[Proposal] Proposal to sell Pay.eth, hey.eth, devs.eth and trading.eth to the ENS DAO

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like

This is one of the more absurd things I have ever seen in DeFi, and i just got an airdrop valued at 30k $usd.


Tell me why it’s a bad idea rather than just calling names? Have no problem selling these to private entities who then have monopolies on what are probably the most desirable domains, or can have them be owned by the DAO and have control be governed. You’re telling me that $6.5bn valuations reasonable, but these 4 domains at $4m are unreasonable, from the very same project?

1 Like

To be fair i think the idea of having multiple sub-domains available for users to choose from is actually a cool idea. I think that if this was the first proposal that the ENS DAO voted on would weaken the overall public image of the DAO ( i don’t think this proposal would ever make quorum).

ENS as we have seen in the last 3 days has a tremendous value to users who engage with those products and you are one of them, but by seeking to enrich yourself at the cost of the DAO you highlight one of the fundamental issues with DeFi, profit at the cost of others, in this case ENS DAO.

Would have been really cool if you offered up those ENS names to the DAO in good faith, or proposed your subdomain idea and let the community decide fair compensation.

As it stands this proposal is … absurd.

1 Like

Will be real, have offered devs.eth and even hey.eth to the ENS team in the past for free. But let’s all be real for sec. The founder members got huge token allocations for profit, and the DAO was given a lot of tokens. The space isnt altruistic, so expecting me to give up a large amount of value for free as good faith, but then justifyng a few contributors and that to get very high payouts seems a little counter. Had all the tokens been given as drops and noone had gotten payouts for efforts then would agree. But dont see the difference between a core contributor spending their time (while paid) as reasonable but me looking for compensation for my investment and resources as unreasonable. Am open to the rate for these, and the vest shows my intention to change my exposure from simply being illiquid to liquid.

Were this to be for personal profit purely would not be.

  1. Vestng the allocation
  2. Accepting ENS
  3. Providing a large discount to what am looking for on open markets atm for these.

My desire for 100ks simply so that can create proposals in exchange for giving up my domains.

But tbh noone in their right mind would give up say pay.com or any other asset for free just because would be nice.

Finally the DAO was given $3bn in assets. Can you really tell me that having core domains rather than simply it’s own token would be a bad investment by the DAO?

I get your point, I think you have some valuable domains and I agree that ENS should hold domains that have potential future utility for ENS as a service.

What I’m trying to get at is that ENS has yet to vote on a constitution, is in the middle of the most successful token drop in DeFi history and is literally the most popular project in the space this week.

I just think its kinda whack that one of the few posts in the governance forums was someone trying to extract value out of a DAO that hasn’t technically formed yet.

I’m not trying to bash you as a person, I just think the proposal is ridiculous and thought I would express that sentiment in the public forum where you posted it. I’m not arguing that those domains have value or that there’s potential utility in ENS offering fun sub domains. Just saying that on chain governance is a new social model and “We” as users have a deep responsibility to uphold the legitimacy of the nascent organizations that are experimenting with these models.

Your proposal as set forth would only weaken the ENS DAO if it were to be taken seriously. I don’t think the governance section is the place to offer up speculative names that may or may not hold long term value to ENS.

What I’m trying to get at is the fact that your proposal gives the governance forums a bad look. ENS is a pure governance token, and as secondary market price action has suggested may hold tremendous value for the Ethereum Network and the Global Namespace in general. If the Governance forums are filled with posts like yours that weakens the over all value proposition of the ENS token. There is a lot of eyes on ENS this week and I think we should all be trying to put our best foot forward in terms of potential proposals for what is quickly becoming the most highly valued pure governance token in the space.

Just my thoughts, happy to take this discussion to dm’s if you want to continue talking.


Dont agree tbh. Dont understand how a proposal to have the DAO own it’s own assets that generates revenue from, diversify treasury, and have access to use these to access new revenue models, new rewards, and new spaces would hurt the look. Yes this was put up early because wanted to get thoughts how people feel about this as a concept while people are forming opinions and the DAO goes through early use cases and establish what they want. Again the proposal has a vest with the asset being the DAOs direct token, am not trying to get the DAO to sell ENS to buy these for ETH.

You keep saying posts like these weaken the project. Without any reasoning beyond that am looking for ENS to compensate the value given, at a large discount and with a lockup. And you say that the market values the project as a large and important jnfrastructure, but the only use case the tokens have are for .eth domains, to which you say are highly speculative. So either ENS and .eth domains are highly speculative or the market has priced utility properly and ENS and the domains are valued beyond just speculation, creating a difference between the 2 seems arbitrary as ENS are a direct reflection for .eth usage, and acts as the control and funding mechanism.

Can you explain why a core developer that has been paid by the ENS fees already should be allocated large allocations (we dont even know who was allocated what specifically) are deserved, with no cost basis for the assets other than time which already had been compensated for, and with no value gained other than rewarding them for helping grow the project but these assets should not be compensated and provide no value to the DAO beyond speculation, despite being able to actually provide the DAO with ongoing revenue, prevent monopolies and centralisation for these core domains and help create further value through curated subdoms for these as like a verification check.

