I think it’s a good idea in principle but feels a b bit of “nice to have”. We also had an idea of letting users buy ENS with any coins especially stable but never had time to implement them due to other priorities. Would be nice to have any sort of simulation/data analysis to back this idea to see if it’s worth it.
The DAO can use its funds to purchase ENS tokens if it desires.
This is a very self-serving argument, because it justifies doing anything that someone can convincingly argue might raise the price of ENS tokens or acquire more for the DAO in the name of “security”.
ENS is a governance token. It’s not a means of exchange, and the ENS DAO does not exist to maximize its value in any way shape or form. I’m strongly opposed to anything that runs counter to this.
1 Like
Anything (token or NFT) can be a means of exchange.
ENS has a market ecosystem, and it is not a new idea to use the system governance token within the systems market ecosystem. (Decentraland does this now w/ $MANA, which is their DAO token.)
This argument is in favor of the DAO & our ecosystem;
$ENS can be a means of utility & exchange, for #ENS or any project.
The DAO can utilize the token within the #ENS ecosystem;
This has nothing to do with maximizing value for no purpose,
but to legitimately add $ENS to our marketplace.
This idea is not arguing to do just “anything”, and
this idea is not proposing any direct buybacks.
There is not a goal to increase price, but it is not a goal to decrease price or utility.
Just because an idea adds utility, and may increase price,
is not a reason to ignore the benefits & utility of the ideas.
Again, I’m not in favor or against this proposal right now, but I’m really struggling to understand some POVs here.
How is @garypalmerjr idea self-serving? I understand that the $ENS token is a governance token and that what the market does with it cannot be controlled by the DAO. However, it’s a fact that it is being traded. If I’m a centralized entity and decide to buy 100M USD of $ENS token and delegate to myself I’ll have a very large say in what the DAO does without contributing to it in any way.
Again:
- This is not a dig at anyone, I’m just not understanding your point. And I’m trying to.
- $ENS tokens are governance tokens, and trading is not their purpose. I get this. But the fact is that they’re being traded, and I agree with @garypalmerjr that a centralized entity buying them is a potential issue;
- ENS registration costs are not my concern. As I said above, I would argue that the focus should be on L2s to mitigate this.
1 Like
It’s not that his idea is self-serving, it’s that the argument that “price go up or supply go down is good for ENS DAO” is self serving. It allows you to cloak any kind of naked financialisation in the guise of building a public good.
That doesn’t mean the DAO should build systems to encourage or facilitate this.
Yes, and that remains the case regardless of what the DAO does.
This specific concept is only for adding $ENS to the #ENS ecosystem, (like Decentraland does with $MANA).
This is not asking the DAO to build systems to encourage or facilitate $ENS as a utility for anything other than adding $ENS to the #ENS-specific ecosystem.
4 Likes
And how would allowing users who hold $ENS to pay registration fees with $ENS facilitate trading? I mean, as @garypalmerjr says, this would put $ENS back in the DAO, not in the market.
If the DAO then decides to do something with it, that’s a separate issue.
Got you. This I can understand.
Fair enough. But wouldn’t less $ENS in circulation somewhat mitigate this?
1 Like
Let me tell you my point of view, 90% of people use eth not because they really believe that decentralization can successfully subvert the Internet, but because eth’s investment property growth attribute is the main reason! Suppose we regard ens as just a voting tool and ignore its investability. For example, the current trend of icons will make countless people disappointed or even leave, which will undoubtedly be a huge harm to the development of dao. If you want ens tokens to be able to own If a large number of users support, the token must be closely integrated with the application, not just used for voting. If it is only used for internal voting, there is no need for public issuance. I will have a way to make the ens token get overwhelming support, I will give my opinion in a few days
I don’t think it’s just an internal tool, if that’s the case there’s no need for a public release