Allowing the DAO to manually issue .eth 2LDs, including 1- and 2- character ones

[lightwalker.eth]

@nick.eth

I don’t have hard numbers, but given all it does is take an extra 32-byte referer field in calldata, and then log it in an event, it should be on the order of 256 gas for the extra calldata and 256 gas for the log data, for a total of ~512 gas, plus some overhead for expanding memory and passing it around. I would expect it to be less than 768 gas total. At current prices that’s about $0.02 by my math.

Excellent This would resolve concerns on the economics.

@nick.eth

The referer is simply a bytes32 that isn’t interpreted by the controller contract, merely logged unmodified. It’ll be up to referral programs to define semantics for the field and for frontends to implement it. Both registrations and renewals are supported.

Also sounds great Nice design.

@nick.eth

We’re not attempting to implement any general-purpose issuance of 1- and 2- character 2LDs with this change - this change would only allow manual issuance of these domains directly by the DAO on a one-off basis.

If the DAO manually issues 1- or 2- character .eth 2LDs:

1. Would the DAO be delegating full ownership of these names to independent owners? Perhaps the DAO should retain ownership but the manager role might be delegated under terms that the DAO retains the right to fully reclaim all use of the name at any time or under a set of conditions.
2. If full ownership is delegated outside the DAO, do you see the issuance of these names being an eternal ownership delegation, indefinite, or for a predefined finite term? I understand the proposal is that only the DAO could issue these names, but who would have the power to renew them, and if so, at what pricing?

If this moves ahead, suggest conservatism on how expectations are set for the delegated ownership of any 1 or 2 character .eth 2LDs. Ex: none issued by the DAO for a duration greater than 1-year, and (if a general purpose pricing scheme for these names is to be handled separately) to also retain the sole ability to renew these names within the DAO. In other words, if the DAO doesn’t proactively decide to renew these specially issued names within another year, then it seems fair to assume the way they are being used isn’t creating sufficient value and it’s best to see if there’s another higher value use for those names.

A name that’s creating strategic value for ENS can be extended, but if special names fall into disuse indefinitely by an owner outside of the DAO, hopefully expiration comes soon after.

I’m worried about the DAO getting into a situation where we “bless” a subname project such as l2.eth (just a theoretical example, not picking on anyone specifically here!) under this program, and then get indefinitely tied into supporting it across time to avoid some number of end-users from being impacted due to the DAO not indefinitely extending a special / free issuance of the name.

@nick.eth

This doesn’t preclude implementing a general purpose pricing scheme for them as well, but doing so is likely to be complex and is well outside the scope of this current change.

Agreed that a general purpose pricing scheme is a distinct topic. At the same time, genuinely curious where you see the key complexities in a general purpose pricing scheme?

Stabilizing DAO finances is a crucial need and I’m confident a nice execution on this would contribute millions in incremental revenue for the ENS DAO per year. Across time, this quickly adds up!

Our team has a packed roadmap of milestones to ship under SPP2 and under time pressure with recruitment. The work already committed there needs to take priority, and want to be cautious about overextending ourselves, but if we could find the bandwidth, I would be eager for NameHash Labs to help coordinate general purpose availability of 1- and 2- character .eth 2LDs to help boost DAO revenues. Love the ROI potential for ENS