ENS Labs has revised a governance proposal after delegate criticism over treasury control, choosing to keep the DAO’s primary operational wallet custody in place rather than moving broader control to the Foundation.
According to the validated notes, the revised plan scraps the more contentious transfer of the DAO’s operational wallet, which includes ETH and stablecoins. The DAO retains custody, while only the $65 million Endowment Safe is set to transition to the Foundation, subject to a timelock and Security Council cancellation rights.
The DAO’s 54.6 million ENS tokens remain with tokenholders, while the Foundation would receive a 1 million ENS grant vesting over multiple years.
This is not the flashiest governance story, but it is an important one. ENS is trying to balance professional execution with decentralized control, and the delegate pushback shows that the community is still willing to draw lines around treasury authority.
For more details, visit the official Discuss platform.
TL;DR
- ENS Labs revised a treasury-control proposal after delegate criticism.
- The DAO retains custody of its primary operational wallet.
- The $65 million Endowment Safe can move to the Foundation, with timelock and Security Council safeguards.
Why Treasury Control Gets Sensitive Fast
DAO treasury debates can become emotional because they sit at the heart of governance legitimacy.
A DAO may want a foundation or operating company to move faster, manage resources professionally, sign contracts, pay vendors, hire staff, and handle legal responsibilities. Those are real needs. Pure tokenholder voting can be slow and awkward for day-to-day operations.
But if too much treasury control moves away from the DAO, delegates may worry that governance becomes symbolic.
That is the tension ENS Labs ran into.
The revised proposal appears to acknowledge that professional management has value, but that primary operational wallet custody is too sensitive to move without broader comfort.
That is a reasonable governance compromise.
The Endowment Safe Is A Different Question
The $65 million Endowment Safe is still expected to transition to the Foundation under the revised plan, according to the validation notes.
That makes sense as a narrower operational change.
An endowment can be managed with a long-term mandate, specific oversight, and defined controls. Moving an endowment safe is different from moving the DAO’s primary operating wallet, especially if the transfer comes with a timelock and cancellation rights.
The Security Council safeguard is important because it gives the DAO a way to respond if a governance action is considered malicious or dangerous during the execution window.
That does not eliminate all risk, but it reduces the fear that control shifts permanently without recourse.
The ENS Token Treasury Remains With Holders
The DAO’s 54.6 million ENS tokens remaining with tokenholders is another key point.
Governance tokens are not just assets on a balance sheet. They represent voting power and long-term control over the protocol’s direction. Moving them into a more centralized structure would have created a much larger governance debate.
The revised structure avoids that.
Instead, the Foundation receives a 1 million ENS grant that vests over multiple years. That gives the Foundation resources, but it does not move the full token treasury out of DAO control.
For delegates, that kind of vesting structure can feel more accountable. It gives an operating entity funding while maintaining a timeline and limiting immediate control.
Delegate Pushback Worked As Designed
The healthiest part of this story may be that pushback changed the proposal.
DAO governance often gets criticized for being performative. Proposals appear, delegates comment, and outcomes sometimes seem predetermined. When feedback actually changes the structure, it shows governance is doing something useful.
ENS delegates raised concerns, and ENS Labs revised the plan.
That is how a serious DAO should function. Not every criticism needs to win, but major treasury changes should be tested hard before approval.
This is especially true for a protocol like ENS, which provides core naming infrastructure across Ethereum and the broader crypto ecosystem. Its governance model needs to maintain trust among tokenholders, builders, users, and institutions.
Professionalization Without Capture
The broader ENS debate is really about professionalization.
Crypto protocols often begin as communities and then discover they need operating structures. Foundations, labs teams, service providers, and working groups emerge because someone has to do the work.
The danger is that operational efficiency can drift into centralization.
The revised ENS proposal tries to avoid that by keeping the DAO’s core treasury control intact while still giving the Foundation a clearer role around the endowment and long-term operations.
That may not satisfy everyone. Some will want more decentralization. Others will want faster execution. But the compromise is a sign that ENS governance is maturing.
A DAO does not need to choose between chaos and central control. It can build guardrails, delegate responsibilities, and still preserve the community’s authority over the assets that matter most.
This article is based on ENS governance materials related to the revised Foundation treasury proposal.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
