Reducing Renewal Fees for ENS Domains to Increase Adoption and Sustainability

[ENS878]

@pcfreak30

You are right in that a LOT of competition will be coming, and that is honestly a good thing. Competition breeds innovation. I do not see ETH as web3, nor am I honestly a big ETH fan/supporter personally, but I see it as one large player among many communities. So there will be soon in a few years a large sea of web3 TLDs, similar to ICANN gTLDs, and the only thing that stands out is marketing and branding, just like ICANN.

I agree, besides I AM an ENS fun and really like it

@pcfreak30

But ETH is not web3, it is not the only fish in the pond. The next 5 years are going to bring massive change, and so ENS sitting on its ass

I agree. .eth is not the only Web3 extension and pretty soon it will not have the privilege to be the one with the most utility.

Now we have Ordinals. Only a few weeks ago it looked like NFTs will not go to Bitcoin. My point is… that most end-users will only need their Web3 identity and their crypto wallet address that is readable and memorable. Some fancy tech stuff even I don’t understand neither will use, let alone your neighbor’s mom

BTC DeFi and dApps are on their way and will be active sooner than we think. The ENS will not be the most obvious option anymore. People might like ETH (cryptocurrency) and ENS, but Bitcoin will stay the number 1 crypto. When .btc progress, I see many people switching to it, or at least going into it at the same time as they are in .eth. There might be other competitors. Now it might not be easy to see it, but those times will come pretty soon.

ENS now has the chance to take the lead and keep it. The best way of doing it I see through making breaking news in mainstream media. Constantly bombard people with the names “ENS” and “.eth” and no other will have a chance later. It could be achieved by improving the liquidity of .eth domains and showing that .eth is a very desirable extension. With short names available (and also very expensive to carry), a newcomer will get totally different impression.

ENS already has some liquidity and popularity so it is a good foundation to build on that. Lowering the price of 3/4-chars would trigger mass registrations of those names. As many of them (3/4-chars) are really good and usable, it would trigger new sales. It will add to liquidity. Imagine another category popular as 3D.eths and 4D.eths, and what would that mean to .eth liquidity. 3Ls definitely has that potential.

Then it is reasonable to expect high sales. Mainstream media would notice that if we would have a lot of 3/4-chars sales every day there would be more courage within some of the investors/users to pay really premium for their wanted short name. That way ENS would have some really big sales. Mainstream media adore writing about some buying frenzy and about big sales.

If I am not right, no problem. If ENS DAO would listen to my suggestion, nothing would be changed by 01.01.2024. neither after that date, if the condition I mentioned would not be fulfilled. This would be a free test without consequences for the DAO budget if I am not right.

[ENS878]

A few examples from the most popular domain forum. Those are ads where investors looking for domains:

Example 1:

"Preferrable:

• short domains
• TLDs related to these industries
• 90+ tlds taken ccTLDs and .xyz
• 200+ tlds taken for ngTLDs
• standard renewal or low premium (sub 50$)
• no unrelated TLDs (de, com, hk, uk, jp, hair, dental, icu, wedding, etc)"

Example 2:

"New GTLDs wanted (topics: AI, NFT, WEB3, CRYPTO, ART)

only best combinations, something like crypto(.)world, ai(.)one, nft(.)store or crypto(.)art

names must be new gTLDs, preferably in .world, .life, .live, .online extensions, while all new gTLDs extensions are ok.

i am NOT interested in following extensions: ccTLDs, .com, .net, .org, so do not send me those

renewal fees must be standard, no premiums or small premiums not higher then USD 40/year"

Those are currently active requests from the most popular domain forum in the world, related to domains from the extension that are known as the ones which have some “premium pricing” in certain cases.

For a better visibility, I will extract just the renewal price part:

Ad 1:

• standard renewal or low premium (sub 50$)

Ad 2:

renewal fees must be standard, no premiums or small premiums not higher then USD 40/year"

It is obvious that it is normal to ask for domains that HAVE NOT a renewal price above $50/y, no matter how short and how good they are. I can confirm from my personal experience with the buyers who were end-users (I traded thousands of domains in my life) that they are scared of domains with high renewal prices.

