Since the main objective of $ENS token is governance and to be distributed equally to all “responsible” frENS, we have to take measures when the reality is against this vision.
Now it getting dumped cheaply and heading towards a more centralized reality profile where it is owned by a few whales and probably corporations. The more we reinforce the “Governance Token” narrative, the cheaper the price goes, and the more centralized the ownership profile gets.
Question: What is your plan B for holders to achieve distributed ownership?
I think a utility talk is a must now since holders are dumping responsibility. And that can take many shapes. Some examples:
Stake for discounted .eth fees.
Stake for rebated transaction fees.
Subscriptions paid by $ENS for Extra features on managing .eth names (e.g. Bulk buy or renew).
Couldn’t accounts that have their name set just have signed proposals to vote and still delegate? One vote per name registered and set per account?
ENS didn’t need a governance token, our NFT ENS names are the gov token.
But since $ENS is already here, I agree that it needs to be involved with some sort of utility like staking from an account with a registered name to keep the registration for example. Something creative and useful can be cooked up and needs to be imo
I personally don’t care if it hits a price of $1 per $ens. Make it as cheap as possible for normal people to buy a vote in ENS, that’s what’s important.
Whales can already acquire as much as they want at current prices and even at all time high. The lowered price only makes it easier for non-whales to buy in.
Let’s play this in reverse now. If we add other utilities and the price skyrockets, then we guaranteed centralization of $ENS because only wealthy and companies can buy in. I don’t see any good coming from the price going up other than my personal finances.
I agree with seaotter.eth here. Lower $ENS prices, not higher, makes voting power more accessible to the widest audience.
My own perspective: “Adding utility” to $ENS is just a stalking horse for getting the DAO to focus on projects that pump the bags of speculators and gamblers. It should be at the bottom of the priority list (or not at all). Let the market do what it wants and if the price of $ENS plunges, then go grab yourself more governance power. $ENS is a governance token and that’s all it should ever be, in my opinion.
But then, how will the DAO finance itself through the release of the 80% of total tokens not in circulation? What if it goes to $0.01? Will the domain registration fees be enough to achieve any objectives, let alone sustain a DAO that has been formed with the promise of vast resources at its disposal?
If I’m missing something here, please explain it to me - genuinely, I often miss concepts when not involved in a project!
Since the treasury is in eth, we could do some pies/index funds of different cryptos and ens could be used to manage those as well (to hedge against just holding eth or one stable coin for example, pies like piedao). We could vote with ENS on different portfolios and the allocation percentages, do lending, liquidity provision, etc.
Rather than trying to change the system, after the fact that a market is in place, why not have the primary ENS domain name be given one vote, even if you have an empty wallet.
It’s a bit scary for stakeholders - especially those that have bought it - to admit to themselves, but that is all it is. They assume it will rise, because everyone else seems to.
I feel bad for talking about this, because I really like the .eth ENS domains - a digital identity for life - but regarding the tokens, what we’re looking at here is basic, basic finance, as far as I can see.
What is backing the value of the ENS token? I mean, beyond allowing a holder to vote on who represents them on the DAO - a DAO which is distributing funds from sales of that same token which allows holders to vote on who decides where those funds are alotted?
Is the token backed by an ever increasing pool of actual ethereum from domain sales that is equal to the value of the 20,000,000 tokens distributed by the airdrop? What happens if the DAO tries to sell some tokens into the market to raise funds for distribution from the 80,000,000 remaining tokens at its disposal into a falling market? I’m really starting to see some major problems ahead for the token - and by extension, ENS credibility.
Please, someone explain to me where I’m going wrong - I’m not a crypto-ecosystem expert!
I think that would waste a lot of ens names. For example, if that happens, I would probably script the creation of a few hundred $5 ens names to have more votes. I’d be wasting names and not using the core platform as intended. Not saying it would happen, but that’s at least the concern in my eyes and why having a separate token is nice.
Plus, we can delegate our tokens to others in the community to vote on our behalf with the current system. I’m not sure how that would work if every vote was tied to a .eth.
Edit: Just to clarify, your question is a good one though. I think these kind of debates and discussions are exactly what this forum is for. Healthy discourse on the future of ENS.
No, I said primary ENS domain name. Each person or entity could only have one, no matter how many domain names they possess. and measures put in place to prevent abuse. This would be separate and distinct from the present system; it allows someone a voice at the table to participate.
Right, but I have many ETH addresses with multiple primary ENS names today. I do this for anonymity. I have a few pseudonyms and a real identity account. Since it’s easy to make hundreds of ETH addresses with any desktop wallet, I would script that or do it by hand. Each ETH has its own address and then it’s own ENS for a vote.
I believe you could then link them all through a contract to vote in sync too. This is how the Adidas NFT mint was tricked. One guy had hundreds of accounts all minting at once to get around their 2 mint per person rule.
Well, in the current model I can make votes as seaotter.eth with all of my $ENS. If the price of $ENS continues to lower, more and more people can add votes to their name. It sort of does what you want I think. Instead of a one to one relationship, it is one to many.
As much as it hurts me to see the value of $ENS drop (especially because I have to pay tax on the price at point of claim…ouch), ideally it would be extremely cheap so people can grab votes as they please. $ENS was never meant to have a monetary value, but the speculative nature of crypto sort of forced a price onto it.
Perhaps a compromise would be another airdrop where every active .eth gets exactly 1 $ENS so they can have a vote, but they would have much less voting power than those who just buy cheap $ENS at an exchange. You’d also have to draw a line in the sand because every year someone would complain that they didn’t get a free vote/token. It’s just easier if $ENS keep lowering in price and those interested in voting can buy in.
I agree there are inherent drawbacks because the tokens have speculative value that can’t be ignored in addition to their vote influence by token accumulation.
No, the ETH in the treasury do not back the token. It was created from nothing and is backed by nothing. So when people bought it speculating on its price to rise, you have to wonder if they did any due diligence at all on their investment and what their investment thesis actually was.
No matter how many times it is stated, the ENS token is strictly a governance token (a vote) with no claim to assets or profits–only a right to participate in the community.
Or maybe it’s me that is weird. I feel it probably is. I’m feeling old in this Brave New World. I’m going to try playing cribbage with the missus and reading books made of paper, for a while. Crypto is a bit too much like playing a video game for adults, without the graphical immersion, but with all the addictive qualities, sprinkled with commerce and profits on top. And I do so love gaming - 42 years and counting. I could easily become addicted.
Toodle pip and fond regards to all aboard the ships that float on the crypto sea! May be back if the waters remain calm!
Doesn’t Ethereum technically back the value of ENS token on top of ENS utility. There is over half a billion dollars worth of liquidity on the ENS token. It was inevitable that a financial value was given to ENS token and happened immediately within an hour of the airdrop. No one person decides that, the market does, and the market has spoken.
I believe that eventually ENS token will have utility beyond just being a governance token, and ENS domain names themselves, that are set to resolve, will be used for governance. If we require staking ENS with a resolved name in order to vote that curbs the plutocratic threat much better than anything else imo.
If somebody wanted 100 votes, they would have to buy and set 100 domain names and move around ENS to 100 different wallets and pay to stake that ENS 100 times, seems like a good deterrent.
I think ENS token is better being a governance token in this way, secondhand, by staking on a dapp with one-name-one-vote wallets.