ENS Registration Fees

Any thoughts on possibly paying registration fees for ENS names using the ENS token in addition to ETH? Obviously this is not about the blockchain transaction costs which have to be paid in ETH currently!


In my opinion that is outside the scope of $ENS. $ENS is a governance token, not a collateral token.


If it really is strictly a governance token then your point is well taken, as you well know, the ENS token does trade on external exchanges, hence it has a monetary value, why not allow the ENS token to be used as a utility within the ecosystem?

Hey @rfikki thanks for posting your question.

Can you expand on what problem this would solve and for who?

1 Like

It would allow the ENS token to be used as a utility as part of the ecosystem. It brings more value to the ENS platform, similar to how DEX’s and other platform utility tokens function. I don’t believe we should limit the use case to strictly governance. But, this is a “Temp Check” to what the appetite is for such usage.

1 Like

Thanks for expanding.

I personally like the purity of the ENS token being for governance. The fact that it does have value is incidental. I hope the focus of ENS and the ENS DAO is for adoption and accessibility. The focus on price can become a distraction.

Thanks for engaging, I can understand both sides of this matter.

The focus on utility, would be the primary objective.

I mean I can see your point, and I understand that was not the goal, however, isn’t the fact that ENS tokens can be bought from DEX’s and used for governance more detrimental to ENS’s purity than allowing registration fees to be payed in ENS?


We can’t control what the world does.

We can control what the DAO does.

Ultimately, DAO signals what it believes by the action it takes, since those are the only actions they can control.


So, can you explain what you think would be detrimental if we allowed the utility of the ENS token within the ecosystem?

1 Like

How would doing this make ENS the distributed naming system better or more useful?


In a similar manner as the Decentraland platform uses the MANA token as part of their DAO governance, and allows the MANA token to be used as a utility token within their platform for purchasing land within the platform. It brings utility, and enhances the use case within the platform. The same way ETH brings utility to the Ethereum platform.


I think the issue is a confusion of ENS from $ENS. The purpose of $ENS is to ensure ENS is governed in a way that guarantees global usefulness, availability and openness.

The question here is not how this makes $ENS more useful, but how this makes ENS more useful? As that is $ENS’s main goal.

We arent arguing that anything detrimental would happen, just that it further distracts from the purpose of $ENS’s main goal.

Ultimately, eth works very well as collateral for ENS names. Has for years, and I dont see there being any issue with the current setup as far as that aspect goes. If there is a problem with it, I personally fail to observe it.

So in my opinion this doesnt fit the bill for $ENS, but thats just my opinion. I do appreciate the ideas coming forth from the community though!


I’m not for or against this. I just fail to understand @slobo.eth purity argument.

Personally, if ETH costs are the issue, I much rather ENS focuses on L2s than see $ENS become anything else that it currently is.


Maybe purity is the wrong word. Others in the thread did a better job expanding on what I was trying to get at.


I’m not sure what this accomplishes. The core products are the Ethereum Names. I don’t see a compelling reason to create more utility by modifying the intended purpose of the governance token. A governance token such as $ENS shouldn’t be used as a collateral, and creating an alternative utility potentially dilutes it’s power at least symbolically.

Another idea of easing high gas fees without impacting $ENS token supply schedule is to substitute gas fees with the registration year (I suggest we add some capping though).


I like how it keep ENS token within the ENS DAO.


This idea is not about solving an existing problem,
it is about adding utility & keeping the $ENS token INSIDE the #ENS DAO.

We can add on to the utility if/when it makes sense.

It could be actively/instantly converted FROM $ETH TO $ENS at the point/time of purchase?
…but users can/should have the option to use $ETH or $ENS,
which either way, keeps $ENS within the #ENS ecosystem.
If users need to sell $ENS to get $ETH to buy #ENS,
…then I think we want the $ENS being dumped into the DAO.

Also, this adds security to the DAO, too.
Because it removes $ENS from the market sellers,
which otherwise gets bought cheap by centralized actors.
Losing $ENS to a centralized actor is an attack vector, 100%.