The temp check is honest about what it is building. A Foundation that stewards the mission, the trademarks, the grants program, and the treasury. A DAO that votes rarely and matters every time it does. An Executive Director who can act without waiting for token votes. That is a reasonable structure. The problem is not what it builds. The problem is that it does not say what happens when it stops working. Every foundation cited as a model in the temp check -- Mozilla, Signal, ISRG -- has operated for decades. In that time, founding teams turned over. Priorities shifted. External pressures changed the mission in ways nobody predicted at launch. Mozilla today is not Mozilla in 2003. Signal today is not Signal in 2014. Those organizations survived their own drift because they had structures that forced periodic reckoning -- board renewals, governance reviews, funding constraints that kept the institution honest about what it was actually doing. The ENS Foundation proposal has none of that. Once the treasury transfers and the board is seated, the DAO's only recourse is a removal petition requiring documentary evidence of a specific mission violation. That is not a governance mechanism. That is a last resort. Designing a foundation around its last resort is like designing a car around its airbags. PART 1: THE 5% ANNUAL ENDOWMENT DRAWDOWN CAP. Alex Van de Sande proposed this in the forum thread and it has not been formalized. It should be. The Endowment exists to fund ENS operations across decades. A 5% annual cap -- roughly .5M at current valuations -- forces the Foundation to operate within a sustainable envelope rather than treating the Endowment as a balance sheet to draw against freely. It also means the DAO retains meaningful leverage: if the Foundation is not performing, the DAO's ability to influence the next budget cycle is real rather than theoretical. This is not a novel mechanism. University endowments, community foundations, and sovereign wealth funds all use drawdown caps as a matter of standard practice. It is not distrust. It is how institutions that are supposed to last decades actually last decades. PART 2: A STRUCTURED THREE-YEAR PERFORMANCE REVIEW WITH DAO WITHDRAWAL RIGHTS. The proposal should include an explicit three-year review point at which the DAO votes on whether to continue the current Foundation structure, modify it, or trigger a wind-down. This is not a removal vote -- it requires no allegations, no documentary evidence, no specific mission violation. It is simply a scheduled moment where the community decides whether this is still the right structure. If the vote passes, the Foundation continues. If it does not, a wind-down process begins: the treasury transfers back to the Governor/Timelock over 12 months, the board completes any outstanding commitments, and the DAO decides what comes next. This gives the Foundation a genuine mandate -- three years is long enough to execute a real strategy -- and gives the DAO a real off-ramp that does not require proving wrongdoing before anyone will listen. PART 3: A SUNSET CLAUSE THAT REQUIRES EXPLICIT RENEWAL. The Foundation should have a ten-year charter. At year ten, it either renews by explicit DAO vote or winds down by default. This sounds dramatic. It is not. It is how most serious institutional charters work. The alternative -- a foundation that continues indefinitely until someone can prove it should not -- is how institutions drift beyond correction. A ten-year renewal forces the question the proposal currently avoids: is this still the right structure for ENS? That question should be asked on a schedule, not triggered by crisis. WHAT THIS IS NOT. This is not an argument that the Foundation will fail. It is not an argument that Alex Urbelis is the wrong choice or that the board will act in bad faith. The people involved are credible. That is not the point. The point is that institutions are not their founding teams. The ENS Foundation that exists in 2035 will be run by people who were not in the room when this proposal was written. The question is not whether we trust the people proposing this. The question is whether the structure we are building today will still serve ENS when those people are gone. Every institution that has answered that question well has built in off-ramps. This proposal adds three.