While this is still one more use case than most of crypto tokens, considering the great business model of ENS domains & their great usefulness (I for one believe than half a billion of individuals will have an ENS domain to their name by 2030 - yes that would be 2.5 billions in legit revenue every year), much better can be done to make the token, and holding it, relevant.
It is simple, it is straightforward, it is obvious, it gives the token a reason to exist & to be bought : share 20% of the domain registration revenues with token holders.
Since such an improvement would pump the token the decrease in income for the foundation would be compensated by the increase in treasury value.
It is also a great way to have the media talk about ENS since that reward model would be (to my knowledge) entirely new in the crypto space.
Obviously lots of details have to be thought out, discussed, agreed upon, like the fact the token would probably be considered by financial “authorities” as a security once a revenue sharing model is in place (but is that such a problem when the business model behind is sane like ENS model is ?).
& no, there is no circle back as long as there is volatility & not knowing what we are holding & why (from the airdrop in my case) there are 0 reason to hold much ensany more with ens @ 0.009btc & 0.12 xmr.
If the end game is gamblin on volatility, well, then, i’ll be more than happy with the half bitcoin i’m getting now from having registered early some .eth (but i’ll keep wondering how you plan to build a solid ecosystem with a treasury based on a volatile token that is only a speculative token, a token that should not even exist as it is - in fact the only reason i’m still holding is because i didn’t realize the since the start of the airdrop that i though what the hell let’s wait & see it’s a good project it will go back up - as this token has no use case & in a real & not delusional world it would be completely worthless.).
even if i’m wrong & ens token go steadily to 0.002 or more while never suffering from excessive volatility i’ll still be in profit for 1000000% in btc & xmr without reselling any of those .eth i bought so no big deal for me here you know, i’m happy to sell as i 'm happy to hold if i find a real use case & a reason to.
apologizes i wanted to edit a word then i messed up with my keyboard, ending up with a messed up sentence; now discourse don’t let me edit anymore !
…
(but i’ll keep wondering how you plan to build a solid ecosystem with a treasury based on a volatile token that is only a speculative token, a token that should not even exist as it is - in fact the only reason i’m still holding is because i didn’t realize it was worth anything at the start of the airdrop - & then i though what the hell let’s wait & see it’s a good project it could go back up ).
…
ENS token is for governance.
The ENS DAO has a revenue model that does not require sale of ENS token to fund operations. And so the token does not need to be muddied into a different classification and inherit those associated risks.
The token does enable governance activities & related participation.
Generally speaking, pump&dump, pumpamentals, or token price increase strategies do not incentivise real development & adoption for ENS.
Your communication reads as though primary objective is to make money on the token, and subsequent suggestions are aligned to achieve that desired personal gain (rather than achieve DAO initiatives). Speculating on token price is an individual choices and can be done in the open market. It isn’t the function of the token or goal for the DAO.
Personal view - In a realised future of ENS, the governance token will position as a significant & powerful tool/mechanism for maintain something exceptional. To zoom out & believe in the vision of ENS is to see that demand will come, and so both for then & in the meantime, the safeguarding of token to be solely governance oriented is pretty important.
For this proposal (& any future suggestions that suggest adding non-governance layers of token utility), i intend to be vocal in my objection.
my communication reads as give a real use case to this shitcoin that holds 0 true value as it is.
FACT : in this kind of DAO shitcoin (the token not the nameservice), in average, 1% of token holders have 90% of voting power in what is therefore fake decentralised governance with 99% of holders speculating.
With a share model , those 99% of holders that are in for the speculation would be largely in for the long term & would give more interest to the governance effectively decentralising it, taking powerout ofthose 1%.
With that having been pointed out i have to wonder whether you are naive or dishonest.