Hmm. Seems we’re talking past each other?
Sure please feel welcome to attack. Can you point me to specifically where you feel the case for this isn’t being made in points 1..4 above? Happy to answer questions.
Sure let’s do some super quick and dirty napkin math. Checking Grails now I see:
- 999 club has 997 names either actively registered or in grace period: 997 * $640 / year = $638,080 / year in revenue.
- 10k club has 6,099 names either actively registered or in grace period: 6,099 * $160 / year = $975,840 / year in revenue.
And checking the latest revenue report there’s $3,503,709 in recently released premium revenue for the year proceeding the end of Q1 2026.
As a super quick and dirty napkin math calculation, that adds up to $5,117,629 / year in revenue.
Obviously not all of the 999 club, 10k club, and recently released premium revenue is associated with speculation. There’s no perfect mechanism to explicitly determine the % that is, but completely confident it’s over $1M / year in ENS’s revenue.
Note how I only took 2 categories of short names into this calculation. Additionally note how we’re seeing 90% of ENS DAO revenues attributed to Grails and Vision through referrals being either short-name premiums or recently released premiums. That’s supporting evidence.
We should also flag the distinction between:
- Set 1: Speculatively owned names that would cease to be renewed / registered if marketplaces tailored for speculation on ENS names (Grails & Vision) ceased to exist.
- Set 2: Speculatively owned names that are explicitly registered or renewed through Grails & Vision (as opposed to say.. the official ENS Manager App) and are therefore explicitly attributed to Grails & Vision through referrals.
Set 1 is meaningfully larger than the Set 2. Which further supports the case being made.
I’m not making a case about correlation between DAO revenue in SPP2 and impacts exclusive to the referral program in it’s limited budget scope as it has existed thus far within SPP2.
I’m making a case about DAO revenue impacts from SPP2 overall. Grails and the ENS Referral Program come from SPP2. The ENS Referral Program is the now sole revenue source for Vision. The details of the case I’m making are all in my points 1..4 in the earlier message above.
Preventing $1M+ of revenues from being lost is a contribution of $1M+.
My goal here is simply to defend SPP2 as having contributed real value back to ENS. The points I’m making here are also meaningfully constrained. There’s many other big value deliveries coming from SPP2 that are not so easy to attach directly to current revenues and so I haven’t mentioned them.
Nearly midnight here but if you have follow ups please feel welcome to share. I’ll check after I get going tomorrow. Cheers.