So all this raises one question. Who we are protecting? Investors are dropping short names because of the renewal price, and end-users who already came picked the best ones (but it is likely that many of them will drop them during the renewal season that is in front of us).

Lowering the renewal price will not hurt anyone, just the opposite. All those great short names that are now available will be picked and ENS DAO will profit. Moreover, those names will be regularly renewed as $50/y and $20/y should be acceptable so that means a constant and sure revenue for DAO. Not just that, the announcement of the lowering now I am pretty sure would cause the bull run on short names.

I suggested that the current price stay the same until 01.01.2024 (but that DAO only announce now it MIGHT go down on 01.01.2024). So whoever wants to register a 3-char now would still pay $640/y. There is still a lot to pick from, so it is still fair to everyone. I believe many would be ready to pay $640/y now, to be sure they will have their wanted name when the renewal price falls down.

Those end-users who will come later had almost 6 years to come earlier (I bought BTC in 2013., I wish someone had kept me the price from 2009. in 2013. ). We should not wait for them for decades, but anyway, they will have their chance to secure their wanted short name on the aftermarket, or they can simply go for a 5+ character. That might be for $50, for $500, or for $15,000 per name, the market will decide, what is the only fair way.

[5pence.eth]

I’ll gently wade in here to offer a comment that is opposed to OP’s suggestion.

5$ per year is a very attainable price to most of the world and represents a low barrier of entry for anyone wanting to onboard into the ENS ecosystem. This is a very good thing. ENS should be proud we can offer the product we do at this attainable of a price point.

Your complaint that ENS overprices its scarcest asset (3 & 4 char) is interesting because your argument is that the high price on these domains prevents you from comfortably cornering the market and then charging higher prices on secondary.
I believe that is actually the exact intent of those higher fees.

In my opinion this thread shows that the current pricing was very well designed.

Thanks for the dialogue and discussion here.

[cap]

I’ll also throw in that with the upcoming NameWrapper there are going to be a ton of options to register super cool Subnames for free. I know a few 3-digit holders who plan to do this and we will also provide free Subnames with some of our Names. So there isn’t going to be anyone who’s left out.

And also, I feel like this discussion should’ve been concluded after @accessor.eth checkmated with:

@accessor.eth

ALL three character ‘.com’ domains have been registered almost 100% continuously since the last domain was registered in 1997.

[rendehero]

You should definitely read the conversation above where we argued WHY not EVERY 3ch or 4ch is “premium” just because its short.

@5pence.eth

Your complaint that ENS overprices

@5pence.eth

represents a low barrier of entry

Since when is crypto low barrier of entry ? ,
if someone pays 50$/60$ to register an ENS domain and/or pays that amount to transfer an NFT or making a txn’s for x2 - x10 cost of the renewal fees of their ENS … sry something is not “well designed/priced”

[ENS878]

@5pence.eth

5$ per year is a very attainable price to most of the world and represents a low barrier of entry for anyone wanting to onboard into the ENS ecosystem.

At the moment that “$5” is more than $30, as at this very moment it will cost you $30+ to reg a 5+ character for a 1-year period.

Lately, it is usually above $20+ during most of the day.

Ok, that has nothing to do with ENS DAO and it is because of the gas fee, but the registrant doesn’t care whose that fault is as all he cares about is how much he will pay at the end.

However, I agree that a $5 is very affordable, and I would backup the idea of raising that to even $10 if that is needed to lower the pricing of 3/4-chars renewals.

@5pence.eth

Your complaint that ENS overprices its scarcest asset (3 & 4 char) is interesting because your argument is that the high price on these domains prevents you from comfortably cornering the market and then charging higher prices on secondary.

No My argument is that it hurts the whole market. The reasons I explained in detail above.

BTW, at this moment, 90+ percent of ENS owners are speculating and “cornering” the market. However, that is the case in almost any domain space and there is nothing wrong with that. If we did not have speculators, ENS would not have a secondary market now or it would be with less than 1 ETH daily volume.

@cap

I’ll also throw in that with the upcoming NameWrapper there are going to be a ton of options to register super cool Subnames for free.

I look forward to NameWrapper, but the super cool and quality domain is not the same

@cap

So there isn’t going to be anyone who’s left out.

