Layer 2 scaling and Subdomains

🧑‍💻 ENS Development Implementations
23

I see a new problem here similar to the problem of ENS not knowing which L2 to pick. Second-level domain holders (e.g. foo.eth) would need to choose which L2 is the best, and then they would be stuck on that L2. This could be a real problem in the case of valuable second-level domains. I think this will be a deal breaker for many. Using this system simply pushes off ENS’s problem of which L2 to choose on to second-level domain holders.

I see three options:

  1. Second-level domain holders (e.g. foo.eth) choose a L2 and issue subdomains, but those subdomains are not trustless.

  2. ENS picks an L2 and moves everything over to that L2, without burning the permission to move to another L2 in the future.

  3. Second-level domain holders form DAO’s that govern the second-level domains. Anyone who holds a subdomain is a member of the DAO, wherein they have a say in which L2 will be used for the second-level domain.

Each of these options have pros and cons. For instance, let’s imagine that a wallet wants to give out subdomains to their users, which option will they choose. I would assume that they will choose option 1. They will issue subdomains to their users and keep control over the second-level domain. If they want to switch to a new L2 later on they can do it, and they can simply migrate all of the subdomains over when they move. Most users will most likely not care or not know that there is anything wrong with this approach. It is however a con that the system is not trustless.

In another example, a group of second-level domain holders with high value domains (e.g. wallet.eth , address.eth, etc. ) might choose option 3., wherein they will give control over to a DAO to make decisions over which L2 will be used. The main con to this system is that it creates a DAO of DAOs structure to ENS, which adds complexity and is essentially fracturing the community.

I do not see “burn[ing] permissions such as transferring back to L1” as a workable solution. There is a fundamental problem with the idea of creating trustless assets on an L2 which is not trusted.

In the case of NFTs more broadly on L2s, they don’t have the same challenge of having to occupy the same name space as all other chains and L2s (e.g. CryptoPunks and PolyPunks).

1 Like