Great feedback! I know that they were aware of these discussions but getting a formal 
with scope and timeline before we put up a Snapshot proposal like this in the future is great feedback. Happy to do that, when we take that feedback and put it back up again.
1 Like
Goal isn’t to break anything, there will be more than enough time to ensure that the client side world, (Agora included!) has the time needed to make sure we bring the best UX / education to bear on this kind of change. That being said, I get the feedback that it could have been better outlined in the proposal. We will take that feedback for the next time we post it. Thanks for the feedback @simona_pop !
3 Likes
We vote FOR the proposal on Snapshot and appreciate all the work and effort that Agora team has put, and their collaborative approaches with Metagov group. Continuous and diligent updates from the team is helpful to understand the scope and goal of the proposal.
We believe adding (rather than changing) the functionality in proposing executable ENS proposals with a required bond mechanism is the right approach and the proposed initial values are reasonable.
As Kent pointed out, we assume the frontends can utilize the additional changes provided by this proposal for the onchain tools to be supported by multiple platforms while the development is approved by the DAO to go ahead.
One question: for proposals from the qualified proposers in the current implementation, the voting selections will be “For/Against/Abstain” or all voting selections will be “For/Reject with penalty/Reject without penalty/Against”?
2 Likes
We believe this a problem worth addressing and appreciate the authors proposing a solution. However we agree that the current proposal is not ideal, and effectively adds a high financial barrier with non-large delegates potentially bearing a cost burden that negates their access to participate inclusively. As ENS votes continue to get decentralized across more delegates, we’d love to see a solution with this goal in mind that doesn’t increase other barriers and with more front-end stakeholders involved.
1 Like
Honestly didn’t know this was an additional way to make proposals (thought it was replacing the current proposal structure).
Considering this is just another way to make a proposal, don’t see any large issue and happy that the proposal passed. Definitely still need a way to represent this on Tally (and any other governance UI that develops) but overall a win :))
4 Likes
Gm, gm! 
The results are in for the [EP 5.15][Social] ENS Governor Improvement Proposal: ProposalBond off-chain proposal.
See how the community voted and more ENS stats:
1 Like
Yeah - I think more clarity on these items (as evidenced by comments in this thread) would have made it more straightforward for us to evaluate but appreciate your responsiveness and keen to see this progressing accordingly re education and testing
2 Likes
The proposal has passed and we want to move forward but we’d like to listen to all the concern and try to reach a good compromise before we move too deeply into this. It’s our goal that by the time it is ready to be deployed its a near consensus.
6 Likes
I voted yes for this proposal but after hearing some of the counter arguments, specifically those brought up by @184.eth, I’m happy to see there will be further discussion even though the proposal passed.
For the record, I’m still fine with my vote and the proposal being passed because it doesn’t change anything, but only adds additional proposal submission mechanism which is well thought out.
2 Likes
Were there any objections to the proposal that didn’t stem from the misunderstanding that this was replacing rather than augmenting the existing process?
3 Likes
GM everyone,
We had quite the close vote last week. Since then, I have spoken to many who voted for and many who voted against and happy to say that I have learned a lot about proposing and working with this amazing community.
Some of the most common misconceptions were:
-
Many thought we were suggesting this replace the existing proposal threshold. It won’t. It will be an additional mechanism.
-
Many didn’t like the 1,000 ENS bond amount. That amount was discussed in the forum post and at many MetaGov weekly calls, but this amount, like most gov params can be set and readjusted. If 1,000 ENS isn’t the right amount, governance can change it. However, the closer it gets to the proposal threshold, the less impactful this change will be.
-
Many thought that there were other ways to solve this problem, and weren’t sure why we settled on this one. There was a post about this back in the summer but I understand that when it came time to vote, I could have done a better job explaining the alternatives or pointing to prior discussions.
-
Many thought this was an Agora only feature. Not true. See below, re: open source
-
People were confused about who was paying for audit
The goal of this post is to outline the next steps to bring this work to life as soon as possible with the most alignment possible.
First, some core principles. I am the co-founder of Agora, and can speak for its team and founders. Agora is an open source company and app that believes in the power of decentralization at the client and governor level. Our mission is to make onchain governance great, and to bring the next 100,000 builders into the Web3 space.
Second core principle: first do no harm. The goal of this upgrade is and was to solve a fundamental problem: ENS has a healthy treasury, built up thanks to a powerful protocol, and backed by an incredible community of builders looking to expand the commons. However, the truth is that many builders feel ENS is inaccessible. The goal: build ways for governance to enable more ideas and more builders to access the treasury, to build great things on top of ENS and to make the community better. If at any time you feel as though our work is preventing that, please let me know here publicly so that we can have this conversation. If you don’t believe that ENS wants to bring in more builders, expand the commons and build a 100 year protocol… re read the constitution, article III.
Next steps for this proposal
Even though it passed, it passed with such a close margin that we want to make sure that those that voted no, get a chance to tell us why they voted no, and let us know what we could do to bring it to a yes when it comes time to an onchain vote. To that end I am committed to:
-
Circle back with all delegates who voted no to make sure their concerns are addressed before posting onchain
-
Connect with our friends at Tally to make sure that they are excited about bringing these changes to their ENS governance client
-
Work with OpenZepplin to see if this work can be pulled into OZ core via the governance working group that Tally, Agora and ScopeLift are founding members of. This will make it easier for future clients and teams to support ENS.
-
Post a roadmap for these changes and set budgets for audits so it’s clear who is paying for what and when.
-
Setup a test environment for everyone to play around in to test the feature before production.
-
Ship the feature and measure the impact for the ENS community.
I want to thank everyone that has spoken to me over the past week and for your kind words of encouragement as we work through this beautiful process of decentralized governance. Wouldn’t want to do it any other way.
Excited to keep the momentum going on this project.
8 Likes
Apologies but I won’t be able to make the call tomorrow (Nov 25, 2024) and was travelling back from DevCon for the last one. @estmcmxci and @5pence.eth mentioned that there was feedback around the Proposal Bond follow up work that would warrant another social vote.
I would love an update on what those changes are so that we can talk about them here and decide on next steps.
We are working on a version that takes a different approach and doesn’t require a governor upgrade as a happy middle ground. We will be sharing that in the next few weeks before we break for the holiday break.
Talk soon
Hey Kent, check out the notes from last week’s meeting here for context. Essentially, the social proposal technically did not meet quorum, and so another social vote is warranted.
—
If this is the case and there are no changes to the codebase, I presume we wouldn’t need an executable vote (correct me if I am mistaken).
Looking forward to hearing about your new approach to implementing this bond mechanism to lower the threshold for submitting executable proposals!
I appreciate your work on this! I personally think, though, that we should just implement it properly via a governor upgrade - which is needed anyway because of other pending changes - rather than with band-aids.
2 Likes
Awesome! The other solution will be a Yes And solution so even with the Proposal Bond work, we are happy to try the other idea and see what folks enjoy.
We will make sure we push forward on the Proposal Bond work full steam to get this and the other Governor cleanup / security changes in!