How can we do ENS better?

I like the idea of a governance token! Although as mentioned in the video each domain (ERC 721) could be one vote, for governance I prefer ERC-20 tokens. (ENT - Ethereum Name Token :wink: )

As I mention last year I would consider one of the most important and strategic investments to develop a powerful infrastructure to build decentralized websites using IPFs technology.
One of the companies doing a great job is Origin protocol. OGN allows users to create “Dstores” FOR FREE and to do something similar or partner them would be a great idea for both. Mobirise.com could be an other strategic partner as well.

I think “dwebsite” infrastructure is a fundamental pillar to focus.

Other cool idea once we have a token is to create a infrastructure similar to Compaund.finance so users can loan and barrow their “ENT” or talk to Compaund, AAVE, Maker, Duck and all this platforms to do that. (As they do to Uni TOkens, Rari tokens and some other governance tokens.)

I also REALLY like the idea to have this option of have ENS subdoamins as NFTs, that is very cool.

Regarding giving back to the community, it seems like a very good idea. And I think it should be in proportion for each domain that users have and the years renewed. Although Nick is not very friend of domainers, they are also important pillars in this ecosystem. They make domains scarce and generate income year after year to ENS foundation (and soon DAO) and with this money the ecosystem in general can be improved. They are also people who may think to develop the domains in the future. Furthermore, is good to have them, if they were investing directly in ETH, an important source of passive income for the ENS ecosystem would be lost.

And finally, I definitely wouldn’t want the money/eth to be donated to a few individuals or startups (or at least not too much). I think, however, that a bigger percentage should be allocated to create a powerful infrastructure for ENS: As I mention, like templates to create dblogs, dstores, dwebsites for companies and for personal dwebsites.

In the future it will be cool (once we have a solid infrastructure) to have a DAO that start incentive the token by buying and burning ENT year after year.

A valuable token with a good market cap would bring a huge new community of users as well as free advertising in coingecko, coinmarketcap, cointelegraph and many others platforms which would end up being beneficial to the ENS ecosystem in general.

Creating an ENS governance token has been proposed by so many people. Even though tokens can increase “skin in the game” and increase network effect, it can also be used for governance take over (which did happen in a few Defi projects recently).

“grant token” is less risky to start with as the impact of any sybil attack can be limited to the amount we commit to allocate as grant.

Do you have any data to share how $OGN tokens are increasing their ecosystem? I have looked into their site, but they don’t set any link to dStore site their members and there is no analytics site so hard to see what they are doing (also do they support ENS?)

That would work for Origin as Dstore space is limitless whereas good ENS names are scarce so squatters will squat imho

That I agree. Even though .eth registration is for anti-squatting not for the source of revenue, increasing brand of ENS align with the overall increase of their asset. The question is how to design token models which take the balance of various stakeholders. How do we prevent squatters vote to remove annual rent so that they can squat as many as they want?

yeah, I think website template is important. “Alpress Self-Governing Publication Platform” which was presented at the last ENS workshop ENS workshop 2021-1 show & tell projects to present is aimed at that purpose so we could potentially aid projects like that.

Are there any projects which are working with this model for more than 3 years? I know Kyber started back in 2017 and they have burn model but not sure how much it’s contributing to the token price.

When ENS launched back in 2017, it was the beginning of the ICO boom and the following crypto winter led to “Token = bad”. That changed last year during Defi summer but there are still lots of unknown whether the token governance model will be successful in the long term. I think starting from “Grant Giving DAO” is a good way to start testing the water than going full token governance.

Hi Makoto.

That is true. A grant token is a good alternative.
Although I prefer an utility token. And wold be cool if the revenue generated by domains is reinvested in create ecosystems that encourage their use* (Token and domains).

I have no data/statistics. But I can share a link to create a virtual store for free (IPFS) perfect for .eth domains.
*You can also notice how this development encourages (voluntary) use of the OGN token and its value without the need of a governance token.

https://dshop.originprotocol.com/#/admin/signup

Absolutely. I do not mean to give free domains.
Just the possibility to easily create a dwebsites / dstores / dblogs by building an infrastructure to create IPFS links (for free) in a easy way to incentive the use of .eth domains (And its token If there is one.)
But if a token is created with a business model similar to Origin, free infrastructure could be developed that, even if it is used by competitors users, would benefit the value of the token and this would be good for “.eth” domains in general.

Perhaps a governance token is not the best solution since it could generate conflicts of interest between what the ecosystem requires and the domainers.
So a utility token would be perfect.
These tokens could also have governance power, but not for price decision making on renewals.

