.
Then you state “contribute”. How narrow is THAT definition in the power unit? It must not be broad enough in cases where Community Groups are dismantled. Without a Community, an ecosystem can’t exist. I hope you begin to understand more clearly. I would love for you to hang out in the ENS UPDATES show M-F at 11am-12pm est. This has been going on for a year. Hope to see you there.
Thanks again for your engagement and feedback.
I agree with you airdrops can be terrible for building a good and sustainable community but I think the first airdrop ENS did is pretty solid. And yet, we lack governance participation.
And I 100% agree that it’s best to distribute ENS governance power to those who demonstrate they want to actually contribute to the overall ecosystem.
However, you can do an airdrop that predominantly favors those who utilized ENS and built products using ENS contracts. Or make it so that even more favors those who are solely focused on ENS as their core business model such as ENS Vision maybe. AND still include a broader active community that formed and drove massive adoption by creating private communities, clubs, groups, trading names, making PFP collections, etc. All of this is readable from the chain and can be taken into account before doing the airdrop.
2 Likes
The Community WG was merged in as a sub-group of the broader Ecosystem Working Group, it very much still exists! It just didn’t need a completely separate set of stewards and budget, so we merged it. The former steward of that working group was supportive of that change 
It’s a good question. There are definitely many ways to contribute, would be impossible to enumerate. The best way I could describe what I’m talking about: people like @gregskril , who spend a lot of time helping the ENS ecosystem improve in concrete, impactful ways.
I’d support an airdrop to Greg.
It was one of the better ones, in terms of decentralization factor, but as you point out, governance participation sucks. Why would a second airdrop do any better to improve that metric?
The first airdrop did that. Groups that contributed over the years were in a contributor pool and got more tokens (mine included, fwiw). That’s great and all, but those come and go, and giving a big grant upfront isn’t necessarily what’s best for the ENS ecosystem.
A gradual program that gives governance power to people as they contribute would probably be the most successful. It’s not easy to figure out, though!
4 Likes
I was a former steward of that working group and I did not support that change. I voted against it, and I wasn’t even in the running to be a steward of that group again. I had no skin in the game, but I thought it was too early (after just one cycle) to dismantle a working group.
3 Likes
This is the exact point I have been making. Of ALL the people you could have named in the community, you named someone by your definition of “contributor” as eligible for an airdrop (within the circle). So in response to that, would you say someone like @kevforking.eth should also receive the airdrop for his daily commitment in ENS holding spaces M-F for almost a year? Would you also consider myself for my contribution to ENS participating with Kev on that space for almost a year, along with creating a 1st ENS PFP (cats) + Host/Creator ENS Friday Night Happy Hour for almost a year with weekly free giveaways? These are just two of a plethora of spaces that provide education, onboarding, fun, and melting pot of diversity to the ENS ecosystem DAILY.
Thoughts?
4 Likes
It sure was. And I didn’t say governance participation sucks for the record, but it can be better. Why would it be different this time - because back then we didn’t have the community nor the projects we have now that are solely focused on ENS. Things are vastly different from the first airdrop.
People like Greg are great and more power to them. Let’s increase the number of yearly fellowship grants for more people like him, I’m all for it! One of the reasons I really love ENS is that it’s heavily developer-oriented and focused. As a builder, I truly do. They build for builders. It’s one of the reasons I believe it’s superior over its competitors. And because of that, we have our ever-growing ecosystem community full of cool projects which will only increase over time. But one can argue that we as a DAO shouldn’t be 100% developer-oriented and that other aspects of a project play an equal role in its success. There’s much more to what makes a project great than a good tech stack.
I feel like this risk is always present whenever you’re dealing with giving grants. But I do agree that there is less risk if there was a grant program oriented towards new builders and contributors. Although, I doubt they’d use that grant money (in ENS tokens) for anything other than to cash it out because the nature of receiving grants is to have money and dedicate your time to building something.
I also wanted to make a point regarding whom you deem acceptable as an appropriate contributor but @thenftverse.eth made a case similar to what I have to say.
Once again, I’m fine either way, ENS will reign supreme as the naming system because of the work put in so far and future plans and all. That’s enough for me. I just haven’t seen a solid argument about why this would be a bad thing. Open to changing my mind, as always.
2 Likes
This post is to capture a mid-way summary of the Temp Check. I hope this is helpful for people now and who come in later.
3 Likes
There are already several threads where .eth holders AFTER the airdrop are asking for more representation. IMHO, basically this is up to existing $ENS holders in terms of action. The .eth holders can make a lot of noise on twitter or here but buying enough $ENS tokens to even push for a proposal is unlikely.
How do we move from a temp check to a draft proposal?
The next goal is to gather the Top 3 options from this Temp Check in order to move forward to receiving delegate support.
Is there a poll that we can setup on forum to move ahead? What are the 3 options? Here is what I think passes the temp check so far.
- Do nothing
- Distribute a small amount of $ENS to each .eth primary address
- Allowing each .eth a vote without needing to distribute $ENS tokens that can be sold
2 Likes
I agree. Can anyone assist here with setting up a poll within this discussion using this options below?
- Distribute 5.4 million $ENS to each .eth primary address. Which will also satisfies the original goal of governance balance. (rules will apply)
- Allowing each .eth a vote without needing to distribute $ENS tokens that can be sold.
- Do nothing.
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
Good feedback. I am going to assume that adding another option based on your response would be beneficial.
Your recommendation:
- Add “Exploration of other ideas”.
- **Change “Do Nothing” to “No Action”.
2 Likes
- 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
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
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
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
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
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,