ENS can continue to build great things and encourage users to use those great things without needing to change/modify/replace the old things. When Toyota comes out with a great new car, I can still use my old car exactly as I have been, and continue to get it serviced by the same mechanic who doesn’t need to go through training on how to service the new models. Toyota releasing a new car only impacts me if I want to move to it.
This is in contrast to Tesla releasing a software upgrade where I don’t really have a choice. At best, I can hack my Tesla (void warranty) and block the OTA update (though I suspect half the car would stop working in that case).
I would like to see ENS DAO behave like the Toyota example above, not like the Tesla example.
This is certainly a popular belief and on paper seems reasonable, but the problem is that in reality each upgrade is only slightly worse than the previous and there is never a single upgrade where a majority of the “community” agrees it is the right time to boycott the changes. What this leads to is exactly what we see in Ethereum, where the roadmap is ever-changing and infinite and there is no credible path to ossification of the protocol. Yet, we have seen core devs bow out because they dislike some of the changes, so we know they aren’t universally agreed on. Since they don’t all bow out at once, and new blood replaces the old, things continue to march forward indefinitely.
It might be helpful here to reiterate that ENS V1 is not changing and can be used indefinitely as is. The only thing that will change is the way that names are renewed on V1. One of the core reasons for the existence of the ENS DAO is to manage renewal prices over time.
Ownership of ENS names is similar to land ownership, which allows an owner the exclusive right to use the land, but the owner must still pay taxes on the land. However, there is no cap on renewing ENS names, so it is possible to renew an ENS name for 50 years, for example, for a price of $250 for five-character names and above, which, in my view, is a reasonable price for that right.
I believe that this is a fundamental cultural difference between the Ethereum and Bitcoin communities. The Ethereum community took a pragmatic approach to upgrading the network, and I think the majority of people still in Ethereum agree with this approach.
You are very correct about this! However, it is because the people who disagree with this approach bleed off and newcomers are only people who agree, so it is self-reinforcing.
