The whole point of the ENS token is to help govern ENS, a public good. This purpose is written into the constitution. Any other āuseā for $ENS would have to somehow further that goal first and foremost.
$ENS is used for voting instead of ENS names because the distribution of names and tokens is not the same, and because we donāt want to encourage people to register thousands of names in order to have more voting power.
My personal view is to focus on how to increase the usability of ENS as a product/protocol which will eventually increase the token price, rather than focusing on how to add utility to the token itself. If adding utility to the token improves the usability of ENS, sure I am up for discussion, but I am not sure that investors/traders are naive enough to think ENS price goes up just because it has some utility.
Most defi apps have some sort of staking/yield mining incentives because TVL increases their product in terms of the better exchange rate, better lending rate, etc. As ENS is not a defi product, I donāt think the same logic applies so better reasons will be appreciated.
There have been several ideas speaking to this, such as only resolved names with ENS staked being able to vote, having a heavy transfer tax on the name (that would also curb squatting), and there could be other mechanisms to curb people from registering thousands of names effectively.
Surely there are several good options to use ENS token to help govern the protocol in this way, via staking @matoken.eth. Staking for ETH 2.0 is not about better exchange or lending rates, staking is also an effective way to add security to a protocol.
If your concern is that you will increase the price of the ENS token by making the protocol better and more secure by utilizing ENS token in creative ways, then consider the amount to be staked as a set dollar value like registration fees.
If we will rule out anything that will increase the $ENS token price, then the team should stop developing at all. Any development will incrementally lead to price appreciation.
The $100,000 Premium idea is going to be a bigger price pumper than anything else proposed by the community.
ETH 2.0 is not simply about staking. Itās about running ETH2.0 client software as a validator and staking are there to penalise malicious behaviours and reward the work as a validator.
What is the slashing mechanism which demands work to the ENS token stakers?
Please checkout this post.
https://discuss.ens.domains/t/reinforcement-of-responsibility/
Iām not saying it is perfect, but a direction we can take.
I would first replace the word validator with voter and leave the staking mechanism the same ā as a way to enhance the integrity and security of the network, in this case, ENS.
If actors are registering thousands of names in order to vote, Iād imagine there would be some sort of anomalous and obvious activity on chain that could be detected and scrutinized. If we could have a veto process and a way to penalize malicious activity once it is identified, we could cull it.
We could even have an appeal process whereby any wallets accused of maliciousness would have a chance to rear their heads on the forum and make a case for themselves before the community decides to penalize/slash the wallets (staking) in question.
I must say I didnāt quite understand the logic after reading multiple times. I suggest you add an abstract simplifying what you tried to formulate.
If solving squatting is the aim, I suggest you propose forming a task force focusing on solving it and one solution could possibly lead to staking ENS token, not trying to come up with problems ENS utility token can potentially solve.
Personally, I donāt care about squatting, as the market will find creative ways around it with flair and nicknames etc. For instance, twitter handles are unique and squatting really is a non-issue in the sense that every company and celebrity has found a way to have a name they like and itās more uncommon for people or companies to buy out twitter handles than not to do that. If they have the capital and a strong enough desire, they will try to buy the name they want. Otherwise, everyone has their own unique twitter handles.
ENS has several vital problems, and non of them are made up. For instance, ZWJ and non-ascii names, squatting is a problem according to the devs and some delegates, and the fact that ENS token for governance was redundant and unnecessary given that our names could have been used to govern. Another issue is that the so-called scam names (which a lot of them are) lookalikes have been sold by ENS themselves due what appears to be lack of foresight, even when members of the community have been speaking up about it for years.
If there are any imagined problems, the ones being voiced the loudest and most often are a credit to the collective foresight and need attention. This is the way of a DAO and collective insight is important.
It appears as if the people with the most sway and influence here are making more attempts to disregard them as non-issues repeatedly, which is discouraging and makes moving forward with constructive problem solving all the more difficult when the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Itās good to be cynical and good to have creative ideas, in order to separate the sand from the sugar we need discussion. I donāt think any one of us will have the perfect idea.
Is there any utility for the ENS token beyond or in addition to its current use, that the core team sees as adding value and security to the protocol as a public good? Is there a way to make the protocol better by leveraging the ENS token more effectively? Do you have any ideas in this vein @matoken.eth @brantlymillegan @nick.eth or any delegates?
Should I go on?
You should go on if you have any ideas or insights for the ENS token beyond or in addition to its current use that adds value and security to the protocol as a public good, or a way to make the protocol better in this way by leveraging the ENS token more effectively. If you have any ideas in this regard yes I would be interested in hearing them
You mean like everything I listed?
You listed the current use from what I gathered, the question is are there any ideas to evolve the utility of the token in a way that better serves the protocol. Is there any legitimate problems currently in ENS or credible and probable future threats that we can mitigate by leveraging the utility of ENS token more effectively? If you think there are none, I understand if thatās what you are getting at.
Can you please clarify what you mean by these?
better serves the protocol
Serves the protocol in what way? Functionality? Profit? Applications? Wider adoption?
leveraging the utility of ENS token more effectively
Again, what do you mean by āleverageā here? Leverage as a monetary instrument? Leverage as an investment opportunity? As a platform?
Leveraging the token more effectively with regards to the security of the protocol as a public good in the spirit of decentralization, which has been my impression of the theme of this topic.
There have been several ideas on the forum, half-baked or not, for using ENS token in some sort of staking dapp for making voting more equitable and fair, for renewals, for domain managemnt, to curb squatting, and to curb plutocratic threats in general, etc.
Exactlyā¦ We should try and solve real issues of the platform not just try and pump the price. What do you think if we initiate a proposal and work on it collaboratively on google docs
I would like that and think itās a good idea
You keep saying this, but itās not true; tokens were not distributed in direct proportion to the number of domains a user holds. The ENS distribution was different, and more targeted towards including active users over people who hold many domains.
The argument is that users with resolved/set names could vote on a one vote per name basis, and to curb setting 100s of names with different wallets for one user is that 1) that gets costly, 2) having ENS token minimum stake requirement on that resolved name acct gives a slashing mechanism, and 3) some sort of veto and judicial-like process in place as a fail safe for anomalous and malicious behavior.
Active users could also be given metrics based on constructive contributions to the DAO such that their votes weigh more (things like admin tasks, moderation, development, marketing, community management, active in discussions, etc could be tracked and turned into metrics affecting vote weight).
I think the point has been raised by several people that our names are NFT (tokens) themselves and could have been used to govern the DAO with security precautions in place to penalize bad actors, which would involve staking ENS tokens somehow.
Couldnāt our resolved names be used for governance and voting in this way?