[Temp Check] Metagov Update: Working Group Operations During the ENS Retro

[daostrat.eth]

Author: Meta-Governance Working Group Stewards

Summary

This Temp Check seeks community input on working group funding during the ENS Retro period:

Should working groups operate on a continuity budget (~$234,000 for 4 months) or continue with the full approved funding ($959,000 USDC + 15 ETH)?

This post also provides clarity on election timing. Metagov will resume Term 7 steward elections on April 1, 2026, following the conclusion of the Retro.

Context

The ENS community recently navigated two competing visions for the DAO’s future. The proposal to replace working groups with an ENS Admin Panel was rejected, while the ENS Retro proposal passed.

The Retro establishes a 4-month independent retrospective (December 2025 – April 2026) during which:

• Current Term 6 stewards continue serving
• Working group elections are paused
• Metagov.org conducts an independent analysis of DAO spending, outputs, and governance

It’s worth noting that working group funding was approved in the October 2025 funding window. This funding runs through April 2026, coinciding with the end of the retrospective.

Working Group Funding: Two Paths Forward

In discussions among Metagov stewards, we’ve identified two reasonable approaches to working group funding during the retro period. We want to present both options transparently and hear from the community.

Option A: Continuity Extension

Under this approach, Metagov would request only what is strictly necessary to maintain continuity:

Item	Monthly Cost	4-Month Total
Steward Compensation (9 stewards)	$40,500	$162,000
Secretary Compensation	$5,500	$22,000
Scribe Compensation	$2,500	$10,000
Minimal Operational Reserve	$10,000	$40,000
Total	$58,500	$234,000

Rationale: All nine stewards across Meta-Governance, Ecosystem, and Public Goods have agreed to remain in their roles through the retrospective. This option ensures stewards, the secretary, and the scribe are compensated for continued service while minimizing DAO expenditure during a period of evaluation. The operational reserve covers essential costs (Legal retainer, tooling, operations, etc.) without funding new initiatives.

Implementation: Rather than returning funds to treasury and requesting new allocations, this approach would involve “topping up” working group safes only as needed to cover the 4-month period. The outcome of the Retro can then inform any decisions about remaining funds.

Option B: Continue With Approved Funding

Under this approach, working groups continue operating under the funding already approved in October 2025:

Working Group	Approved Amount
Meta-Governance	$379,000 USDC
Ecosystem	$470,000 USDC
Public Goods	$110,000 USDC + 15 ETH
Total	$959,000 USDC + 15 ETH

Rationale: This funding was approved three months ago. Funding would only change if the outcome of the retro and subsequent proposal(s) updates or dissolves some or all of the working groups.

A Note on EP4

EP4 (Working Group Rules) is clear on fund handling:

• Rule 2.2: If a dissolution proposal is active, all working group funds are frozen pending the outcome.
• Rule 2.3: Upon dissolution, unspent funds must be returned to the DAO treasury immediately.

Importantly, the Retro is not a dissolution proposal. Working groups remain active with extended steward terms. EP4 dissolution rules do not apply unless a separate dissolution proposal is formally introduced.

That said, the context in which October funding was approved has evolved. The community may reasonably ask whether the original budget decisions should be revisited, given the pause on elections and the evaluation underway. We welcome that discussion.

Election Timeline: What to Expect

Under normal circumstances, Term 7 nominations would have opened in early December 2025, with elections concluding mid-December and new terms beginning January 1, 2026.

The Retro proposal pauses this process. Current steward terms are extended through the retrospective period.

Target Date for Term 7 Elections: April 1, 2026 (not a joke)

Barring any new proposal to the contrary, Metagov will initiate the Term 7 steward nomination and election cycle on April 1, 2026, immediately following the conclusion of the ENS Retro. The election schedule will follow standard procedures:

What We’re Asking From the Community

Before moving forward, Metagov wants to understand:

1. Which funding approach do you support? Option A (Top-up) or Option B (approved funding)?
2. Are there concerns about election timing that we haven’t addressed?
3. What additional clarity would be helpful as we navigate this period?

The Retro represents an opportunity for the DAO to reflect and strengthen. Metagov is committed to transparent communication throughout this process. We’ll continue providing updates as the retrospective progresses.

Next Steps

• Gather community feedback on this discussion post
• Bring forward any necessary proposals based on community input
• Provide regular updates as the Retro proceeds

[nick.eth]

@daostrat.eth

The Retro establishes a 4-month independent retrospective (December 2025 – April 2026) during which:

• Current Term 6 stewards continue serving
• Working group elections are paused
• Metagov.org conducts an independent analysis of DAO spending, outputs, and governance

This is not true - the proposal actually suspends elections indefinitely. Until another proposal is passed to set a new date, there is no fixed period for which elections are suspended.

