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 !
2 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?