Open the ENS protocol revenue dashboard. Every dollar in that treasury traces back to someone registering or renewing a name. Not a token holder. Not a delegate. A person or organization that decided an ENS name was worth paying for. The temp check proposes to hand stewardship of that treasury to a Foundation governed by a five-seat board, ratified by token holders, with delegates as the primary accountability mechanism. Name registrants -- the people whose fees built the treasury in the first place -- have no formal role in that structure. They are not mentioned once in the proposal. That is not an oversight. It is a structural blind spot that will matter more as the Foundation grows. WHO THE FEE-PAYERS ARE. ENS name registrants are not a homogeneous group. They include individual users who registered a personal name, developers who registered names for their applications, organizations that registered names for their brands, and speculators who registered names as assets. What they share is this: they made a payment to the ENS protocol based on an implicit promise that the protocol would be maintained, developed, and governed in their interest. The Foundation proposal changes who governs that promise without asking the people who funded it. WHAT FORMAL VOICE LOOKS LIKE. Three concrete mechanisms. First, a fee-payer advisory seat on the Grants Committee. One seat on the five-member Grants Committee is reserved for a representative elected by active name registrants -- defined as anyone who has registered or renewed a name within the past 24 months. Election is conducted via on-chain vote weighted by registration recency, not token holdings. This seat has full voting rights on grants decisions and full access to grants program data. Second, a registrant impact report published annually alongside the financial audit. The Foundation proposes to publish annual reports and audited financials. Add a third document: a registrant impact report that answers three questions directly. What did fee revenue fund this year. How did Foundation decisions affect the cost and accessibility of ENS names. What is the projected fee structure for the next three years. This report is not optional. It is a condition of the annual budget approval. Third, a fee-change consultation requirement. Any proposal to change ENS registration or renewal fees must include a 30-day public consultation period with active registrants before the Foundation can endorse it. Consultation results are published alongside the fee proposal. The Foundation is not bound by the consultation outcome but must respond in writing to the three most common objections raised. WHY TOKEN HOLDERS ARE NOT ENOUGH. Token holders and name registrants are not the same population. Many large token holders have never registered an ENS name. Many active name registrants hold no ENS tokens. The governance structure the temp check proposes is optimized for token holder interests. That is a reasonable starting point for protocol governance. It is not sufficient for a Foundation that will steward the treasury built by registrant fees. The fee-payer population also has a different time horizon than token holders. A token holder who thinks ENS is overvalued can sell. A registrant who has built infrastructure, identity, or brand on an ENS name cannot walk away as easily. Their stake in Foundation governance is longer and less liquid than a token position. That longer stake deserves a formal voice. THE HONEST OBJECTION. Adding a registrant seat and consultation requirements makes the Foundation more complex to operate. The ED has to manage one more constituency. The Grants Committee has one more seat to coordinate. The annual reporting burden increases. That is true. It is also the cost of governing a protocol that exists to serve its users, not its investors. The ENS Foundation that loses sight of its registrants is a Foundation that will eventually lose its registrants. A formal voice for fee-payers is not a burden. It is a reminder of who the Foundation is actually for.