That’s not the point. No one is left out even now as anyone can go for a 5+ character and reg it for only $5/y + gas fee. That was not the point.

@nick.eth , I would appreciate your opinion on this suggestion:

@ENS878

Announce soon that from 01.01.2024. renewals of 3-chars will cost $50/y and of 4-chars $20/y, but only under condition that on 1st of December 90% of all 3Ls is registered and that at least 50000 4-chars are registered.

That would be a test. A real one, not my opinion or opinion of any other individual on the forum, while the forum has almost no visitors (compared to potential). If we start seeing increase in registrations, even with the current price, that would be a pure proof we found the problem.

Until 01.01.2024. all registration and renewal prices stay the same as they are today.

That way ENS DAO doesn’t lose anything and is not obligated to lower the prices later if the condition will not be fulfilled. Very simple

[accessor.eth]

@ENS878

No matter how rare and valuable 3L .coms are, they have a renewal fee of about $10/y. Thats normal. The market is the one that will decide the price on the secondary market for those who come late, and the carry cost should not be high.

I understand what you are saying! I do want to argue this point in response:

3L ‘.com’ renewals at ~ $10 per year really only gives you the right to use the domain. The price of owning the 3L is far different.

This is where the features of ENS become a true benefit as somebody owns those 3L’s and simply rent them out, right? Which is comparable to using ENS subdomains as delivered product within the bounds of the address holders registration period; which is essentially an ownership fee, except with a time limit to entice the domain as a usable product to actually be used. Sort of a shift in the distribution of ownership per se.

I see the fees as they are right now to be a incentive mechanism to actually use the name and not as a speculative asset to squat. With a web2 domain, someone could just purchase the name outright forever and then if it’s not used; it essentially goes to waste, regardless of the want to use an unused name (by a persons who wants to actually use it)

Now imagine someone scooping up thousands of good ENS names then hoarding them purely for speculative purposes and price gouging. That is NOT want we should want for ENS.

I think that is a more than fair response against lowering name prices. I beleive lowering the prices would entice people to speculatively squat more. That goes completly against the idea and vision of why ENS exists and thrives.

---

@cap

And also, I feel like this discussion should’ve been concluded after @accessor.eth checkmated with:

ALL three character ‘.com’ domains have been registered almost 100% continuously since the last domain was registered in 1997.

hey, I’ll take that trophy !!

---

!!   As other perspectives are considered, open for discussion and welcomed...
 ... **we can not forget the roots in *why* ENS exists** !!

[ENS878]

@accessor.eth

I think that is a more than fair response against lowering name prices. I beleive lowering the prices would entice people to speculatively squat more. That goes completly against the idea and vision of why ENS exists and thrives.

Well, that is exactly the case. Thousands of .eth domains are occupied just as speculation. Actually, I would say more than 2,000,000 , but thousands of them are really great. House.eth, Crypto.eth, Furniture.eth, Loans.eth etc… I didn’t check who owns them, but I know they cost only 5/y, and am pretty sure they are occupied with the purpose of speculation and to profit.

Some of the best personal names are not owned by the persons who carry those names. But, the owners of those domains are often the ones who bring the liquidity to this market and without them ENS would be less popular.

Anyone can renew Loans.eth for 50 years and price it $50,000,000 without using it, and then that domain would be “lost”. And in that case a low renewal fee is not a problem for the community? I am not saying that 5+chars should have a higher renewal price. Sorry, but I don’t agree with you and I still stand behind my reasoning and suggestion

[accessor.eth]

@ENS878

Anyone can renew Loans.eth for 50 years and price it $50,000,000 without using it, and then that domain would be “lost”. And in that case a low renewal fee is not a problem for the community? I am not saying that 5+chars should have a higher renewal price. Sorry, but I don’t agree with you and I still stand behind my reasoning and suggestion

Fair point. But it’s nearly impossible to clause for a specific outcome when clause is unique variable.

