ENS

To support the long-term and continuous development of ENS DAO, we support new talents emerging as Stewards. Therefore, we voted for Limes, an experienced Steward with high time commitment, Slobo, another experienced Steward, and cap, whose knowledge and experience as a Dapps Builder is expected to be valuable in future Namechain and other L2 platforms. Although these three have significantly different backgrounds, we expect that this diversity will promote new ideas in the ENS Ecosystem.

To support the long-term and continuous development of ENS DAO, we support new talents emerging as Stewards. Therefore, we voted for the two current experienced Stewards and sovereignsignal, who excel in Grant management. We expect that with current Stewards and experienced new members, new improvement ideas for ENS Public Goods will be promoted.

We will abstain from voting for one of the candidates. However, if we were to select two candidates other than ourselves, we would recommend the two experienced Stewards.

We believe it is reasonable to make the decisive judgment to discontinue this feature, understanding that it is expected to be short-lived for v2.

We are in support of this activity, which is expected to strengthen the community and accelerate the de-centralization of the ENS DAO.

We understand that the substantial contents of EP5.25 are already approved, and there is no practical change. We support the continued and stable activities by the established working groups.

We value the consistent financial support to the whole Ethereum ecosystem by ENS DAO given that ENS's future is tightly knitted to the development of the ecosystem and that ENS DAO is highly profitable when compared with other major DAOs. This is a contribution that few DAOs can afford to, and thus very meaningful.

This is also where continuity matters as this will give reliability to the ENS as a platform to build something upon from builders' perspective. We see some unique and exciting projects that received grants such as 3DNS. It seems that grants are distributed in a desirable way.

This is necessary, just like for other working groups, and should be approved without question unless there are significant changes or significant needs for changes. We believe there's no problem with approving it this time.

Eth.link has been used by various projects to provide access to ENS and IPFS sites. It has been utilized by some of the largest projects in the space, including Uniswap. It is important for ENS to responsibly maintain such a highly public domain, which is crucial not only for ENS but also for the Ethereum ecosystem as a whole.

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.