I am writing to clarify my position on this proposal:
First, on the nature of ENS
- The proposal is rigorous, coherent, and aligned with ENS as de facto public infrastructure. It reads not as a startup attempting to maximize product capture, but as an institution stewarding a public good.
- It’s clearly written from the premise that ENS should be stewarded as public infrastructure rather than optimized as a conventional venture. Those who view ENS primarily through the latter lens are likely to be the most alienated from the proposal as written.
Second, on the institutional case for the Foundation model
- I agree that ENS DAO, for the most part, has historically spent too much time negotiating itself rather than building the protocol it is meant to support, save for a few exceptional teams supported through the Service Provider Program — which this proposal intends to absorb.
- Tokenholder voting, as a system, is poorly suited to evaluating multi-year capital strategy or serving as a credible counterparty to institutional managers.
- The March 2026 SEC interpretive release may also lend further support to a foundation-led operating model by providing greater clarity around the regulatory treatment of governance tokens, though I would not treat that as the core case for the proposal.
Third, on the tension that still needs to be addressed
- The exercised founder allocation is an indictment of the governance failure mode, but it also reveals a tension between the proposal’s stated commitment to tokenholder control and the continued institutionalization of exceptional founder power. That tension deserves further clarification.
—
From what I can discern, a significant share of the opposition to the Foundation proposal centers on panic around treasury custody, often at the expense of engaging with its broader institutional merits, especially the professionalization of ENS governance.
The content, structure, and institutional logic of the proposal are epistemologically aligned with a mission-driven approach, which is why I believe it is a credible design and am confident in the model, even if some legitimacy questions still need clearer answers.