Proposed - $400k $300k

Their proposal focuses on governance tooling, with the unique selling point being the development of a mobile app. A key question for delegates is whether there is genuine demand for a mobile-first governance experience. If so, Lighthouse’s offering could have clear value. I had a play with the app, and it looks good and is a fun way to partake in governance.

The team has an established history within the broader blockchain ecosystem, although they are relatively new participants in the ENS ecosystem. They are clearly technically competent, and their realistic commentary on software delivery in recent Metagov calls has been a breath of fresh air.

One point of concern relates to their open source commitment. While their proposal claims that the new work funded under this program will be open source, the core mobile app they are building on remains closed source. Their edit clarifies:

However, we commit to building the work in this proposal as public, open-source resources, and will then (using other funding) integrate that work into our core product.

This distinction is not entirely clear, and creates some ambiguity around the true openness of the resulting deliverables.

I am somewhat conflicted on this application. The product itself looks very polished, but it feels closer to a request for retroactive funding for a closed ecosystem product, rather than a fully open contribution to ENS DAO.

Their product Dispatch appears strong, but several other applicants are also offering governance data aggregation tools.

The unique component of their proposal - Signals - arguably should have been the primary standalone ask. Edit: It looks as though their proposal has been updated to give prominence to this piece of the puzzle.

Previous - $300k

Last year their proposal outlined:

Our vision is to improve ENS in 4 ways

• User experience [UX]: Lower the barrier and complexity for users.

• Developer experience [DX]: Make onboarding for developers easier and reduce costs/time to build on ENS.

• Platform sustainability [PS]: Create a positive-sum situation by having more incentives for platforms so they can grow together with ENS.

• Governance [Gov]: Improve transparency and security on governance.

Blockful delivered, particularly in governance, at a consistently high level. Their work verifying the integrity of DAO proposal calldata was particularly valuable.

They aided in securing the DAO but received significant additional compensation for that.

Their contributions to ENSIP development (see Wildcard Writing) have been admirable under challenging conditions. They have a well documented open source reference implementation, as well as a functional front end at https://name.ful.xyz/

They have also been consistent and incredibly active participants across working groups.

Proposed - $400k / $700k $700k / $800k

The focus of their proposal this year is Governance. They did a great job last year and I am supportive of them continuing to take the lead on that.

That said their recent changes to requested budget are surprising. Given the quality and breadth of competing applications, I believe a $700k request is excessive.

In my opinion the DAO should support consistent, long standing contributors over new entrants if the proposals are comparable. This increased ask makes me lean towards supporting other applicants with lower asks.

I believe that Blockful can deliver a standalone solution for all of the DAOs governance needs. I think we should reward consistent, high quality contributors and should avoid duplication of effort wherever possible.

Proposed - $300k / $400k

Agora have been active participants in the ENS ecosystem over the past year, having been directly funded by the Metagov working group up until November 2024.

They have worked with a number of top protocols including Optimism, and based on personal interactions I find Brennan to be very compelling - I like his approach and attitude.

Agora’s proposal is detailed and outlines specific deliverables that I perceive to be a value add to ENS - proposal sponsorship, and better SAFE integrations for example.

I also see huge value in:

Key extended offering #2: Decentralized Service Provider Registry & Visualization

I think the integrity of the DAO is prerequisited on transparency. I’d like to see this expanded to include transparency on delegate relationships.

Agora have noted their work on SPP2 visualisations:

Meta: Agora will have completed this work by the time SPP2 voting is live. Our hope is that the DAO will choose to reward Agora retroactively.

I respect this transparency.

Governance tooling proposals must be evaluated with particular scrutiny this year, especially given the number of applicants and the need to demonstrate clear, measurable impact.

One thing that did stand out to me was:

ENS will be able to stand on top of the work that Agora is doing for the OP/Superchain

Last year I recall utilising a production Agora interface that still had references to Optimism. Our governance needs should be treated as first class citizens. I do not want to see work already completed and funded by other organisations simply repackaged for ENS.

Proposed - $300k

According to their proposal:

Tally is the most popular voting platform for ENS.

Tally has historically been a familiar platform for ENS governance, particularly for their gasless voting interface, which I have personally found useful over the years.

That said, they have been less active than other governance tooling providers within the ENS ecosystem.

Their proposal outlines adding better support for SAFEs, and proliferating ENS usage through their platform. These are fantastic improvements but I don’t feel they warrant $300k in funding noting the abundance of governance related applications.