[5pence.eth]

@nick.eth

This is not true - the proposal actually suspends elections indefinitely. Until another proposal is passed to set a new date, there is no fixed period for which elections are suspended

We can certainly change the language of this proposal to reflect exactly what the retro proposal stated.

The intent of including the date for the next election in this proposal is to override that very ambiguity and put a solid date on Term 7 elections.

While a future proposal could certainly change the election structure, working groups, or stewards, the clarity provided in this proposal establishes a specific plan to remove the ambiguity and act as a “dead man’s switch” in the event no future consensus can be reached about Term 7 elections.

@nick.eth - Do you think there’s anything else we should include or clarify in this text so that this proposal cleans up the unanswered questions about stewards and elections?

[Coltron.eth]

1. Which funding approach do you support? Option A as the conservative option, but as long as some funding is preserved to support minimal operations, I consider the amount an inconsequential decision as the retro will likely drive overriding discussions to clarify current and future working group funding.
2. Are there concerns about election timing? No, but prefer the optionality to move the election sooner if retro finishes earlier than expected.
3. What additional clarity would be helpful? Will this topic be discussed on next week’s delegates all hands call, and is meta-gov still leading calls during this period?

[simona_pop]

Looking forward to these matters being addressed for further clarity in the all delegate call tomorrow, 13/01.

Some directional insights in prep:

Favouring Option B as a means of continuing the support we have committed to builders already approved for USDC and ETH grants via https://builder.ensgrants.xyz/. Since the budgets were approved by the DAO prior to the aforementioned votes, it would be sound to maintain current operations while the retro is happening since as of this moment we do not have any recommendations regarding the future of structures and financial planning.

Election timing - I would imagine this will be informed by the findings of the retro and any recommendations to alter existing structures. April 1st seems sound as a means of having a deadline but also allowing time for the retro to complete and recommendations re any restructuring to surface and be discussed.

[slobo.eth]

Option B makes sense.

[5pence.eth]

I don’t believe the working groups should treat the Retro period as “business as usual”.

Looking at the two intervention proposals, 6.25 & 6.26, over 75% of the total votes supported at least one of the two DAO interventions. Only about 25% of voting power voted to support the status quo by voting against both proposals.

And since the winning proposal specifically invests resources to evaluate the DAO’s spending, it seems prudent to wait for the outcome of that initiative before funding the working groups with this 1 million USDC. The retro concludes in 2.5 months, at the end of March 2026.

The original social proposals to confirm the working group spending were posted weeks before the two intervention proposals and their associated discussions.

I’d like to see the sitting stewards use an essentials-only spending plan and focus inward during the retro period, in hopes that we can help come up with a new, more robust structure for the Working Groups.

There was a disagreement inside the Meta-Governance working group on this, but I’ll let my two fellow stewards share their own thoughts. All stewards should weigh in here, but while stewards supporting funding their working groups is good for discussion, more importantly would be delegates who are not stewards to chime in with their thoughts.

@Meta-Gov_Stewards @Ecosystem_Stewards @PublicGoods_Stewards

[estmcmxci]

Appreciate all the back and forth here. My one pressing question is:

When is the All Delegates Call? I’ve seen it referenced multiple times as January 13th, 2026.

Can @Meta-Gov_Stewards confirm?

[5pence.eth]

@estmcmxci

When is the All Delegates Call? I’ve seen it referenced multiple times as January 13th, 2026.

Alex Netto chose to change the day and time of the Meta-governance calls last night. Limes updated the DAO calendar.

[cap]

The public ENS Calendar I’m subscribed to only shows one time slot as “Busy” in my calendar without any links to Google Meet or other information.

[simona_pop]

I am happy with resolutions that come out of balanced discussions (whenever this call actually happens as changing it twice so far on the day is a little short notice to reshuffle schedules) - as per above, my main focus in all this is not leaving builders stranded.

[jkm.eth]

@5pence.eth

Alex Netto chose to change the day and time of the Meta-governance calls last night. Limes updated the DAO calendar.

And this wasn’t communicated to anyone? I saw Eugene’s post where he said he was planning on presenting today. I hope he got a head’s up, at least!

[simona_pop]

I let him know earlier this morning AM EST time…

[netto.eth]

In internal discussions, I suggested adding a third option:

Option C: Ask each working group how much budget they actually need to operate until the proposed election date (April), and fund based on that.

This would sit between Options A and B. It recognizes that the context today is different from October, without forcing an artificial scale-down. In practice, I’d expect this to land below Option B, but without the constraints and side effects of Option A.

