Although market forces create an āexchange rateā for the token, $ENS is not a currency, and it never will be. ENS holders are not āstakeholders.ā [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.
Right, I meant in the ācapitalistā 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 āpaymentā versus ācompensationā for example. But I definitely am not saying lets make buzzwords or euphemisms. For people embedded in the āweb 2ā or financial worlds, words are taken differently. Just semantics. But I completely agree with your statement.
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.
Iām with you on this, it would be helpful to coin (sorry, couldnāt 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. Iāve seen a few comments / thoughts in metaverse vs āmeatverseā for similar reasons, equally valid.
We can get a thread going on it 
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 wouldnāt 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 āutilityā 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 importantā¦ 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, IĀ“m trying to find in the whole ecosystem a token with the exacts characteristics of $ENS and I canĀ“t find it, all of governance tokes has utilities call them staking, farming, governance, use like a token to buy products, services, etcā¦
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.
Thereās no viable way to do this.
I take issue with your comment, as you question those that created the ENS community, which is voluntary.
They donĀ“t be available to trade any amount if $ENS was no listed with liquidity. Some one listed $ENS and put any other token as collateral to get a value. $ENS does not start in $120 by it self.
Same, no one listed a token without liquidity, to list token at the exchanges is not arbitrary takes time and send information for all parts developers and the exchange it self.
So they never ask nothing to ENS DAO, they just make a snapshot and vote in the community? No one of ENS take part of that decision? Because I think many people who vote for the listing maybe they donāt kwon that $ENS is just a governance token and donāt can be trade like a financial token, specially if AAVE is focus in a DeFi.
If you do that? Where the liquidity comes from? You listed without liquidity? Without price? Which was the first financial pool to calculate the $ENS price listing?
Ok, not an stable coin, but it will be absolutely possible airdrop a token without any financial value, that is 100% possible, again if you do that where the liquidity comes from?
No hards fellingsā¦ My intention is not to question the community that created it, strictly speaking they had no obligation to create it or airdrop $ENS since the protocol lives and works without $ENS
What my comment is looking to contribute to an protocol that should have a much higher value than the current one.
Nobody on the ENS team applied for listing on any exchange, or provided initial liquidity to any DEX or other DeFi system. The adoption has been entirely organic and out of the ENS teamās hands.
The ENS team has a policy of answering questions about the DAO, the token, and ENS itself - and a couple of organisations have taken us up on that. For example, CoinGecko asked us for clarity around how many tokens are locked, and how, which we provided. To the best of my knowledge, nobody from ENS coordinated on getting the AAVE proposal to list ENS as collateral; that was another community effort.
Thatās right. I donāt know who was first; probably Uniswap.
Thatās exactly what we did.
Now, I start to understand better. But Nick you are not worried about, where this liquidity and collateral comes? You are not worried about money laundry? Because as I understand, you say no one known where the $8,300,000,000 inicial marketcap comes from? Someone unknow deposit a collateral probably in uniswap that amount, and nobody know where come from that money?
Your intention was not add liquidity to $ENS now I understand.
ThatĀ“s why the DAO is not worried to make another airdrop and happen the same, free money and remove liquidity from the marketcap and the price drops. All makes sense now, thanks.
Itās not ādifferent peopleā who have decided ENS has value, itās the market.
It sounds like a majority of holders are wanting and brainstorming ways to give the ENS token added utility and functionality in the ecosystem and the devs are against it. Is this accurate?
ENS has been democratized and is decentralized now as a DAO and that entire philosophy centers around security and majority consensus. It sounds like a handful of people with sway, ie some core devs and delegates, are so ardently against evolving the protocol in the direction of utility for the ENS token that they remain silent on the issue unless they are speaking up to knock down ideas instead of brainstorming with the community.
I see heads in the sand here with regards to the financial value of the ENS token ā it has financial value, whether it should or shouldnāt isnāt part of this discussion because it clearly does.
The question is how to add better utility to the ENS token, because as a governance token its redundant, since we could have just used our resolved NFT dot eth names to vote and govern @nick.eth @matoken.eth @brantlymillegan can you comment on this or give us an idea of how the ENS token could evolve in utility beyond governance, is there a way to do this better?
There have been several good ideas and it seems that the community at large is for developing and churning these ideas more
But yet, you didnāt reply to the ideas in the original post
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.