Their ‘Deployment build verification’ offering that uses ENS to validate the integrity of frontend deployments seems novel, and useful noting the recent Bybit hack.

Proposed - $300k

Their proposal outlines:

Decent enables ambitious onchain organizations to create structure and accountability so they can execute without sacrificing decentralization or legal compliance.

They have been in the space for a long time, but they have only been active within the ENS ecosystem more recently - I would have liked to have seen more consistent participation.

They are very pro open-source which aligns well with the programs guidelines. All their code is available on their Github.

It looks like their platform has some unique functionality yet perversely it doesn’t seem to have been appropriately highlighted within their application.

Child safes / SubDAOs are interesting in that they could offer a novel approach to holding providers accountable with their Clawbacks feature.

Proposed - $300k

This proposal is for a series of AI tools for surfacing governance data to delegates and ecosystem participants.

I feel like these kind of usages of AI are interesting and novel. Their prototype looks cool and I would like to “Understand how members are likely to vote based on their governance history.”

My initial thought was that these should be features of a larger governance platform, but the prototype outlines that the tooling can be connected with all platforms which gives flexibility.

Proposed - $300k

Their proposal outlines:

We will build a comprehensive ENS DAO governance analytics platform with six integrated components designed to enhance transparency, increase participation, and drive data-informed decisions.

Their team have a track record having previously worked at CoinSwitch and having previously received $4M in seed funding. That said, their previous work was “Purpose-built for institutional investors to make better investment decisions”.

Proposed - $300k

Their proposal is for an AI solution for making relevant data accessible to delegates and ecosystem participants.

David is credentialed having previously worked at Coinbase and Aave. He has a public Github which documents some impressive contributions including tooling for Flash Loans.

He actively participates in ecosystem calls, and has built an interesting tool for surfacing information information relevant to DAO participants. I would like to see more focused investigation into how AI can be applied specifically within the ENS context.

Proposed - $400k / $600k $300k

The JustAName team are technically competent and have built a number of impressive and useful tools over the past few months. For example ENSvolution for seeing historical changes to ENS names. Their Twitter suggests that they have been active within the ENS ecosystem for two years. Their team has wide blockchain (and general technology) experience.

They have adjusted their budget down to $300k, which, given the number and quality of applications, I feel is an appropriate and pragmatic change.

The focus of their proposal appears to be on subnames and enterprise use cases. Personally, I am wary of adding another subname-focused Service Provider, noting my perception of the limited cost/benefit from such providers in the previous iteration of the program. That said some of their offerings are novel (for example JustVerified for social identity verification), and if they can successfully execute on the enterprise side, it could represent a significant value add for the ecosystem.

Noting current scale, I can’t help but feel that they have over-architected their solution. In many respects I feel they have overdone the buzzwords and low level technical explanations in a manner that detracts from their actual work which IS really good.

Previous - 200k

Last year their proposal stated:

Build and provide tools, API, custom-built solutions, and an easy-to-use platform (no coding skill required) in order to handle setting up, customizing, and issuing Subnames for existing and new crypto users.

Did they do that? Yes.

In my opinion, Namespace were among the standout contributors to last year’s program - delivering significant value for comparatively little funding.

In early March they hit 30,000 subname mints through their incredibly flexible subname platform. They built an embeddable widget for subname registrations (105 integrations), ENS Farcaster frames (7,000 mints), supported many well reputed entities (EthDenver, SheFI) in offering subnames to their communities, and much more.

Proposed - $400k / $600k $400k. 2 years.

Their current proposal is succinct, focusing on continued improvements to their subname services, establishing a dedicated business development arm, and allocating resources toward ‘Side Quests’.

If delegates consider subname services a key strategic area for ENS, I believe Namespace offers strong value for money.

From my perspective, the two-year stream was designed specifically for teams with a clear track record of delivery, which Namespace has demonstrated.

Previous - $700k

Last year their proposal stated:

We want to build the premier subname provider of ENS

Based on their latest update they had approximately 26,000 subnames registered across 230 different ENS names through their Namestone platform and API.

They built ENS Pro which is a tool for managing personal subnames, and they built Durin, a developer tool for deploying a subname solution on a Layer 2.

Namestone fulfilled their outlined deliverables and contributed additional tooling such as Durin. They also proactively pushed ENS including teaching students at Columbia University about ENS.

