Discussion: Should .eth holders have the right to participate in ENS governance voting?

The main source of income for ENS DAO is the registration and renewal of .eth. In other words, it is the fees contributed by .eth holders that support the spending of the ENS DAO. In the governance of ENS, it seems that only ENS token holders have voting rights.We can think that the holders of .eth are the customers of ENS. Under the traditional company model, customers do not have the right to participate in the governance of the company. But is it reasonable for ENS, as a DAO, to still follow this model?
Should .eth holders have the right to participate in ENS governance voting?



1 Like

Hi there! :slightly_smiling_face:

How do you propose this would work? Are you saying that one .eth name should equal one $ENS token?

Why not just buy one $ENS token if you are able to buy a .eth name?


If anything, we could have a unilateral vote, where one identity (participant-verified-human) = 1 vote, counted differently from $ENS Token allocation vote/votes. Would also render the $ENS Token less useful, idk any other way to include individuality without owning a market share of DAO Token.


This isn’t factually correct. Large shareholders usually have voice or opinions or the ability to vote on such topics.

I’m curious though, where did the idea that 'just because you have a .eth entitles that person to a say?

If this idea stemmed from the airdrop and the saying “you weren’t airdropped free money, you were airdropped responsibility” and that in itself was given to all the supporters of the project from the time of the snapshot and father back.

Being in possession of the tokens at the time of the drop is gracious responsibility given as a thank you to early supporters who contributed or supported the project pre-dao formation. For it to be fair for other people to have access to even be able to cast vote, the tokens were put on the open market and the market decided the price for the tokens.

It really feels as if people think the idea and reason for the tokens dropped; to those who supported the project up until a certain point, thus being rewarded the ability to have a say in the DAO Governance, perpetually applies to every person from thereon after who subsequently buys an ENS name. This is false.

How this works needs further discussion.
On the one hand, .eth has utility. On the other hand, buying ENS tokens does not generate any direct income for the ENS DAO. The question is not whether we should buy .eth or ENS for governance voting rights. The question is whether it is fair to ignore the voices of .eth holders in governance votes.

Why is this incorrect?
There is something in your statement that confuses me. First, people who buy ENS tokens today still have the same voting rights as those who continue to hold ENS tokens from the airdrop. This is independent of whether ENS token holders made early contributions to the development of the ENS project. Second, I think ENS is a DAO, not a company. In the current situation, it seems that the “shareholders” who hold the most ENS have the largest voting rights. Finally, ENS generates revenue from .eth registrations and renewals. If these incomes are left, the governance of ENS DAO may lose its economic support. I think it’s worth discussing whether to give .eth holders voting rights or not.

Why is this correct?

Because it’s a fact that large shareholders in some companies have a say in how the company is operated.
It all depends on how they formed the organization, structurally.

I did not say this.


If I own the most apple devices in the entire world, should I be granted the right to cast votes about how apple is operated?

By all means, you are free to discuss this. Nobody is preventing you from doing so.

I think you don’t understand the difference between Apple and ENS.
The reason why Apple’s shareholders are willing to consider Apple’s users is because they get dividends from sales profits.
If Apple’s shareholders no longer receive dividends from Apple’s sales revenue, then you, as the holder of the most Apple devices, had better either choose to fight for your own voting rights, or choose to give up Apple in the future.

1 Like