I just thought this new thought:

I think the issue on speculation and squatting have more flexability–defined; but only within the bounds of projects genesis point in time. That flexibility of domain system being defined in terms of the ethics of ownership from a large participant consensus presents less scrutiny up until the point that transfer of ownership creates friction from:

• unfair prices
• price gouging actually occurs
• the current ownership of a name with prospective of being purchased is deterred by speculator(s)
• general consensus of overpriced domain(s)
• a force majure into ownership regardless of cost incurred
• use of name for service is essentially denied by a owner of said name with demand, but not in use.

[ENS878]

I understand your point, but well, that is an eternal debate when it comes to domains Domains, either .com or .eth or .xyz or .art or any other, are mostly speculative assets. Of course there are many real end-users, but there are even more speculators. That is the case from day one and will be till the last day. If you look only in .eth, the main people in the community own more than one .eth. Do they have more than 1 identity?

Speculators in the domain space are market makers. They actually help. I don’t want even to think about what would happen to this domain space and especially to the .eth market if we don’t have speculators who are trying to earn something on digits.

Of course many of speculators are unrealistic and some great domains are out of use because of unrealistic price expectations. However, they were in the right place at the right time and have the right to ask whatever they want.

I would like to use BTC every day and pay each whole BTC $1. Why so many people are hodlers and don’t want to sell not now, but even for less than $100,000? They don’t use it, they are just hodling it. I want to use it. Those peple should be paying $10,000 per month for renewing their BTC, or they should let it to someone who will use it

If you own two real estates, nobody can force you that you sell the other one at a “fair price”, but nobody is questioning and judging that. If you price a house worth $1,000,000 at $10,000,000 you won’t sell. Simple as that. The same is with domains. Those who are realistic will then lower the price, and the others will not.

When you want to expand, and your neighbor is asking a ridiculous amount for a small part of his land, nobody will judge him like the domain owner with too high pricing is judged.

I am 20 years in domains and listening all the time about “squatting”, greed etc. Interestingly, in other industries that is not the case. Even in .eth space the majority of the community thinks Samsung.eth, Amazon.eth etc are holy grails. No, that is the real squatting and TM infringement. If I take fqj.eth or StuipidNameThatIDontWantToSellCheap.eth and ask $1M for each, that is my right and nothing here is immoral. Let alone that I am hurting myself by my stupidity because I am paying renewals for something that I don’t use nor will ever sell at asked price.

[rendehero]

@accessor.eth

I see the fees as they are right now to be a incentive mechanism to actually use the name and not as a speculative asset to squat.

How you explain the decline of registered 3ch domains from 49k to 16k and declining ?
Gotta understand that some speculators entering of course but as soon as the momentum is gone , it expires (as we see rn), a decrease in price would not lead to " squatting " more, it might have a spike in registrations but would also lead to expirations.

@accessor.eth

hey, I’ll take that trophy !!

stop, this is cringe that’s anything but not “checkmated”

@accessor.eth

3L ‘.com’ renewals at ~ $10 per year really only gives you the right to use the domain. The price of owning the 3L is far different.

you just said a really exclusive amount of 3 character domains .com domains are registered since 1997 but also said it just costs 10$ ?
while comparing this to a niche (yea crypto, still niche and especially ens) with a cost of 640$ yearly cost WHILE not only Letter / digit combinations possible but with emojis / letters / digits

@Theth.eth

Nick said further up the thread that there are only 16,353 3 character names registered at the time of that post, I feel it will be well below that now, but out of billions of combinations we only have 16,353 names rego’d

… how exclusive is that to .com domains and justifies the 640$ cost compared to 10$ ?

[ENS878]

@rendehero

you just said a really exclusive amount of 3 character domains .com domains are registered since 1997 but also said it just costs 10$ ?
while comparing this to a niche (yea crypto, still niche and especially ens) with a cost of 640$ yearly cost WHILE not only Letter / digit combinations possible but with emojis / letters / digits

And we wonder why ENS short names are available Dot .com is and will stay (at least for another decade) the best domain extension in existence. Web3 domains are great and can do things, but the majority of the world will still mostly need only DNS, where the .com is an absolute king.

In .com you can have only a hyphen, and it must not be at the beginning or at the end. There is no such thing as a “negative number”. Other special characters are not allowed unless it is a IDN, but in that case that is not a “normal” domain.

You can have an IDN, so in that case you can use let’s say the greek alphabet or Cyrillic.