Proposed - $800k. 2 years.

Their current application proposes continued iteration on Durin, support for L2 primary names, and further development of their Namestone platform.

I like focussed applications but in my opinion, the proposal does not justify the scale of the funding requested, particularly when evaluated alongside the quality and breadth of competing applications.

Previous - $500k

Eth.limo has existed since August 2021 and allows access to decentralised website data associated with an ENS name through the browser.

Last year their proposal outlined:

This proposal is for funding the on-going development, support, and associated hosting fees for eth.limo

Here are some usage metrics from this source:

“We serve (on average) 2.5 to 3 million requests per day across tens of thousands of ENS dWebsites with 99.999% monthly uptime.

Each request is using ENS, thus the value of the service is clearly apparent to me.

They also took over operation of the eth.link domain name, and it is now powered by the eth.limo service.

Proposed - $700k / $800k. 2 years.

Evaluating this application is difficult.

Ben, Sam, and the team are technically outstanding and have built an exceptional product.

The ask feels high simply because of the number and quality of applicants.

Regardless, I lean yes, especially given the legal difficulties they’ve had to contend with over the past year.

Proposed - $300k

I am a big fan of proposals that clearly outline what they offer:

WebHash is an end-to-end infrastructure for creating and hosting decentralized websites and applications on ENS.

Hid is a great guy and has been active in the ENS ecosystem for a number of years.

Having tested WebHash, I found it to be a genuinely compelling offering. It is a feature complete ‘What You See Is What You Get’ website builder that deploys your website to IPFS and allows you to connect it with your ENS name. It prioritises accessibility, making it possible for both developers and non-technical users to engage with decentralised web infrastructure.

Their WebHash permanode network provides the infrastructure that allows for censorship-resistance and true decentralisation of ENS-hosted websites.

Their eth.cd product is another interesting extension, offering another approach to ENS-based profiles.

Ultimately the value to the ENS DAO depends on how highly we, as DAO participants, prioritise the decentralisation of web hosting and content delivery within the ENS ecosystem.

Proposed - $300k / $400k

Chomtana, the lead behind dWeb.host, is a technically competent builder who previously contributed to the original EVMGateway codebase. He has also built projects like Opti.domains and is an active participant in Optimism governance.

Their proposal focuses on decentralised website infrastructure, specifically supporting the ENS use case. The service would ensure that content linked to ENS names - via content hashes - remains accessible in a decentralised and resilient manner.

Having played with the alpha product I would say that in its current form the audience is crypto natives in that it perquisites knowledge of the underlying technologies - ENS and IPFS.

As with Webhash, the fundamental value of this proposal depends on how much the DAO prioritises decentralised web hosting within the broader ENS ecosystem.

Previous - 500k

Last year their proposal stated:

We’re keeping ENS competitive by building a social graph protocol for Ethereum accounts that uses and complements ENS, which we call the Ethereum Follow Protocol (EFP).

Did they do that? Yes.

I think that in anyone else's hands EFP would have been less successful. The product is a really interesting social primitive and Brantley is an incredibly good marketer.

Brantley set the standard for transparency when encountering issues early in the year, but moved forward and delivered.

Some metrics based on their latest progress report:

26.7k unique list minters
687.4k actions (onchain EFP actions: follow, unfolllow, tag, untag)
43.4k lists minted
40.6k addresses that touch EFP in some way

I think the value to ENS is clear and compelling.

Proposed - $500k / $700k

Their proposal seeks to continue to develop their identity primitives and integrate them across the wider ecosystem.

This is the important bit for me:

We’ve also been successful in promoting ENS, with our tweets receiving the most engagement of any tweets about ENS, including more than the ENS brand account

I think that these primitives have unlimited potential. It’s all about integrations and marketing. Brantley has done a fantastic job with hiring - his team know what they are talking about from a technical point of view, and have had obvious success getting EFP integrations.

They should be funded for the marketing value alone. It just so happens the product is also good.

Proposed - $400k / $800k

Their proposal essentially centres around the verification of credentials (e.g., social handles) using ZK Proofs and email signature technology (DKIM). They have invented the concept of zero knowledge proofs of regular expressions - a pattern which matches a set of target strings. This allows you to verify that a particular string pattern appears in an email without exposing the actual contents.

The proposal is novel and focused. I can see a clear value-add to the wider blockchain ecosystem - in many respects this feels like a Public Good. It is a generic, abstracted solution with significant potential for broader integrations.

