On July 6, Polkadot, an open-source “Layer 0” blockchain protocol, announced that it had activated major staking referenda. On the same day, the Ethereum Name Service (ENS) is planning to bring a major shift in how its DAO operates.
The two staking updates referenda #1909 and #1910 are live now on Polkadot.
Together, they enact staking parameter updates to strengthen network security while optimising overall security costs.
Ref #1909 : Builds on the approved 10,000 DOT minimum self-stake requirement,… HTTPS://T.CO/RYYVYK3TC0
— Polkadot (@Polkadot) JULY 6, 2026
What are Polkadot’s Two Staking Updates Referenda #1909 And #1910?
Polkadot’s governance, through its OpenGov system, approved referenda 1909 and 1910. The proposals are designed to enhance network security and make staking more efficient. These referenda are designed to include a validator self-stake requirement with rewards, the removal of nominator slashing, and a major reduction of the unbonding period from roughly 28 days to just 48 hours to improve liquidity.
Polkadot is currently using a decentralized governance system called OpenGov, where token holders vote directly on proposals called referenda. Anyone can submit a proposal, but it must gain enough support to be approved. This system allows the community to guide network upgrades without relying on a central team.
What is Referendum #1909?
This proposal is developed on an earlier change that set a minimum 10,000 DOT self-stake requirement for validators. The new updates include introducing rewards for validators based on their own self-staked DOT, resetting validator commission rates to 0%, etc. It will also open the door for permissionless chilling, which will allow under-bonded or underperforming validators to be removed without needing a governance vote.
What is Referendum #1910?
This referendum will bring changes to nominators on Polkadot. It removes nominator slashing entirely, reducing risk for regular stakers, and cuts down the unbonding period from around 28 days to just 48 hours, giving users much faster access to their funds.
ENS Raises Proposal to Reform DAO Governance by Delegating 5M ENS
There is another major development on the Ethereum blockchain, in which ENS co-founder Alex Van de Sande has revealed a draft proposal called “Reform DAO governance by delegating 5M ENS tokens.” This comes amid ongoing discussions around the future structure of ENS DAO.
In the proposal, the community mentioned that the ENS DAO delegate 5 million ENS tokens from the community treasury to help reform governance. The purpose of the proposal is to address challenges such as delegate fatigue, low voter participation, limited accountability, and difficulties in executing long-term strategies through pure token voting.
Under the new proposal, 5 million tokens would be transferred to a multi-delegation contract and allocated in equal portions to 5 stakeholder groups, which include users, integrations, developers, traditional system participants, and the governance community.
Each group would receive 1 million tokens, which would be distributed to up to 10 candidates selected based on metrics.
Under the new proposal, 5 million tokens would be transferred to a multi-delegation contract and allocated in equal portions to 5 stakeholder groups, which includes users, integrations, developers, traditional system participants, and the governance community.
Each group would receive 1 million tokens, which will be distributed to up to 10 candidates selected based on metrics.
The proposal comes amid a governance crisis where a single delegate, identified as co-founder Nick Johnson, is reportedly controlling around half of the active voting supply through self-delegated tokens. The proposal is currently in the feedback collection phase and has not yet entered formal voting.
The official blog post stated that “ENS Governance is clearly in a crisis. Currently, one delegate has enough quorum to not only execute any proposal, but also to outvote the next 50 other delegates. The issue didn’t start when these new votes were delegated, but rather total delegated votes has been consistently going down (except for two jumps, when the same tokens were being delegated and then undelegated and delegated once again). Voter turnout has also been consistently going down: while in the first years it was common to get 3M votes in a proposal, more recent proposals have struggled to meet the quorum.”
