ENS DAO has handed administrative control of its endowment to a newly staffed ENS Foundation, closing a governance debate that had been running since a scaled-back treasury proposal in late July.

The vote closed with 1,269,420 ENS in favor and 480,690 against, clearing the proposal’s 1 million-token quorum requirement. The executable transaction ran on the morning of August 11, 2026.

What the executable actually changed

The proposal did two things at once. First, it converted the ENS Foundation from a lighter-weight legal wrapper into a staffed organization with a full-time executive director and a five-seat board. Second, it gave that Foundation onchain administrative control of the DAO’s endowment, which held roughly $65 million in ETH and stablecoins as of late July.

Mechanically, the executable swapped the sole owner of the Endowment Safe for a new timelock contract. That timelock carries a nine-day delay, and its only proposer is the Foundation’s 3-of-5 multisig. A separate Security Council can cancel a queued transaction if five of its eight signers agree.

Who sits on the board

The inaugural Foundation board consists of:

  • Alexander Urbelis — Executive Director
  • Nick Johnson — ENS founder
  • Kartik Talwar — independent director
  • Brett Sun — independent director
  • Anthony Leutenegger — independent director

What tokenholders kept

The vote did not hand over the entire DAO. According to the proposal’s terms, ENS tokenholders retain control over:

  • protocol upgrades
  • fee changes
  • DAO-held tokens that sit outside the endowment
  • the right to appoint and remove Foundation directors

That last point is the DAO’s main remaining lever over the Foundation: if the board acts in a way tokenholders object to, they can vote to remove directors, though they cannot directly reverse an endowment transaction once it clears the nine-day timelock.

Why the vote was contested

Not every ENS holder was comfortable with the structure. Co-founder Alex Van de Sande voted against the proposal, casting 130,335 votes in opposition after reviewing the decoded executable — the second-largest opposition stake behind Fire Eyes DAO. His objection centered on governance chain of custody: once the endowment sits behind a Foundation-controlled multisig and timelock, the DAO’s direct onchain claim on those funds is gone, even though the Foundation is nominally accountable to tokenholders through board appointments.

Supporters of the change argued the opposite case: a DAO-only endowment with no staffed oversight is harder to manage responsibly at $65 million in size, and a formal board with a named executive director creates clearer accountability than a rotating set of delegate multisig signers.

Why this matters beyond ENS

The ENS vote is a live example of a recurring DAO governance tradeoff — trading direct tokenholder custody of treasury assets for professional, staffed management with contractual and legal accountability. Other large DAOs holding treasuries in the tens of millions of dollars face a similar choice: keep funds under a rotating multisig controlled by elected delegates, or move them under a legal entity with paid staff and a board structure.

The nine-day timelock and 5-of-8 Security Council cancellation threshold are the safeguards ENS chose to keep some checks on the Foundation without requiring a full DAO vote for every endowment transaction. Whether that balance holds will depend on how the Foundation actually deploys the $65 million — for protocol development, grants, or ENS.domains infrastructure spending — and how transparently it reports those decisions back to tokenholders.

Bottom line

ENS DAO traded direct control of a $65 million endowment for a staffed Foundation with a five-seat board, a nine-day withdrawal delay, and tokenholder-controlled director appointments as the remaining check. The structure passed with roughly 73% of votes cast in favor, but a vocal minority — including a co-founder — sees it as the DAO losing its most direct claim on the funds. How the Foundation spends the endowment over the coming months will determine whether that tradeoff looks justified in hindsight.

Advertisement

Sources and review

This article was checked against the primary or authoritative sources below .

Frequently asked questions

What did ENS tokenholders actually vote on?

A proposal to convert the ENS Foundation into a staffed organization with a full-time executive director and a five-seat board, and to give that Foundation onchain administrative control of the DAO's roughly $65 million endowment.

What was the vote count?

The proposal passed with 1,269,420 ENS in favor and 480,690 against, clearing the required 1 million-token quorum. It executed on the morning of August 11, 2026.

Do ENS tokenholders still control anything?

Yes. Tokenholders retain control over protocol upgrades, fee changes, DAO-held tokens outside the endowment, and the right to appoint or remove Foundation directors.

Who is on the new Foundation board?

Executive Director Alexander Urbelis, ENS founder Nick Johnson, and independent directors Kartik Talwar, Brett Sun and Anthony Leutenegger.

Why did some tokenholders vote against it?

Co-founder Alex Van de Sande, who cast 130,335 votes against the proposal, argued after decoding the executable that the DAO effectively disappears from the endowment's control chain.

Advertisement

V

Vijay Rathod

Independent crypto and financial-markets analyst covering Bitcoin, altcoins, macroeconomics, and trading news. More about the author →