Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
Following
ENS ENS DAO approves a new two-year Security Council with veto power on governance transactions
ENS DAO (Ethereum Domain Name Services Decentralized Autonomous Organization) has approved the creation of a new two-year Security Council with veto power on governance transactions. The two-year watchdog will have the power to block decisions that have been implemented, marking a major adjustment in the internal governance mechanisms of the Ethereum Domain Name Services Agreement.
Details of ENS DAO approval
Based on an executable proposal submitted at the ENS Governance Forum to establish a new Security Council, the decision established a two-year fixed term rather than an indefinite arrangement. Governance transactions in this context refer to on-chain operations performed by the DAO after a vote is passed, such as transferring treasury funds or modifying agreement parameters. The board's scope of responsibility revolves around the transactions themselves rather than the voting process. This is a formal measure that has been approved and not a proposal that is still under discussion. ENS positioned it as a standing security function for the agreement in its new Security Council announcement.
How veto power changes the ENS governance landscape
The exercise of veto power over governance transactions adds a unique layer of control to the operations of the DAO, allowing the board to block transactions before or during execution. This is a major change compared with the old model of direct execution after the vote is passed and lack of secondary inspections. The Security Council is often positioned as a risk reduction and Incident Response Service mechanism designed to intervene when transactions pose a threat to agreements. The ENS architecture follows this security-first logic. While strengthening supervision, it has also triggered common discussions about concentration of power. An institution with the power to overturn implemented governance decisions will inevitably draw attention to the boundaries of its veto power and how decentralization can be maintained. Similar disputes have arisen in other projects. The renewal was not smooth sailing. Reports pointed out that the DAO voted for a new board of directors several weeks after the founders of ENS blocked a previous renewal, highlighting that the security authorization itself is also controversial within the community.
The signal released by the two-year architecture
The two-year tenure suggests that this is a well-thought-out and planned governance rhythm rather than a temporary security patch. Fixing the duration of the board establishes a regular accountability node at which the DAO must review the authorization. This structure may affect how ENS voting and transaction reviews are handled in the future, with the Board serving as a permanent review body for high-risk chain actions. Clear parameters have been documented in the ENS DAO proposal document. The clearest signals for the future are structural: ENS has chosen a fixed-term, veto-power agency as a permanent feature of its governance, with a renewal review when its two-year term expires.
