Adding Utility to $ENS is a must

I’m not part of this group you refer to as “you guys”. I’m not a dev or an official delegate (aside from having delegated my own tokens to myself). I’m just someone that wants to contribute to the utility of the protocol instead of obsessing over the price of the governance token.

1 Like

Maybe most token buyers are unaware of this, and there is no official statement that tokens do not have voting rights. I want to know what is the final result of this problem?

1 Like

And new domain buyers don’t have any rights, maybe they should wait for the next airdrop that comes?

I already responded to you in another thread of yours. But here: Go register at and connect your wallet.

Is it possible to use the purchased ena to vote by registering on this website? Why can’t I be in snapshot?

I believe you can also join snapshot

This is very interesting. I’m not “core” but I did originally think that the token price was irrelevant, as that wasn’t really the point of it. That’s also partly a personal view, but I’ve been reading on this quite widely and I’m now undecided. I read the following which were the best of a bunch of different views:

PSL web3.0
Articles on this thread

Another random one on LinkedIn that now I can’t find, but it was very good :frowning: I’ll update if I can find it.

But in summary, they all are of the same view, that to succeed as a project, a DAO must provide an incentive. For some just taking part is incentive enough - but I totally accept that actually, the majority of humanity likes money and requires some sort of financial incentive to take part.

Interesting, and aligned with your view @Soscrypted .


I joined this project and contributed my effort, it is because I thought this project will be better and better, then my ENS will reach to high value in the future. If not, or someone told me this coin has no value at all. I am afraid it is a waste of time for me. I have to work hard in my daily life to earn money. If more and more people leave, this project will turn back to a team’s project, not DAO’s project.


Absolutely agree. If price is the only thing that matters what’s the point of trying to implement innovation in the direction ENS has been moving, versus implementing “number go up”. Balance is crucial here.

I was excited by the awesome community in ENS, and it is possibly one of the most important works we collectively have. I appreciate viewing everyone’s perspectives and input as we get our sea legs working.

We have a big job ahead to make ENS what it has the potential to be, very exciting.

Although market forces create an “exchange rate” for the token, $ENS is not a currency, and it never will be. ENS holders are not “stakeholders.” [edit - in the Capitalist use of the word]

1 ENS = 1 ENS. $ETH already does everything people are saying ENS should do.


It is more accurate to say that ENS holders are not capital stakeholders (i.e., no ownership or liability interest). ENS holders are stakeholders of the mission, operation, and success of ENS.

1 Like

Right, I meant in the “capitalist” sense of the word. On the [EP5] discussion Twitter space someone had made a comment that resonated with me - that we should probably try to use new vocabulary since these models are completely new. It can be misleading or confusing if people see things like “payment” versus “compensation” for example. But I definitely am not saying lets make buzzwords or euphemisms. For people embedded in the “web 2” or financial worlds, words are taken differently. Just semantics. But I completely agree with your statement.

1 Like

I, definitely, knew you understood what we were talking about. I just wanted to clarify it for others, so that there would be no misunderstandings.

1 Like

I’m with you on this, it would be helpful to coin (sorry, couldn’t resist a cheeky pun) new terms. We can use metaphors to equate it to concepts that are already widely understood but I do think creating some air gap between old/current and new would assist for context. I’ve seen a few comments / thoughts in metaverse vs “meatverse” for similar reasons, equally valid.

We can get a thread going on it :slight_smile:

1 Like

Agree on adding utility to $ENS. This is actual such a good way to fund the project, like operational, marketing and developmental cost. And This is basically how the stock market works for 200 years.

The $ENS initial liquidity is bootstrapped by Airdrop. The community sell $ENS to get fund. Then the promise of the token is that it shares the revenue of the project. Then with the fund from selling $ENS, the community develops and the project successes, which brings profit to the $ENS investors.

We should be aware that the whole crypto industry wouldn’t even be here without all these trading and financial eco-systems. Having a successful role in the tokenomics actually contributes to most of the long-term successful projects.

It is a reasonable way for the community to embrace the existing financial tools.


This is 100% against article III of the constitution. If people keep insisting over and over that $ENS needs “utility” in order to be successful, please consider other factors from which it derives its value. First, obviously is it is a governance token. Second, and this is very important… there is a hard cap of 100,000,000 tokens. This is crucial.

ENS is not a business enterprise or a capital investment opportunity. It is a credibly neutral protocol of the internet. Obviously it will grow and adapt, but the words profit and investors should never come into the equation.


Ok, so please explain to all the following:

Why $ENS has a price fluctuation and vulnerability.
Why $ENS is listed in financial Exchanges, to get access to buy and sell and get profits or looses.
Why $ENS in the near future will be listed in AAVE to be used like in DeFi options.
Who will be buy in an exchange make a withdraw to an external wallet and, associate to an ENS protocol just to get votes? You will spend $27 to get 1 $ENS and tomorrow get just $0.10 because you want to be part of votes, power and responsibility?

Outside in the ecosystem coexists tokens with any liquidity pool, just the token without any monetary value, if the ENS protocol owners or devs, just want to give power votes then they can distribute non financial token to the wallets of .eth domains owners or can make $ENS and stable coin at any value, so just the real believers of the project buy votes, power and responsibility for example at $1 and always they had a $1 in their wallet,

What I thinking is $ENS born with a bad conception and that need to be fixed, I´m trying to find in the whole ecosystem a token with the exacts characteristics of $ENS and I can´t find it, all of governance tokes has utilities call them staking, farming, governance, use like a token to buy products, services, etc…

Because different people think ENS tokens are worth different amounts and have decided to trade it.

Because those exchanges decided to list ENS.

Because the AAVE community decided to list ENS.

That is precisely what we did.

There’s no viable way to do this.


I take issue with your comment, as you question those that created the ENS community, which is voluntary.