In order to enable more people to use ENS as Web3 0, making ENS the target of NFT’s largest IP address! I think it is necessary to add another fire under the premise of the current popularity of ENS domain names!
That is to reduce the registration fee and renewal price, so as to have a lower threshold and a higher market retention rate. Cover a wider range of people, so that everyone can use ens, so that ENS can smoothly enter daily life and work.
So,i have a Suggestion: for the already popular ENS domain name market, add a fire, reduce the registration fee and renewal fee, boost the market and detonate ENS as the first IP of NFT. NFT still needs to rely on ENS as Web3 0 to successfully.
Support. The domain name usage fee of web3 should be lower than that of web2, not more expensive, otherwise there is no reason for everyone to support ENS. More decentralized, but more expensive? The core of ENS should be to improve everyone’s awareness of ENS and promote more people to adopt ENS domain names. From an economic point of view, the income of ENS DAO can also grow faster.
I’m pretty certain gas prices are being conflated with registration fees. Gas fees are (in my opinion) the most detrimental factor holding back mass adoption of Ethereum as a truly global computing infrastructure. There is nothing we can do about gas prices, unfortunately.
I think at some point the DAO may need to consider lowering the fees for certain characters (i.e. foreign languages where single characters constitute entire words).
The good news about the cost/adoption analysis is subdomains should begin to fill those gaps.
For example, Coinbase integrating Coinbase.eth subdomains can be a inflection point in mass adoption (I’m not sure what the anticipated cost will be for a Coinbase.eth subdomain, but presumably it will be very cost effective, if not free). Similarly, where a 3L/3N domain might be out of reach financially for many worldwide, subdomains can offer endless possibilities of high quality names at cost effective pricing, if not free where it makes sense to the domain owner to onboard users to their platform.
Me being very active in the ENS market discord, I can contest that there is not a general consensus of complaint against registration costs.
Also reducing registration fees means will will reduce DAO revenue. I am strongly against this.
Yes gas fees at times can be high but there are most certainly periods of time when gas fees are not through the roof. If you can’t adjust to gas fees and be flexible at certain times then I suggest users reevaluate certain onchain activities. Registration of ENS names have more flexibility in when you register them comparing to —let’s say moving six figures somewhere in the DeFi world.
I think the fee costs need to be judged vs. the funding requirements of ENS now and in the future. The honest answer is someone can register a 5 or 10 letter domain and its pretty cheap or affordable in most cases?
I do think the 3 character fee seems a bit high for a typical person to interact with and I wonder how much revenue the 3 character fee and renewal generates compared to the whole pie?
From the novice user perspective, I’m in favor of this idea. But from the DAO fiduciary perspective, it’s probably best to leave the renewal price structure alone. the economic pressures seem fairly well toleranced to prevent large scale block accumulation of the most scarce & coveted assets <5 character ENS. Moreover, the renew price for >5 character ENS are likewise well defined to enable the average crypto user access to a personal ENS, while also prohibiting venture capitalists & heavy wallets from leveraging a monopolistic scatter-shot approach.
So, as much as everyone appreciated reduced fees (particularly for <5 character domains), the chances of the average user acquiring those coveted domains will likely diminish relative to the whales who have greater access to sweep the grails. It’s a pretty fine system at present. I’m inclined to let it alone, since the effect is to select for quality over quantity. I appreciate this opportunity to think it through together.
I’ll disagree. From a standpoint of abuse, the registration fees combined with monthly registration period is already enabling squatting by mass registrations. And the market is already very saturated that you will not find good names easily. Lowering the fees will only worsen the former said issue. As for the latter, we might want lower retention rate to free up names for future would-be genuine users of the domains.
ENS domains in comparison to traditional popular domain extensions is already much cheaper considering the utility it provides.
making ENS the target of NFT’s largest IP address!
ENS is leading the charts, it’s already the main go to for most cryptocurrency projects. Metamask alone attracts millions of users. The issue is more to do with lack of formal marketing and partnerships outside of the crypto’ sphere of influence.
I don’t think reducing the fee of registration is a good idea. 5+ character name is enough for common usages. And from a practical point of view, the prices of 640 and 160 for 3 and 4 character name didn’t put people off.
In a way, the current registration fee mechanism is one of the key factors for ENS to get to where it is now. It is one of the guards of ENS to stay competitive.
I think there’s two sides to this. On base level maybe yes it’s a nice thought to reduce the fees. But then when you look at from a fiduciary perspective especially with DAO finances and revenue, the fees are best as it is.
And in this case i think the later takes higher priority as there’s really no outrage about the price at the moment.
