You could write a smart contract that acts as a ‘referrer’ and allows anyone to claim their referral fees back. It’d get good bulk rates if everyone used it!
If you register a 5+ char name for 10 years, you’d get $5 back at a 10% referral rate. I can’t imagine that the smart contract would be able to let anyone claim without gas fees taking a significant chunk, effectively making it useless for most people. If the referral is also being applied to the premium period or <5 char names though, that’s a different story.
That’s a fair point. It’d be more practical for 3- and 4- character domains, but may still not be cost-effective.
Ok, this is what I am imagining right now. I think this will work.
Create a mapping of addresses to addresses for the beneficiaries for each account.
Crete a mapping of addresses to balances to store the balances for commissions.
Create a Register function with a beneficiary so that the beneficiaries mapping can be set at the time of registration.
Allow the user to change the beneficiary in their account settings, including to themselves — this is also a great opportunity to create a list of public goods that the user can chose. I would not show the beneficiary on the first checkout page, as I think this will disincentivize the use of the affiliate program for referrers.
Create a claim function to transfer commissions at any time.
I think this will add a minimal amount of gas to an initial transaction, with just two mapping updates. Any secondary transactions will have only one mapping update.
I think it is also possible to save a lot of gas in the future by phasing out the old registrar and only using a V2 NameWrapper, which with the new upgrade code coming in V1 NameWrapper makes this possible.
Wouldn’t intentionally obfuscating these incentive payments be suspect? Especially if the motive is to prevent the user from making the choice that we acknowledge they would likely make if fully informed?
Would we expect lots of large advertising focused entities to set up claim accounts and drive traffic through advertisements (Google AdSense, Media[.]net, PropellerAds, etc?) There would be no accountability on the messaging that ENS is subsidizing through these hidden incentives.
@AvsA’s transparent model mitigates some of this, but even that might not be received well when users see that they’re funding web2 advertising companies.
Final thought - any 3rd party is free to build a value add layer on top of the existing ENS registration system and charge whatever fee they wish.
The ENS DAO could instead continue to focus on encouraging these value add layers that incorporate ENS registration into other business models that would ultimately be more additive to the user experience. Rainbow is a fantastic example.
- User clicks link to purchase an ENS name.
- The ENS Name costs $5/year (5+ Char).
- Upon checkout the final cost is $5/year.
- ~10% of the cost goes to the referral.
- There is not am easy way to prevent this, unless the user clears their catch.
People who create content & code need ways to generate revenue for their work.
If content & code creators succeed in getting the user to click the link to ENS, and the user buys via the ENS contract, then the content & code creators should get compensated. Period.
- Why are we building systems to hurt Web3 creators?
- Why do we want to make it easy to hurt content & code creators?
- Why should it matter if the content & code creator is getting paid, since they did the work to get the users to the ENS site?
- The talk about hurting the content & code creators is counter intuitive, and if it is built that way, then most will not use this affiliate system; since the risk is too great a risk for loss, for the content & code creators time and resources.
I understand there are cases where we may want to “police” the system, but this is an issue across all decentralized products. Are we running a company or a protocol?
I love how dedicated & thorough the coders & engineers are here,
but it seems few here respect business & marketing for a healthy ecosystem.
Why do we want to make it hard for users to make an informed choice about where their money goes?
Making it easy for Web3 creators “to be denied value-reward for their hard work” is a bad system.
The referral fee is not going to a random organization,
and is not designated by the DAO, or a centralized organization.
The referral fee would be going to the person/organization,
whom did the work to get a user to facilitate the ENS sale, on the ENS contract.
If the affiliate system blocks the Web3 creators value-reward for their hard work [content or code that brought visibility & traffic to ENS], then this system is no longer a real affiliate system [since a percentage of those users lead to sales, and a large percentage of those sales will always deny the affiliate when giving the option]; and then the point is lost, and the system will fail meeting meaningful adoption or its objectives [of brining visibility, traffic, & sales to ENS].
Again, this comes back to who we have a duty to serve first: end users, or platforms. I’m firmly of the belief that the ENS app ought to serve users’ best interests first, and it’s not in users’ interests to make choices for them without them being able to change those decisions.