I think, even at $150 per domain + fees, for some people active in the crypto world that’s still small change. Maybe to the average customer, but there was already a thread pointing out that at current registration cost + gas fees, it’s inaccessible to many people anyway (India was the example given here on these forums). At the other end of that same scale, there are many people, particularly those early to the web3.0 party + NFTs, to whom $150 per domain is no big deal, if they have a plan to make far more than that back. I just think it’s important to give that context here.
The idea of using $ENS as a “reward” for participation has been discussed over a large number of threads and its very clear its one of the most divisive topics right now in this whole project (together with the “airdrop inclusion / exclusion” threads). We definitely need to define an answer that at least a majority are agreed on quickly, I think.
As a concept, I posted somewhere in one of the threads that I was coming round to the idea that participation = some sort of reward, in most people’s interpretation of what web3.0 will look like when its more fully formed. But rewarding $ENS just for logging in… I’m not sure. There is I believe in the code only a finite amount of tokens, so what happens when there’s no longer enough funds left to fund the public goods because they’ve all been used on login rewards? Also feel like that could be gamed but I’m not personally smart enough to work out how .
I guess the idea to get more people to vote is by actually introducing $ENS into the ecosystem (via exchanges, Public Goods investment, etc) such that they can be traded between people who have them and don’t want them, and people who are willing to pay a certain price to obtain a vote in the ecosystem. I think it’s a long term project so I’m not sure obsessing over the price day-by-day (the tokens haven’t even been available that long, and the airdrop was only 3 months~ ago) is meaningful, unless you’re trying to trade the tokens and make a profit.