But…

I just checked one 2 letter (no character, but letter) .com domain I used to have. It’s available! A 2-letter (2L) .COM (the absolute king) domain is available for registration. The cost? $8.95/year at Dynadot. Anyone think that some 3-character in some .eth for which only a few people in the world ever heard is rarer than a 2L in .globally well-known COM?!

I would rather register a 2L.com (although IDN) and import it into ENS and use all the ENS benefits than be paying $640/year for some random 3-char .eth. It’s a no-brainer. A .com 2L IDN domain would cost about $10/year and could be imported into ENS and use all the benefits of having an ENS.
Sorry DAO, but this current pricing really doesn’t make any sense.

But ok, even if this common sense is not enough, I guess my strongest argument is that the market showed it is NOT INTERESTED at all at 3-chars and 4-chars at $640/y and $160/y.

I guess DAO is waiting for some new bull run in crypto and/or in ENS domains. Ok, but that waiting is hurting ENS and I explained why. Moreover, DAO says it is not interested in profit. Then why so stubborn waiting with the ridiculously high pricing?

It’s because of the users? Well, short names are served to them. What are they waiting for? Well, maybe a price reduction?

The main fear is that domains would not be available for real end-users. Why? They will be burned? They would be even more available as if no one would pay $1,000 or $500 at the secondary market, the price will go down. That’s the rule of the market, without someone’s principles.

Someone would ask a million for a random 3L? Ok, that will be his right. When he realizes he can’t get it, he will agree to sell at a reasonable price or will be paying $50/y for his stupidity.

If the domain is worth $100,000 then the owner should pay $640/y? NO. If my car would be spending 10 gallons per 100 miles, I would get rid of it immediately, even if it would be the rarest car in the world.

TEU.eth is available. I don’t want to reg it for $640 and pay $640 every year, but if you offer me TEU.com for $10,000, just give me a second to send you my email address so that you can start an Escrow.com transaction. Or if 3L.eths would have a $50/y renewal, I would be glad to pay a premium for TEU.eth on the secondary market. Now, to pay $640? No thanks.

In my suggestion, $640 would still be the price until 01.01.2024. I am sure all 3Ls would be taken very soon, and a lot of 3-chars and 4-chars. Just calculate how much would DAO earn from that, and how much it is earning now from no registration and dropping of short names.

I am 99.9% sure that the renewal price of short names will be lowered in max 3 years. You are free to quote this later But 3 years is too long and it will be too late. By then, ENS is risking becoming just one of many. Now, it can get the crown. But there will be no crown if it doesn’t do something about liquidity and visibility, and the best way for that is to lower the renewal price of short names and boost the market that way.

Just announce my suggestion and watch. It cost nothing, it doesn’t risk anything. It only could have no effect, or could trigger a new frenzy on the whole ENS market, not just in short names, attract new investors and users and attract the interest of mainstream media, for free!

[nick.eth]

Just a reminder to everyone still arguing here about clause II of the ENS constitution:

II. Fees are primarily an incentive mechanism

The primary purpose of registration fees is as an incentive mechanism to prevent the namespace becoming overwhelmed with speculatively registered names. A secondary purpose is to provide enough revenue to the DAO to fund ongoing development and improvement of ENS. ENS governance will not enact any fee other than for these purposes.

Examples

Permissible : ENS governance may increase the price of name registrations in order to address excessive speculative registrations induced by a price that is set too low, or because the current price is insufficient to fund ongoing ENS operations at a reasonable level.

Not Permissible : ENS governance must not enact a change imposing a fee for claiming DNS domains inside ENS, because such a fee would be purely an income generating measure and not an incentive mechanism.

The goal of ENS is not to extract maximum possible revenue from registration fees. Nor is it even to maximize the number of registered names. Its goal is to maximise the usage and usefulness of ENS.

A large factor in that is ensuring that the primary market remains a viable way for users to acquire names that represent themselves or their project easily and without fuss.

If you want to argue that ENS’s goals should be different - profit maximisation, or maximising registration figures, for instance - you will need to start a separate discussion about amending the constitution.

