Adding Utility to $ENS is a must

In this case, why do we have a treasury? Isn’t the treasury expecting a monetary value to support ENS ecosystem development?

If $ENS is a pure governance token, then, why are keeping a treasury?

I think we need to vote on burning the treasury as its existence contradicts the reality of the $ENS token as a pure governance token.

1 Like

Unfortunately, I have to reject your premise, as all organizations have or should have a treasury to track organizational funds, whether they are for profit or not-for-profit, for capital stakeholders. ENS Token holders do not possess an ownership interest but may, as a community, direct the activities of ENS in pursuit of its mission.

As for seeking a vote, I would wait until the final mission statement is approved by the community and then see if your proposal would advance that mission.

We can have a vote if you want to go through the steps, absolutely. But a vote on nuking the Treasury would be very unlikely to succeed. The purpose of the Treasury is set out in the Constitution in Article III;

Any income generated to the ENS treasury is to be used first of all to ensure the long-term viability of ENS, and to fund continuing development and improvement of the ENS system. Funds that are not reasonably required to achieve this goal may be used to fund other public goods within web3 as ENS governance sees fit.

That’s the purpose of it, and nuking it would mean that no support to Public Good(s) can ever take place.

Just to be clear, what I’m proposing is to burn $ENS coins allocated to the community treasury during the airdrop, not the registration revenues in $ETH.

My proposal is to burn 1% every day, meaning:
Day-0: Total: 50,000,000
Day-1: Burn: 500,000 >> Total: 49,500,000
Day-2: Burn: 495,000 >> Total: 49,005,000
Day-3: Burn: 490,050 >> Total: 48,514,950
Day-4: Burn: 48,5149 >> Total: 48,029,800

quote “pump the bags of speculators and gamblers” but who own a company and premium domains trying to sell it later to the original brands at higher prices are not “speculators and gamblers”?

We need thinking out the box and not only inside our own convenance.


If the declaration is $ENS it is just a governance token then it should be an stable coin, it not should be listed on exchanges, simply because those trade coins do not have voting rights if they are not associated or transferred to the .eth name. Outside there´s a lot of $ENS token buy it in a exchanges by a normal people, that can´t be able to vote. $ENS is managed like any other trading token so that´s an incongruence caused by the DAO, when $ENS was deployed.

Every time the developers maintain their position and reinforce the governance statement the price drops. Nobody wants to buy “votes” or invest their money if day after day it loses value, by the way rights votes and responsibility should not be buy it, but that´s other moral conversation that not apply now.

If what we are looking for is democracy, decentralization and community participation, each .eth name should be a vote, I understand the premise of fake or duplicate wallets, but I think there are alternatives to put a barrier to that for sure.


We are not voting to nuke the treasury. We are voting to counterattack the negativity by devs and delegates around the token price. I thought you guys should have been neutral about the price instead of reinforcing the narrative of lower prices means more owners, which I know many disagree with. Lower price means bigger whales.

I think if we are going to vote on anything, then we should vote on stopping the devs and delegates from reinforcing and pushing the prices lower. Let the token takes its course without bias of the devs and delegates.


With the goals of the ENS project and such potential for good, set against the clouded economics proposed by some members with “price is irrelevant” and “it can go to 0”, this “governance ONLY” mindset has and will continue to destroy value for the individuals around the globe who were already being helped tremendously because of their lucky roles in the ecosystem (the very same individuals these ENS members claim to want to help).

Incentivizing work is a must. Incentivizing support of the project is a must. Without incentive, what purpose is their to bother with any of this? Oh to be a mighty governor on ENS? Destroy the kingdom to rule over the ashes?


ENS could have been governed by accounts with set and resolved .eth names using signatures with financial deterrents in place such as the account must be staking ENS tokens to vote.

This curbs plutocratic threats, gives ENS an extended utility that is still tied to governance, and it’s fair.


And this what we have been saying.

ENS didn’t need a token, but now we have one, and we want owners to be responsible, voting power should be granted based on two conditions:
1- Ownership of .eth.
2- Locking of $ENS tokens.

Any other scenario is unfair or irresponsible. Depending only on the $ENS token ownership is unfair to those who own .eth and utilizing it but not holding enough $ENS. And relying on just .eth at this point will deem the $ENS token useless completely and will open the door for lawsuits against the devs.

@nick.eth You need to read these thoughts.


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.