Their team is well-credentialed. I am a big fan of the work coming out of 0xPARC and OpenPassport.

Proposed - $500k / $700k

Their proposal states:

“Our proposal aims to significantly expand what ENS can do.”

My read of this proposal is that its about making extended identity data portable by associating it with your ENS name. I’m seeing ENS meets LinkedIn/Reputation management.

This proposal seems somewhat disjointed. ENS is a portable data backpack, that’s the whole point.

3DNS have done super cool stuff with their DNS integrations with .box, and have a highly competent technical team. Their code is open source on Github, although their architecture is not documented in a manner that makes it easy to digest. According to their website they have minted 85,650 domains on chain which is impressive, and it looks to be the case that they now hold their own ICANN accreditation.

Proposed - $500k

Yan is technically competent and a really nice guy.

I’m going to highlight:

having built the graph component for WeChat - China’s leading social app - and other consumer social products

and

He has created multiple open-source projects that have accumulated around 19,000 stars on GitHub

These repos were not linked, but I hunted them down - Yan is clearly a CSS (website stylesheet) wizard:

Their proposal states that they are building:

a universal profile platform that makes ENS and connected Web3/Web2 identities more discoverable, personalized, and actionable.

I think there is real value in surfacing ‘identity’ information.

My only real criticism is the size of the funding request. In my opinion, $500k is a large ask without a demonstrated track record of consistent contributions to the ENS ecosystem specifically.

Previous - $200k

Last year their proposal focused on building an onboarding experience powered by ENS subdomains. Their goal was to create a web3 account abstraction wallet with web2 login options, allowing users to quickly onboard by creating a Unicorn.eth subdomain without managing private keys.

Griff is a passionate ENS advocate and Unicorn did a great job integrating EthDenver.com with ENS and offering all attendees subnames upon registration. Their Season 1 Review states that 19,000 subnames were allocated.

Griff was also instrumental in pushing for a default chain ID when resolving EVM addresses through an ENS name (see CAIP10).

Proposed - $300k

Their proposal for this year focuses on ENS Accounts, and treat ENS names as a first class citizen entry point for ecosystem onboarding. An app store of sorts for native applications with a built in wallet.

The solution is flexible for other community builders to create similar onboarding experiences, or as Joe Lubin put it - “community in a box”.

The proposal outlines revenue streams, and explicitly outlines repaying the DAO. This is unique amongst applications. The mock ups look beautiful, the name account.eth is exceptional, and the pitch is compelling - “We expect to bring millions of users into web3 and give them all ENS names”. That said, based on the demand we have seen over the past year for third party subname provision I can’t get behind this application.

Previous - $600k

Last year their proposal outlined a broad mission:

“Help ENS Grow” is the mission that fills our minds each day.”

Their proposal centred around three primary initiatives:

• NameKit
• NameGuard
• The ENS Referral Program.

In my view, they did not meaningfully deliver on these initiatives, and there has not been tangible ENS growth attributable to these efforts.

In their proposed application they have acknowledged similar feedback from other delegates:

common feedback was for us to reduce focus on NameGraph, NameAI, NameGuard, and NameKit

Proposed - $1.1M / $1.3M $1.1M

Their current proposal outlines:

“8 substantial ENS infrastructure engineering projects”

In my view, Service Providers should be encouraged to focus: to do one thing well, rather than spreading oneself too thin.

One notable component of their application is the creation of an ENS Referral Program. This was also included in last year’s proposal, and in my opinion, was not meaningfully delivered.

The Namehash team are personable and present themselves extremely well, but in my opinion, the scale of their funding request - $1.1M per year for two years ($2.2M total) - is unreasonable, particularly given the lack of clear delivery on prior commitments.

I think it’s important to note that DAO funds are finite, and a request of this size inevitably limits our ability to fund other strong applicants. Proportionality matters.

Finally, my perception is that Namehash’s visibility in ecosystem and Metagovernance calls has notably increased only in proximity to the renewal of this program. A simple but indicative data point corroborating that is the fact that they have presented at nearly every ecosystem call in Term 6 since discussions about the new program begun whilst having only presented sporadically in Term 5.

In my view, long-term funding streams should reward sustained, consistent participation - not opportunistic engagement.

Previous - 200k

Last year their proposal focused on:

Enhancing ENS FunctionalityBoosting Adoption

Before last years program they had built a number of cool tools - Optinames, and ENS Redirect for example. Over the past year they have sporadically attended ecosystem calls and have produced a few ENS adjacent tools.