[rendehero]

@nick.eth

namespace becoming overwhelmed with speculatively registered names

This is in no relation compared to 5+ch names. If you go by this logic you’d increase the 5$ names to 100$ at least.
Makes 0 sense to price 3ch names for 640$ and 5+ch at 5$.
Which 3ch names would overwhelm the namespace with speculatively driven ppl compared to the other billion 5$ domain names ?

[ENS878]

Sorry @nick.eth , I appreciate all you have done and are still doing for ENS, but I can’t agree with you about this Actually, we are not in official disagreement, but you are just ignoring my suggestion.

@nick.eth

The primary purpose of registration fees is as an incentive mechanism to prevent the namespace becoming overwhelmed with speculatively registered names.

Currently, in a short names space, we have the opposite, an incentive mechanism to prevent end-users to pick their short name and to prevent speculators to add liquidity to the market through trading short names.

@nick.eth

The goal of ENS is not to extract maximum possible revenue from registration fees. Nor is it even to maximize the number of registered names. Its goal is to maximise the usage and usefulness of ENS.

I understand that the goal is not to make maximum profit, but currently we have an active discouragement that anyone even touches short names. That will for sure not help the usage and usefulness, don’t you agree?

@nick.eth

A large factor in that is ensuring that the primary market remains a viable way for users to acquire names that represent themselves or their project easily and without fuss.

I would like to have NFT.eth and use it for a project. Well, someone else is holding it, just like 629 other ENS domains. Somehow I doubt that person is planning 629 projects

I would like to start a project under MensShoes.eth. Oh, too bad, the same person that holds NFT.eth holds this one too.

I guess that the “large factor” of ENS is not working properly, and all that it does, is hurting those who would like to enter into that short names space that is still available or not too expensive on the aftermarket.

There are about 2.7M registered ENS names and an almost infinite number of unregistered combinations. Why that small percentage of short names is held away from interested people? The market would benefit as I explained in previous posts, the liquidity would be boosted, the interest would be boosted, and even the usage would be boosted.

This pricing market/users rejected. It cant be unseen. DAO is not here to make a max profit as you said. Ok, so where is the problem with lowering the renewal pricing?

If you think DAO would make less money so it would not be efficient to keep the system working, there is a simple solution. Lower the renewals of 3/4-chars to $50y and $20/y, but raise the 5+ chars price to $6 or $7. The math is simple. DAO is not making $5,000,000+ from short names at this moment, and whatever is making, that is rapidly dropping as can easily be seen. If you raise the price of 5+ chars for only $2, on 2M+ names is will bring almost additional $5M. Plus, short names would finally be in use and would be bringing revenue sustainably.
If you would argue that the owner of that 2M registered longer names would not be happy, that would not be a good argument When I go to register or renew a 5-character, the gas price could be different by $2 from the moment i started the transaction till the moment I finished. So nobody cares for $2 as we all know how gas prices can vary and $2 more or less is calculated in advance.

Even if only one person would take all 3/4-chars, others will still have a chance to enter into ENS and to pick a name for themselves. Either in the 5+ chars space, or by buying from that large holder on the secondary market. If he would be stupid enough to be unrealistic with pricing, he would not sell anything, and only a stupid person would be paying even $50/y for tons of names that are not sellable.

So that would not happen and we would have a healthier market with more liquidity that would attract more interest and more users and that would get ENS a crown now while we can build on a great foundation before the competition gets too strong.

[daylon.eth]

Respectfully, I’m trying really hard to understand the point you’re trying to make, but I can’t.

Maybe it’s worth noting that secondary sales do not effect the DAO in any way at all? There are no royalties from secondary sales, so the only revenue that goes to the DAO is from registrations or renewals. That’s the part I’m confused about… why are you talking about liquidity? I don’t understand how the concept of liquidity even applies to new registrations and renewals.

Do you mean liquidity as in names are more likely to be let expire, and then can be rebought by someone else? Because adjusting prices wouldn’t change what is already paid for.

Overall I’m just really confused, like I said, sorry.

Can you maybe give a short bulleted list or something of the point you’re trying to make, please? And how you think your suggestion would address it?

