ETH 2.0 is not simply about staking. Itâs 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/
Iâm 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 â 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, Iâd 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 didnât 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 donât 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 itâs 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. Itâs good to be cynical and good to have creative ideas, in order to separate the sand from the sugar we need discussion. I donât 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 thatâs 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 âleverageâ 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.
Exactly⌠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 itâs a good idea
You keep saying this, but itâs 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.
Couldnât our resolved names be used for governance and voting in this way?
Yes, you could probably cook up some kind of complicated name-based voting system like you describe. It still wouldnât be resistant to automation to buy and set up names to increase someoneâs voting power, and itâs unclear to me why it would be superior to the current system.
So! just for understand your point. You mean is more difficult to get more voting power âbuying $ENSâ at $20 than buy multiple names at $150 aprox? I think is more easy just buy cheapest $ENS in one click, than create a multiple .eth domain names, addresses and the cost is higher. In that way you preferer to encourage people to buy a token witch loose value every day? under that point what i look is you don´t want to loose that .eth domain names that can´t be replaceable. You guys are taking care like a diamonds to the .eth names because that is the main profit for the devs and protocol, and for me that´s ok, but is necessary to play fair in all ways. Because the .eth names don´t loose value, your team are working with develops, with marketing, etc looking for the value of the protocol, but they are doing the same with $ENS token? I think NO! Because the narrative of non financial token, just governance token, devs don´t care the value, more cheaper more votes, the only thing that can get with that is dump the price.
Nick, you can be active just buying $ENS in the exchanges⌠If you really want active users involved in DAO then the protocol can designe something like rewards $ENS every time that the user write or comment a proposal. Like for example https://zapper.fi/ they everyday give you points if you loging the site. There´s many ways to reward an active member, than airdrop free money to dump the price.
And another question: As you mention that the devs donât added the liquidity to $ENS. Then what was the plan designed to new user get $ENS after the airdrop, to be part of the voting powers? How for example all the new user from November until today get $ENS to vote? In the hypothetical case that $ENS doesn´t have liquidity and wasn´t listed at the exchanges like the original plan to get $ENS?
I think, even at $150 per domain + fees, for some people active in the crypto world thatâs still small change. Maybe to the average customer, but there was already a thread pointing out that at current registration cost + gas fees, itâs 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 itâs important to give that context here.
The idea of using $ENS as a ârewardâ 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 âairdrop inclusion / exclusionâ 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 peopleâs interpretation of what web3.0 will look like when its more fully formed. But rewarding $ENS just for logging in⌠Iâm not sure. There is I believe in the code only a finite amount of tokens, so what happens when thereâs no longer enough funds left to fund the public goods because theyâve all been used on login rewards? Also feel like that could be gamed but Iâm 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 donât want them, and people who are willing to pay a certain price to obtain a vote in the ecosystem. I think itâs a long term project so Iâm not sure obsessing over the price day-by-day (the tokens havenât even been available that long, and the airdrop was only 3 months~ ago) is meaningful, unless youâre trying to trade the tokens and make a profit.
