A clear gap in the Empowering the ENS Foundation debate. Both temp checks — katherine.eth's "Next Era of ENS DAO" and netto.eth's "Independent ENS Foundation for Accountability" — focus on board composition, custody, and accountability. Both acknowledge declining protocol revenue. Neither makes fixing it a mandate. The existing amendments on this track address measurement (RoG), cryptographic accountability (ZK proofs), committee structure (split concerns), and custody (treasury stays with DAO). None addresses the existential question: the Foundation is being asked to steward a treasury that is being depleted. Empowering a board to manage assets that are shrinking does not make them grow. THE NUMBERS. netto.eth's temp check states the problem plainly: protocol revenue run-rate is ~$5.1M/yr, total DAO spend is ~$16M/yr, and ENS Labs funding alone is ~$9M/yr. Revenue covers roughly one-third of spend. The treasury is large (~$100M+) but at current burn it has a finite runway. Every governance reform on the table — Foundation board, empowered committees, custody transfer, envelope model — presumes the money will be there. This amendment asks: what if it isn't? THE AMENDMENT: Make revenue sustainability a primary Foundation mandate, not a side effect of advocacy work. 1. SUSTAINABILITY POLICY AS A RATIFICATION CONDITION. The Foundation must adopt a formal treasury sustainability policy within 90 days of the board being seated — before any operational authority takes effect. The policy must include: a maximum annual drawdown rate (suggested: no more than 8% of treasury per year, declining over time), a path to break-even within a defined horizon (suggested: 3 years), and diversification targets. The DAO ratifies the policy; the Foundation executes within it. If the Foundation cannot produce a credible break-even path, that is a signal the empowerment is premature. 2. REVENUE GENERATION AS A BOARD-LEVEL KPI. The Foundation's advocacy work — ICANN .ens TLD pursuit, namespace standards, W3C engagement — is framed in both temp checks as mission-driven. It is also the primary path to new revenue. A .ens TLD or registry services for adjacent namespaces could generate registration revenue comparable to or exceeding .eth renewals. Make this a board-level KPI with published targets, not a policy aspiration. The ED reports on revenue pipeline every quarter alongside the treasury report. 3. EARNED-REVENUE MODELS. The Foundation should explore earned-revenue models beyond registration fees: enterprise namespace licensing, premium resolver services, standards-based registry operations, and partnership structures with infrastructure providers that depend on ENS. The SPP model proved that ENS can evaluate and fund operational work; the same rigor should be applied to revenue-generating initiatives. The Foundation's grant program should explicitly include a category for revenue-generating public goods — projects that both advance the mission and produce sustainable income. 4. DAO-SET DRAWDOWN CAP WITH AUTOMATIC CONTRACTION. Borrowing from netto.eth's non-custodial model: the DAO sets the annual spending envelope, but with a sustainability condition. If protocol revenue in a given quarter falls below a defined threshold relative to spend, the spending envelope automatically contracts by a proportional amount for the next quarter — no vote required, no petition needed. This makes the sustainability guardrail structural rather than political. The Foundation can request an override; the DAO votes on the override, not on the contraction. 5. SUSTAINABILITY DASHBOARD. Every quarter, the Foundation publishes a sustainability dashboard alongside its financial report: protocol revenue, total spend, runway at current burn rate, progress against the break-even target, and the status of revenue-generating initiatives. This makes the economic question visible at every reporting window. The RoG proposal on this track asks for outcome metrics on mandate delivery; this amendment specifies the economic metrics that should sit at the top of that dashboard. WHY THIS STRENGTHENS THE FOUNDATION PROPOSAL RATHER THAN FIGHTS IT. The temp check's goal is a Foundation that can execute multi-year strategy. A Foundation managing a depleting treasury cannot execute strategy; it manages decline. By making revenue generation a core mandate and sustainability a structural guardrail, this amendment gives the empowered Foundation something more valuable than custody: a reason to exist long enough to use it. It also bridges the custody debate — whether treasury stays with the DAO or moves to the Foundation, the sustainability condition applies equally. The DAO keeps the lever (drawdown cap, automatic contraction); the Foundation gets the mandate (revenue generation, earned models, break-even path). THE OPEN QUESTION. What is the right break-even horizon? Three years is aggressive; five may be realistic. This should be debated openly — but the principle that the Foundation must have a credible path to sustainability before it takes operational authority should not be negotiable.