My preference would be C > B > A.

The retro can have 3 scenarios:

1. It delays and goes beyond April
2. We don’t get to a decision or major change until April
3. We are extremely efficient in executing the retro and getting consensus as a community on how we should iterate on the structure of the DAO and change.

If we deliberately shrink working groups to “retro support + basic ops,” we are losing momentum, getting less value from the salaries paid and creating a self-fulfilling promise that WGs structure don’t work. When taking decisions, we have a bias towards short-term memory and we will feel that WGs are not doing enough if we reduce their capacity.

I think we should keep the rhythm close to “business as usual”, focus on ENS growth and don’t rely on scenario 3. We should plan for scenario 1 and 2 as well, without impacting our presence in the ecosystem, contact with builders and etc.

[katherine.eth]

From the Meta-gov call this AM it sounds like majority of attendees are aligned with keeping as close to ‘business as usual’ (Option B) until the DAO decides otherwise, especially given pre-existing commitments to builders in the ENS + Ethereum ecosystem. Just because we are undergoing a research-focused retro does not mean that the DAO is non-operational. Furthermore, as all nine stewards from last term are remaining in their roles and assuming the same responsibilities, there is little risk of knowledge transfer gaps. I would be in favor of keeping things running until a clear decision is made otherwise.

[netto.eth]

@Coltron.eth

Which funding approach do you support? Option A as the conservative option

Could you clarify your position? In the recent delegate all-hands, you seemed more supportive of a business-as-usual approach and suggested that the initial funding request shouldn’t have been changed. I may be misunderstanding, so I’d appreciate the clarification.

[Coltron.eth]

@netto.eth

Could you clarify your position?

I want to see the budgets outlined in the funding requests that passed Snapshot two months ago progress to Tally. I expect working groups to spend conservatively in all funding decisions, and if future conclusions warrant sweeping unspent funding back to the treasury wallet, this can be done with ease.

My opinion on this may continue to gain more nuance or change the longer that meta-gov moves with apprehension on the topic.

[5pence.eth]

@Coltron.eth

My opinion on this may continue to gain more nuance or change the longer that meta-gov moves with apprehension on the topic.

This thread was opened by the Metagov group to facilitate a conversation, but like all DAO Treasury funding, it will be the responsibility of a delegate with over 100,000 votes to submit a proposal.

The metagov group holds no special authority in the process, beyond facilitating the discussion and serving the delegates.

The working group rules, 10.1 specifically, states:

Working Group Funds

1. To request working group funds, Stewards of all working groups will collaborate to submit an active executable proposal, as defined by the ENS governance documentation (‘Collective Proposal’), to the DAO during the months of January, April, July, and October each calendar year (each a ‘Funding Window’).

This thread is an attempt at that collaboration.

[netto.eth]

The onchain proposal draft has been ready since mid-November (Tally draft). At that moment, submitting a $1M funding request, while there was negative sentiment around working groups, spending, and even stewards stepping down, was not well received. Some people are disappointed this didn’t move earlier, but we nee to remember the context and tone of the discussions at the time it was supposed to move forward.

When topics divide the DAO, Metagov’s role is to facilitate discussion, not to make decisions. Delegates are the ones who submit proposals and vote.

From the delegate all-hands this week and the reactions to Katherine’s post, there seems to be strong support for going directly to option B and submitting the executable for the working group funding request. That said, we haven’t heard from some major delegates yet, and pushing forward without broader alignment could create a split and more dissatisfaction: @AvsA @nick.eth @brantlymillegan @liubenben @lefterisjp.

Any delegate is free to submit the draft onchain and start the vote. The Ecosystem Working Group also needs funding to meet its commitments with ETHGlobal through March 30, so timelines are tight.

---

As @nick.eth mentioned, we still need a proposal to better define elections, steward compensation, and related items. If a delegate submits the funding draft, Metagov WG follow up with a separate Snapshot proposal focused specifically on those points.

[daostrat.eth]

@netto.eth

From the delegate all-hands this week and the reactions to Katherine’s post, there seems to be strong support for going directly to option B and submitting the executable for the working group funding request. That said, we haven’t heard from some major delegates yet, and pushing forward without broader alignment could create a split and more dissatisfaction: @AvsA @nick.eth @brantlymillegan @liubenben @lefterisjp.

Thanks @netto.eth and @5pence.eth for providing clarity. It was good to understand all the participants’ thoughts about the topic. In a decentralized environment, erring on the side of productive conversation will always be a preferred step. With that, I feel like we have strong voices in the community who support moving forward.

A delegate with over 100 K votes needs to post the proposal. In light of this thread, @slobo.eth, if you can post, I am available to assist.