ENS DAO's Process vs Uniswap's Governance Process: Large Protocol Governance

Governs a single, focused product: The Ethereum Name Service. This allows for deep, specialized governance on naming standards (EIP-137), subdomain models, and integration tooling. Ideal for protocols where the core product is a public good with a narrow, technical scope.

Governs a sprawling DeFi ecosystem: The Uniswap Protocol across Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, and others, plus the Uniswap Foundation, Grants Program, and UNI token treasury. Demands governance capable of handling complex, cross-chain upgrades (e.g., V4 hooks) and capital allocation.

Relies on elected Stewards for execution: The DAO elects a small council (7 Stewards) to manage grants, budgets, and working groups. This creates a clear, accountable executive layer but centralizes day-to-day power. Faster execution than pure on-chain voting for operational tasks.

Utilizes a Foundation and high-stakes delegation: The Uniswap Foundation proposes and executes, while voting power is heavily delegated to large entities (a16z, GFX Labs, etc.). Enables professional oversight but risks voter apathy and plutocratic outcomes in temperature checks and on-chain votes.

Practical proposal thresholds: Requires 100K ENS tokens (~$1.2M) to submit a governance proposal, but only 1M ENS votes to pass. This balance allows substantive community proposals to succeed without being completely gated by whale capital.

Extremely high proposal thresholds: Requires 2.5M UNI tokens (~$20M) to submit and 40M UNI votes to pass. This effectively limits proposal power to large delegates and whales, creating a high barrier for grassroots initiatives but reducing governance spam.

Specific advantage: Governance is tied directly to .eth domain ownership, creating a high-signal, identity-aligned electorate. This matters for long-term protocol stewardship over short-term speculation, as seen in proposals like the ENS Constitution and public goods funding.

Specific advantage: A simpler three-step process (Temp Check, Consensus Check, On-Chain Vote) managed by elected Stewards. This matters for efficient execution on non-financial protocol upgrades (e.g., pricing models, registrar logic) without the overhead of a large delegate system.

Specific advantage: Delegated voting with $6B+ in delegated UNI creates a professional, research-driven governance layer. This matters for high-stakes treasury management (e.g., the $74M Uniswap Grants Program) and complex financial parameter adjustments across multiple chains.

Specific advantage: Successfully executed major protocol upgrades like Uniswap v3 and fee switch governance. This matters for protocols requiring frequent, technical iterations and establishing a precedent for cross-chain governance via the Uniswap Bridge Assessment Committee.

Specific advantage: Governance is focused on the ENS protocol and treasury, not a sprawling DeFi ecosystem. This leads to more coherent proposals and faster consensus, as seen in the efficient management of its ~$100M+ treasury. This matters for teams who need predictable, stable infrastructure without constant political overhead from unrelated financial products.

Specific advantage/Side-effect: Attracts sophisticated delegate firms (e.g., a16z, GFX Labs) due to the massive economic stakes, but can lead to voter apathy among small holders and contentious "political" battles over fee distribution. This matters for protocols where delegated professional governance is acceptable, but community-wide engagement is secondary to expert execution.