In my continued quest to get a self sustaining community of frontends for ENS, here’s an updated dune dashboard
now properly tracking ENSIP14 registrations.
With ENS Labs embracing ENSIP14 at the end of April, now most of the registrations currently are ens14 compliant, meaning that we can reliably track most of the registrations.
While ENS Labs official frontend is clearly the most commonly used, ENS.vision has managed to register an impressive total of 18k collective ENS years. If we ignore short names and extra prices for recently released names, that would mean they have, through their frontend, brought at least USD$90k in new registrations for the DAO.
Registrations are down since the beginning of the year, but not by that much and ENS is so far doing well in the market.
On Referrals
I would urge and would like to ask that the current Ecosystem working group steward consider using this information to base an experimental recurring revenue sharing program. I would naturally exclude Ens labs from it (since they are already receiving large grants from the DAO) and create different tranches depending on how many names were registered (so that if someone wanted to get referrals to themselves, it would basically work like a volume discount).
Those are just registrations without using a referral Id. If you look at the graph over time you’ll see most of them were ens labs before they had implemented ensip14.
Thanks @AvsA. Awesome to see this program mature like this. Great work.
I’m generally in favor of the concept of rewarding the loyal and supportive registrars that serve ENS. I worry, however, that either enshrining this in the protocol or having the DAO manage a profit-share program will require more DAO resources at a time when we’re trying to use less. There will no doubt be disputes over inclusion. Who will decide these? i.e. When UD’s new registration platform is submitting ENS registrations will they also be eligible?
In the Web2 software world, there’s a concept know as MDF (Marketing Development Funds). MDF are made available by brands to their channel sales partners when those channel partners demonstrate competency and meet certain defined benchmarks.
I’d be in favor of the ENS Labs team asking for additional budget as part of their marketing initiatives so that they can execute on an MDF program that defines criteria and iterates on eligibility, etc., with the same end goal of rewarding platforms like ENS Vision for their support.
Would you agree with that approach, or do you think it should be the DAO that manages the program? I’m happy to enumerate more of the pros/cons of this approach if you think it might have legs.
It’s the other way around. This idea came when a company reached to us to ask for a revenue share agreement and we started brainstorming how we could do it in a transparent manner accessible to everyone.
So anyone using the referral link should be eligible, the tracking is a permissionless system. Right now it still requires manual decision to pay them, but we can automate it in the future - that would require a new resolver implementation. I’ve actually paid for the development of one, by alexnetto, but never got traction to get it merged so I’m trying this manner now.