And now that you mention about conflicts of interest, I express my concern here …
ICANN is supposedly a “nonprofit organization”

But with the prices they handle for the domains I DOUBT IT!
Let us call that with its name: ¿MONOPOLY?
And clearly domains are a MULTIMILLIONAIRE business for the owners of the .com .co .io and even companies like Godaddy… They make users pay not only for the domains! (15 usd a year)! But SSL certificates (10 usd a year), emails, hosting and more…
And yes. The hosting m̶o̶n̶o̶p̶o̶l̶y̶ Is usually around 10-20 usd a MONTH! And IPFS can allow users not to pay much… And many powerful pockets would not like this idea.

And Is clear… imo ICANN does not appear to be in service of the end user. And a millionaire business tentacle will never allow it.

Solution?
Let’s not look at ICANN as “friends”…As a nice “nonprofit organization”. :rofl:

The idea here is that “.eth” should work to be a better alternative for the people than the ICANN domains.
ENS.eth.link should be for the people. Not for Godaddy owners and similar companies like Wordpress that to date have NOT create a business that really allows the end users to have a real free and good website. (This is why I admire Origin protocol business model)

And with the technology that ENS offers of not having to pay high annual renewals, being able to receive any cryptocurrency with the domain, being able to chat with the domain owners (Startus.im), not having to pay for hosting, no need to pay for SSL, being able to own or sell the subdomains and being able to have decentralized websites, its time to change the game.

And so that ENS domains do not suffer the same problem as ICANN, they should always have low prices and be truly created for the end user in the long term.
Money generated should be invested in tools for the people or incentive the domains and token use.

What could be a good price for .eth? I don’t know … I think a domain should be like 1/4 -1/3 of the average renewal value of the domains sold on godaddy or a “.com”.
Since a range in dollars (3-5 usd?) would not be a good way to calculate its price in the future with an imminent collapse of its value over time.

I dont know about a DAO doing that, but BNB and CAKE and some other business burn tokens.
I really like Swop.fy business model. Is like Uniswap.exchange but income generated in the tx is distributed to the SWOP token holders. Is very nice but I prefer when the token is burn…
“A burn achieve the same economic effects as an airdrop, with no need for as many tx on the block chain, and more evenly distributed”. -CZ

Other options is that once ENS have the “ENT” created, ENS can chose If buy and burn the token or to carry out an airdrop (Again… Could be every 10 years?) to those who have “.eth” domains…

Anyway I think an ERC20 token would be a good idea.

And do not worry about answering all this I say. They are just many ideas to be analyzed and where many topics come from to talk about. :+1:

What is the utility of the token you are suggesting?

A few thoughts:

If we’re talking airdrop, I think it would be better on a per-wallet basis.
Of course the concept here is not perfect but it should be good enough, assuming most squatters won’t care to use tens of different wallets (which would also make selling their domains harder when there isn’t much of an “NFT portfolio” at associated addresses to seek through). Also, those who purposely use more than one ENS domain, either registered them using different wallets or probably already got them point to different ETH addresses so as an example you could use that too to distinguish squatters from active users.

Historically speaking, the per-wallet method proved to be fair enough on the airdrop of $UNI, apart from a very few using 2-5 wallets.

If supply were rounded up to 100k or 1M considering ~50k current holders, the rest could be - for example distributed on a first come, first served basis for those who register a domain for more (eg. 5) years, proportionally or not. Thus, instead of directly disincentivizing squatters or anybody else, the system could rather reward real users and a new batch of newcomers, as long as this token has value in the form of utility or governance.

I think this token could be used for discounts - just like tokens of exchanges; in this case by either reducing per-year renewal fee or giving domains a little extra TTL on registration or renewal. The latter could also help randomize the current periods of mass-expiry of domains in the long run.

Another idea I have on mind is if it could be used to vote for changes in pre-defined RECORDS of Resolver.

There are many possibilities with the main idea, it’s just my two cents.

Edit: … if there’s enough value behind low supply, the idea of acquiring as much as possible might as well encourage heavy squatters to give up on a few domains, for example to renew the rest for more years - to get more tokens, which they could of course also sell later if they wanted to.

I like Vincent idea:

Although I do not know how viable it is to create something like that.

What I was referring to is investing in projects that encourage the use of the token and domains in general.

The example of Origin with its virtual stores is something that could be created. (Or partner with them)
And then if virtual stores are created (Free) and users then can pay with ENS Token in all this different stores. (That would be a utility)
And clearly ENS would have a competitive advantage here.

Another example is that ENS can analyze strategic projects to invest and this projects then can start using the token as part of the deal.

This is just an example:
Let’s say that ENS invest money in the company “Status.im” and Status.im in exchange for that injection of capital allows users to pay with “ENS Token” as well directly as you can do today with SNT or ETH.

Or lets say there is a company “Vacations.eth” or “deliveries.eth” (This ones are just examples) And in exchange of investment (That can be used for advertising) hotels and tours or Deliveries then can be paid with the “ENS token” as part of the deal.