If someone owns Apple.eth and renews it for a thousand years and then puts it in a contract and burns their permissions, then the only way to unwrap it is to wait until it expires correct? I know it could cause more problems but if Apple.eth owner decides to accept an offer from Apple, shouldn’t there be a way to unwrap it? Maybe a majority vote by the existing subdomains or ENS community? I guess my concern is that using the wrapper this early on might disincentive other individuals and companies from adopting ENS. Why would Apple adopt ENS if Apple.eth, iPhone.eth. iPad.eth, etc are unavailable and no amount of money can change that? Even if Apple filed a lawsuit and won via squatting laws they wouldn’t be able to obtain the name. Seems problematic to me
hmmmm I’ve been thinking quite a lot about this and it seems like there’s a problem with people treating .eth domains as a commodity.
There’s no real effective way to flip the table and tell people to stop being greedy, it happens everywhere and web3 is no exception.
This is a new and growing DAO and it’s probably going to be prudent to write up some proposals about things like this sooner rather than later.
In a perfect world everyone would understand that these domains aren’t lottery tickets to snatch up and ransom to companies, or in your example hold hostage out of spite. The point is for everyone (including companies acting as an entity) to use these domains to identify themselves absolutely and utilise that identity securely everywhere. It’ll just take a while for that message to overcome the call of the vultures.
Until then this is likely something that will need addressing for sure.