Low-level Performance Metrics for Service Providers

🌱 ENS Ecosystem
1

We would like to present some low-level data on the performance of service providers. Some service providers have explicit metrics (minted names or subnames, resolutions, lists, operations etc) through which one can derive a parameter Expense Rate. Expense Rate is calculated by dividing the providers burn rate with their metric rate; it is a measure of how much funding is equivalent to a single metric.

For example, if team A has a burn rate of 200 $/month and their subname mint rate is 100 subnames/month, then their expense rate is 200 / 100 = 2 $/subname

Entity Atom Atoms (until 09.2024) Expense Rate
ResolverWorks Subnames, Resolutions 10,000 subnames, 1.9M resolutions 52.5 $/subname, 0.28 $/resolution
Ethereum Follow Protocol Lists, Operations 4400 lists, 100k operations 85 $/list, 3.75 $/operation
NameSpace Off-chain, L2, L1 (Sub)names 8k, 2k, 1k (sub)names 14 $/(sub)name

For the remaining service providers, either the atomicity is not quantifiable or there isn’t sufficient data to derive it from the reports.

Disclaimer: This is a low-level and rudimentary data analysis, and the interpretation of it is left up to the reader. The numbers probably mean something but they should be treated with discretion since there are certainly a lot of caveats that have been overlooked.

1 Like
2

Nice. This is interesting. If we had to pick one metric as an indicator of our success that would probably come down to subnames minted. But there’s a lot more we do that positively impacts ENS.

One of the reasons why the numbers are low(er) for now is because the ‘sale cycle’ is generally very long when it comes to integrating Subname minting with other projects and dapps. Adding simple ENS resolution to projects also takes time, let alone custom subname implementation.

Even though we’ve done a lot to push this forward – reduced the time it takes to implement subname minting (namespace-sdk and offchain subs API), make it more intuitive and user-friendly (v2 namespace app), and talked to ~billion people about ENS and subnames, it still remains somewhat of a challenge.

This is because ENS is perceived as a ‘vitamin’ not a ‘painkiller’ solution, even though it fixes real problems. In other words, it’s perceived as a nice addition to have in products, but the product can work ‘just fine’ without it. So there’s a lot of education involved during the sale cycle.

I expect our price/subname minted relative to our funding to decrease significantly. This is due to our efforts to make it more easy, intuitive and accessible for devs and non-tech folks (app + SDK), a natural progression of the industry – going towards human-readable names for wallets, increase in onchain identity industry and ENS playing a key part there, and also Base, Linea, and others leading the way, and many other things that make ENS great.

Subnames minted would be one impact metric for us, but there are a lot more we do, visible and not visible :smiley: I approach people as an ENS representative and talk about ENS first, then mention Namespace and subnames. It happened a few times now where I would talk to someone (from whichever company, big or small) and months later they either reached out to me, or have already added ENS resolution, or even added subname minting on their own. And it feels weird to go and advertise it or take credit for it.

Just sharing some thoughts and learnings from my ENS journey. We all know by my articles I tend to overshare when it comes to talking about ENS :sweat_smile: But I’m definitely looking forward to following these numbers ($ / per subname mint) quarter by quarter. Thanks for the analysis and another perspective.

4 Likes