Given that the security of the DAO is partly dependant on the price of the ENS token, I donāt think it is unreasonable to disincentivize selling and reward holding + participation (delegation and other metrics) with a portion of the registration fees. Also lots of selling will erode the number of delegated votes over time.
@Leon hey, let me expand on this as well a bit, Iām looking at this situation from perspective of financial analyst
ENS DAO is not equity token, and not your typical fiat financial instrument whose existence is strictly mandated by the presence of cashflows to paid to the holder, in the context of blockchain based assets all mechanisms are very different to fiat instruments
however when taking into consideration introduction of any new token mechanics it is vital to understand why are we introducing this mechanics
potential upside to this mechanism:
- ENS DAO is to instituted to serve broad userbase of ENS protocol
- one of key requirements for ENS to be global public protocol is to be very stable
- security of DAO is dependent on price stability and on having as diverse base of holders as possible
- passive income generated from this approach fits into broad protocol narrative very nicely
the downside to this approach are negative spillovers:
ā some agents will choose to hold tokens only for financial incentive and not for long term development of protocol
ā voting power will be delegated to those delegates who are in favour of increasing financial incentives
ā some other unintended effects which may distort otherwise beneficial approach
I think the bottom line to this discussion is not to drop this question completely because it may go against moral principles or some ethical approach, but rather have strict, disciplined and very clear understanding WHY is it being implemented - if it serves greater good, then it must be implemented in some form
Afterall whole PoW consensus is based around game theory, where every agent is pursuing SELF interest, and in the process this generates robust āgreater goodā, certainly there are negative spillovers for example in the form miners front-running transactions, but end result is āglobal decentralised ethereum computerā which certainly benefits a lot of people around the world, like a great equaliser. PoW would not be possible unless it had built in financial incentives
So I think its incorrect just to drop this idea, best approach in my opinion is to try to get specific draft analytical constructions, put them through delegates discussion machine and see if anything can fit overall DAO benefit