--- title: "[ENS long post / temp check] I want to float the idea for changing how we vote on the ENS Service..." canonical_url: "https://typefully.com/t/Wprb6wX" markdown_url: "https://typefully.com/t/Wprb6wX.md" agent_guide_url: "https://typefully.com/ai-agents.md" robots: noindex source: typefully_shared_draft share_id: "Wprb6wX" --- [ENS long post / temp check] I want to float the idea for changing how we vote on the ENS Service Providers Program (for the next year's vote). I wrote this couple of weeks ago and wasn't sure whether to post it or not because I though the timing was bad. And even though there seems to be a general interest in redefining how we vote on SPP I thought I should post this as a valuable arguments for doing it while it's still hot topic. There are good reasons why it is good to have delegates vote on SPP program elections, but for the sake of discussion, I'll focus on why I think the current process is bad and outweighs the positives. For the record, this isn’t a final stance, I’m just sense-checking my beliefs and inviting discussion. --- Why I think the current process is flawed: 1. Delegates ≠ Domain Experts The Service Provider Program involves evaluating fairly complex, technical, niche-industry-specific work, contributions, and plans. Most delegates don’t have the background or expertize to properly assess this and shouldn't be burdened with a choice of electing $4.5M fund allocation. 2. Delegates overhead Delegates don’t have the time (or context) to do deep reviews. Applications are long and nuanced. Understanding them requires work history, context, and technical insight, creating a lot of work for delegates, and I'm afraid most votes won't be based on a *thorough* review. 3. Just skim it Real talk: Most delegates won't actually read the full applications. At best, they'll skim through them and look at the 5-min video pitch, and anchor their beliefs on reliable names they know, good presenters, and choose 'safe bets' - where others they trust have placed their bets. 4. Popularity > Performance Having to rely on Delegates for your funding creates an environment where politics trumps merit. The best-performing teams may not be the loudest. The most visible may not be the most reliable. You shouldn’t need to win a campaign to get the funding to keep contributing. 5. Subjectivity Subjectivity in voting leads to inconsistency and undermines credibility. Different delegates apply different criteria to their decision-making process. One team can be approved for minor work, another rejected despite valuable contributions. It's a possibility. 6. High Stakes, Low Context Most Delegates aren’t tracking every new ENS-related upgrade, tool, SDK, app, integration, or partnership. Nor the work of existing Service Providers. That’s not a criticism, it’s just reality. So, expecting them to make high-stakes decisions on SPP applications, written by 2, 3, 4-year-long ENS contributors, isn’t fair to them or to contributors! 7. Delegate role confusion Delegates are expected to steward the protocol direction, do treasury oversight, etc., not micromanage operations, and conduct ecosystem-level hiring... It’s like asking a company’s board of directors to personally interview and hire every engineer. 8. Delegates already rely on others Whether it’s MetaGov, working groups, trusted contributors, or other Service Providers, Delegates often factor in others' opinions to make their decisions. This isn’t necessarily bad, but we should acknowledge it and maybe formalize the process. 9. No formal evaluation framework There’s no shared rubric or checklist to define what qualifies as a strong applicant or even what constitutes "value" that delegates should be looking for in Service Providers. This leads to decisions based on familiarity, presentation style, or popularity, rather than *objective* merit, impact, validated use-case, or potential. 10. No accountability There’s no scoring, documentation, review, or audit trail. If a weak provider is approved or a strong one denied, there’s no mechanism for reflection or correction. Voting without accountability mechanisms can harm the ENS ecosystem. No accountability = systemic fragility. This is not delegate-related, but still an issue. ============ P.S. Much MUCH respect to all Delegates reading all applications in detail, analysing and assessing candidates, and doing their due diligence! ============ Personal take I'm a Delegate and a Service Provider, and I can tell you that Delegates talk to each other, to working groups, to contributors, and other Service providers to figure out who to support. So why not formalize that into a proper evaluation body? Delegates can still ratify the process and the outcome, just like they do with budgets, funding, protocol upgrades, elections, etc. To be honest, I don’t feel comfortable, nor I want to, spam Delegates every year to justify our work. And frankly, I don’t think Delegates want to be spammed either. A Potential Direction (not a final solution) We should create a shared public ever-evolving document (SPP North Star), like the one we have for the Investment Policy Statement from Karpatkey (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NtaKb-9HJf9wJmVOq4sQbhsYQ4yZtTF2), that defines the vision for ENS, direction where we want to go, and what 'value' means in the context of ENS Service Provider Program. Whether it’s: - protocol and infra work - subname adoption - bd and growth of partnerships - DAO Revenue increase - apps (Fluidkey, Vision, Unicorn, ENScribe) as a proxy for adoption - developer accessibility (middleware/dev tooling + integrations) - something else or all of the above.. Let’s define it together. Have Delegates vote to ratify it. Then, we assemble a selection committee through a public voting - ENS natives, Ethereum veterans, credible builders across product, technical, BD, marketing, etc. I'd love to throw in credible investors in the mix, too. And also include working group stewards, active contributors, and any interested Delegates. Anyone can apply. We run a public vote to elect them - 3, 5, 10 of them, or whatever number makes sense, and anyone can apply. This committee would be responsible for reviewing SPP applications based on predefined criteria/values in the SPP North Star document. It could be structured as a paid role, an annual budget item for the DAO, to ensure quality evaluation and reduce review burden on delegates. This isn’t about excluding Delegates, it’s about supporting them with structure and clarity. I'm inviting discussion, I'm not saying I'm right. ENS is still the best DAO in the world! Love 🫶