I have been unable to find any clear data demonstrating that these tools have meaningfully enhanced ENS functionality or boosted adoption.

Their Superchain Resolver is a cool piece of technology, and they are clearly technically competent but it feels as though output and ecosystem participation hasn’t been high enough.

Proposed - $300k / $400k. 1 year.

Their current proposal outlines the development of Records.xyz, which appears to be a profile management system. It is not clear to me what the unique selling point of this product would be compared to other offerings in the space.

Their extended scope includes initiatives that I perceive as more compelling.

In particular, Wildcard Labs’ positioning on the African continent offers access to a major, underserved target market. Their proposed development and rollout of local fiat onramps - starting with MPESA integration in Kenya - stands out as a genuinely exciting and valuable initiative.

In my view, this aspect of their proposal should have been the primary focus and offers a much clearer and more differentiated value proposition than Records.xyz alone. I would not be supportive of this application as-is.

Proposed - $400k

ENScribe’s proposal focuses on improving contract naming, a genuinely important area for developer experience and security.

Conor has been in the blockchain space for a long time and previously built web3j a Java library for interfacing with the Ethereum blockchain.

Personally, I am not convinced that building another standalone application is the most effective way to address this need.

Their proposal does include plans for Foundry and Hardhat integrations, which I believe should be the primary focus. Meeting developers where they already are - inside the tools they actively use - would maximise the utility and adoption of contract naming improvements.

Having briefly looked at the code they are using create2 in low level assembly without appropriate sanity checks. Arguably usage of a well established helper like Create2 from OpenZeppelin would be preferable.

As with several other proposals, I believe any funding awarded should be closely tied to the achievement of clear, measurable results - a certain number of named contract deployments being the obvious one.

Conor has created a Dune dashboard indicating 16,824,884 contracts having been deployed over the last two years, and a target of 0.1% contracts being named over the first year. This is approximately 8,400 contracts, which is $47 per contract.

All things considered, I think the value here is in normalising contract naming. The value add for ENS is potentially unlimited - ENS in your face on every blockchain interaction. That said, the SPP isn’t really designed for funding initiatives like this that I think need to be appropriately rewarded based on results.

Previous - $400k

Disclaimer: I am a member of the Unruggable team. Accordingly, the following comments reflect my personal perspective, and I encourage independent assessment of our work.

Last year our proposal outlined:

We are seeking funding from the ENS DAO to support our ongoing research and development of the ENS protocol as well as development of open source software products and services designed to support new user growth and improve the user experience of registering and using ENS names.

I believe that we did this with Unruggable Gateways - the critical infrastructure for ENSv2.

Proposed - $400k / $700k. 2 years.

In our proposal:

In 2025 we are expanding our scope to focus energy on education, onboarding, and integrations - supporting developers in building with ENS, and providing on the ground support onboarding companies (and their products).

We are technically competent, highly active ecosystem participants, and have consistently contributed across working groups. Our proposal covers maintaining Unruggable Gateways, researching cross-chain resolution and interoperability, securing ENS data resolution, and on ENS developer support and education.

We want to fill the Technical Liaison role that we have pushed across working groups over the past six months to support non-technical delegates, and promote accountability across the ecosystem. Noting our high context and history within the ecosystem, we are uniquely placed to fill this role.

Proposed - $400k / $800k

Their proposal is premised around integrations, adoption, and distribution.

Growth is absolutely what ENS needs. If AlphaGrowth is the path is unclear.

When I read a proposal like this I can’t help but feel that initiatives like this should be done through a managed RFP process directly from the DAO. We shouldn’t be throwing money around based on statements of intent - this should be a perpetual contract premised around the provider returning measurable value to the DAO in excess of their cost.

They outline ‘Primary Names for Smart Contracts’ as part of their proposal, an offering similar to that of ENScribe.

Their proposal seems to misunderstand the structure of the DAO when it notes:

Structure and bring at least 1 revenue sharing commercial agreement to ENS Labs and the DAO

ENS Labs have historically done a lot of BD/Growth related things on behalf of the DAO. This work could be complimentary to the efforts of ENS Labs.

Their proposals reference to creating a dedicated Twitter account etc to promote ENS to document partnerships and promote ENS, again, seems similar to what ENS Labs already do with their Twitter account.