[ENS878]

@daylon.eth

Maybe it’s worth noting that secondary sales do not effect the DAO in any way at all? There are no royalties from secondary sales, so the only revenue that goes to the DAO is from registrations or renewals. That’s the part I’m confused about… why are you talking about liquidity? I don’t understand how the concept of liquidity even applies to new registrations and renewals.

Currently the number of short names rapidly dropping. DAO is making less and less from short names with each new day. Yes, something comes from premium so maybe that is the reason why DAO still not taking any action, but in a long run, that is no good.

With $50/y and $20/y structure, there will be a sustainable continuous registration of many more short names than now. That would be a constant and sustainable revenue.

By boosting liquidity to the secondary market (imagine another category like 4D.eth and trading in that category each day - 3Ls would that be for sure) there would be much more interest in ENS. From speculators at first, and that would attract mainstream media, and then end-users who would choose a live extension with a lot of liquidity rather than the same thing from some provider where there is no liquidity. Talked about that a lot in my previous posts.

@daylon.eth

Can you maybe give a short bulleted list or something of the point you’re trying to make, please? And how you think your suggestion would address it?

Please, if you are interested and have time :), read all my posts in this thread. I will try to make another more summarized post later.

[nick.eth]

@rendehero

This is in no relation compared to 5+ch names. If you go by this logic you’d increase the 5$ names to 100$ at least.
Makes 0 sense to price 3ch names for 640$ and 5+ch at 5$.
Which 3ch names would overwhelm the namespace with speculatively driven ppl compared to the other billion 5$ domain names ?

Quite the reverse, actually. If it were strictly ratiometric, at $640 for a 3 character name, and assuming a-z0-9- as valid characters, a 4 character name would cost $17.29, and a 5 character name would cost $0.47. Conversely, if a 5 character name is $5, a 3 character name would be $6,845 per year.

@ENS878

Currently, in a short names space, we have the opposite, an incentive mechanism to prevent end-users to pick their short name and to prevent speculators to add liquidity to the market through trading short names.

A name speculator does not “add liquidity”; this is nonsense. Prices that are low enough to make speculation on a wide variety of names profitable make it harder for end users to obtain the name they want. Put simply, a higher carry cost reduces the value of the name as an asset.

[rendehero]

@nick.eth

Quite the reverse, actually. If it were strictly ratiometric, at $640 for a 3 character name, and assuming a-z0-9- as valid characters, a 4 character name would cost $17.29, and a 5 character name would cost $0.47. Conversely, if a 5 character name is $5, a 3 character name would be $6,845 per year.

im not talking about strict → supply / demand → price here

@nick.eth

ENS governance may increase the price of name registrations in order to address excessive speculative registrations induced by a price that is set too low

The opposite scenario happening rn, no? why not decreasing the price of those name registrations ?
Since so many are in grace and probably expiring. As you said, 49k down to 16k , isn’t that a sign?
Or does this argument just work in one direction ?

Also, there are A LOT more names to get “squatted” in the 5+ch sets compared to the 3ch’s

The question is 3ch names would “overwhelm” the namespace with speculatively driven ppl compared to the 5+ch domain names ?
The argument about “governance may increase the price of name registrations in order to address excessive speculative registrations” is simply in no relation to that.

[ENS878]

@nick.eth

A name speculator does not “add liquidity”; this is nonsense.

Remove speculators, and ENS would have a few sales per month. Or in the best-case scenario a few sales per day. It is not hard to see that.

Last example, 48319.eth sold a few minutes ago. Someone’s identity? It is more likely someone bougth it now because is expecting it will be worth more later.

@nick.eth

Prices that are low enough to make speculation on a wide variety of names profitable make it harder for end users to obtain the name they want. Put simply, a higher carry cost reduces the value of the name as an asset.

I really wrote a lot in my previous posts. Please read.

@rendehero

The opposite scenario happening rn, no? why not decreasing the price of those name registrations ?
Since so many are in grace and probably expiring. As you said, 49k down to 16k , isn’t that a sign?
Or does this argument just work in one direction ?

That!

@rendehero

As you said, 49k down to 16k , isn’t that a sign?

And dropping…

It is soooo obvious what is the reason.

I still hope that my suggestion will be at least seriously considered Again, DAO could not lose anything and could benefit a lot (not just DAO, but ENS as well, which is the most important).