Ethereum coin for a ProCoinNews article about ENS DAO governance and the Security Council vote.

ENS Co-Founder Nick Johnson Uses Around 80% of the Vote to Block the DAO’s Security Council Renewal

By Isaac • June 30, 2026 11:44 pm • Comments

ENS co-founder Nick Johnson has effectively blocked the renewal of the ENS DAO Security Council, using a voting share large enough to decide the outcome by himself.

The Block reported on June 30, 2026 that Johnson abstained from the Snapshot vote to renew the council, then voted against the executable on-chain proposal.

At the time of the report, the executable vote stood at 82% no, with Johnson’s share dominating the result. The vote is set to close July 5 at 8:59 PM.

Trending: BNY Puts USDC Inside Its Custody Bank With Mint and Burn Built In

This is a real governance stress test for one of Ethereum’s most important pieces of identity infrastructure.


The Security Council is a 4-of-8 multisig with narrow powers. Its job is to cancel malicious DAO timelock proposals, not to run policy.

The renewal on the table sought another two-year term ahead of the council’s current authority expiring on July 24, 2026.

Johnson holds an estimated 3.26 million ENS tokens. That is roughly 80% of ENS cast so far in the vote and about 50% of currently delegated ENS tokens.

So when he votes, the DAO moves with him.

The Block added the key context on this story. The Block is the main reporting source for the ENS vote.

Its report said Nick Johnson abstained from the Snapshot vote but voted against the executable onchain vote to renew the Security Council. The Security Council is described as a 4-of-8 multisig with limited powers to cancel malicious proposals in the DAO timelock.

The renewal was meant to extend the council for another two years before its current authority expires on July 24, 2026. The Block reported that the executable vote stood at 82% no and was set to close July 5 at 8:59 PM.

It also estimated Johnson’s 3.26 million ENS voting position at around 80% of votes cast so far and about half of currently delegated ENS tokens. That is the core governance problem for readers: the formal system is token-weighted, but the practical result can look like one heavyweight delegate deciding whether a safety council survives.

ENS DAO Governance Forum added the key context on this story. The ENS governance forum gives the wider context behind the Security Council fight.

Delegates were already arguing over whether the ENS Foundation should gain more operational and treasury authority. In that debate, Security Council member Brantly Millegan wrote that the council was created as a 4-of-8 multisig with onchain veto power over ENS DAO proposals.

He also flagged that the council was set to expire July 24, 2026 unless renewed. That timing matters because the Security Council could become relevant to disputed treasury or Foundation proposals before it expires.

The forum context shows why the renewal vote is bigger than a routine committee rollover. It is tied to the question of who has practical checks over ENS governance during a live power and treasury debate.


The market-news read from Asia matched the on-chain picture.

WuBlockchain added the key context on this story. WuBlockchain’s post gives a second current-market summary of the onchain vote.

It emphasized that the renewal proposal was being blocked by a large opposing vote from Johnson. That makes the embed useful for readers who follow DAO votes through market-news accounts.

It works as additional signal around the vote, while the vote details and Johnson’s explanation carry the factual weight.


None of this means ENS is shutting down. The naming system keeps working, and the vote is not officially final until it closes on July 5.

What it does expose is the tradeoff every large DAO eventually faces. A Security Council can shield a protocol from malicious proposals, and token-weighted voting can decide whether that shield survives.

Both sides here have a defensible argument. Johnson wants a narrow, technical backstop.

His critics want protection that cannot be switched off by a single large holder.

For crypto readers, the lesson lands the same either way. Governance design and voting concentration decide who really controls the treasury and the safeguards when a protocol hits a hard disagreement.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

 

Search ProCoinNews