Btw these arent me being defensive just giving my view as to why would be a good move. Should the DAO not buy these they will probably be sold to private entities and used for non open and centralised purposes or simply be camped and become pure speculation assets. Both of which would be sad for me to see as would prefer the DAO to own them than say FB or a centralised payment company. The DAO also has $300m to play with, so .015x does not seem like a fundamental amount to effectively grab these if only to allow for people to use them for subdoms in a open way for short, easy to remember tlds

That being said any proposal should be welcome here, because thats what DAOs are, open and permissionless, so saying a proposal gives the DAO a bad look and shouldnt be in the forums are counter to the ethos, understand that maybe some proposals may be net bad for the DAO but dont think any proposal should be not able to be proposed

I’ve offered developers.eth free if the right use case makes sense. Offer still exists. Maybe I should just be greedy and try to sell it. SMH, no it’s still being offered free. Just want to see it used by developers.

1 Like

ENS is a non-profit and it serves a single purpose.

Over-financialization by having a “investment / trading arm” in every DAO would unnecessarily complicate incentive mechanisms, decrease its focus on mission and likely introduce corruption or unnecessary risks.

In many countries Banks are strictly prohibited from freely investing depositors money, as not to add unnecessary systemic risks. Basically 2008 financial crisis happened, because in 1999 US has deregulated banks, allowing them to invest depositors cash into derivatives, which weren’t cash-equivalents (like treasury bonds) and turned-out to be crap.

Now, think what’ve happened with ENS if instead of ETH, they’d hold rETH (Rocket Pool ETH with ~5% APY) and Rocket Pool got hacked. The whole DAO, would’ve collapsed, just because of greed. NFTs are even more speculative asset than rETH and some DAOs may accept different levels of risk, but I think core infrastructure (which includes ENS) should have as little risk and dependency as possible. The only base foundation for ENS is ETH, because:

  1. ETH is a great store of value due to its low (or no) inflation.
  2. if ETH fails, ENS won’t matter anyway.
  3. ENS has a lot of money to pay for its needs.

ENS is a single-purpose machine and it needs resources to do its job. I don’t want my dishwasher to invest in stocks in spare time. Same goes for ENS.

Interesting discussion…

My 2cents…

ENS buying domains specifically to monetize user level applications of Ethereum is something like ICANN owning the facebook domain.

Let’s suppose OP sells some domains to centralized commercial entity “S”. OP gets a nice pay day for the foresight of purchasing high value domains… And commercial entity S uses ENS infrastructure, probably providing useful meaningful feedback to the DAO for more commercial usage. Then the entire ENS infrastructure benefits and has a chance at ensuring the longevity and improving the usability of the decentralized Internet.

The ENS infrastructure is probably best served by having the DAO maintain and improve the infrastructure rather than building the commercial assets that will run on the infrastructure.

1 Like

your ideas for those domains shoul dbe proposals for public goods. if they become public goods at that point you make a proposal to buy a domain and you propose specifically to buy the one related.
You are just asking us lots of money and you expect them with no real effort.
Quite naive.
You tried. I hope this sis the first and last post like this. imagine if 100k people pop out with such proposals and we must read them one by one and explain why this is definitely not the best approach.
Nice the idea for devs.eth
Write a white paper. Then post it, then take care of it and of it creation, then at the end of the process who knows… maybe you can convince us to pay you the domain.
Unless 1000 better names come to mind.

Have you ever actually made a proposal for any DAO? You dont make a whitepaper for a proposal and this clearly isn’t me just asking for money.

Had thought that the DAO would be interested in owning core domains but feel that maybe people just see the role different to me for what the DAO should do. Would suck to see the ENS have the same fate as the EF. Very large warchests and not actually doing much because people want all expenses to only be for charity or public good.

Though think people are looking more at the sale as an asset investment where see as the DAO guaranteed openness for these core domains and to stop central ownership for general domains am accepting to people not sharing that view.

Will go see if private parties might be interested that also have a history for valuing open access cause really don’t have money as the only goal here (rather just trying to swap the NFTs non liquid exposure to ENS success to the liquid ENS token for ENS success).

Personally am happy to atleast have proposed the concept for the DAO to own core domains, atleast we now have a precedent and consensus.

This is definitely bold, I will give you that. However, I want to point out a few things.

  • Subdomains exist for the exact type of high-level functions you are describing. That is why the place to get your airdrop is https://claim.ens.domains/ and not claim.eth.
  • These types of subdomains should be created if proposed and passed by the DAO, as far as I understand it, that way there isn’t a financial incentive for the market to try to essentially squat domains.
  • To be honest with you, since you seem like a pretty direct person - when I read the way you talk about the domains you’re holding, it sounds like you put a lot of work or effort into something. That may be true, but I imagine that the “investment-minded” motivation to register them asap and wait for this exact moment shows, in my opinion, that you are more motivated by your own self interest that that of the project. I get that everyone wants an angle in this world, but holding 80,000 votes because you thought of some some domain names early isn’t a good look for decentralization.
  • I appreciate your initiative, but I don’t share the same rational for why you think you are entitled to the amount of control you are seeking, in return for what I feel is essentially squatting some generic domain names early.