I wrote really a lot in this thread so no need to repeat myself.
If my suggestion is wrong, nothing will be changed as it will be proven as wrong before the change is scheduled to occur. If I am not wrong, ENS will benefit before the end of this year and will be on the right track. Also already explained why.
Not now, only after 01/01/2024, and only if the condition will be fulfilled. A $50/y is max, and it would be only slightly better, but not good, if it would be lower than $640/y, but higher than $50/y.
To be honest, I am really disappointed. Not so much by the fact that probably my suggestion will stay ignored (my main goal was to raise awareness for now,), but mostly because I expected more cooperation from the DAO and a more friendly tone towards us with a different opinion, but with hope and belief since the days when there was no digits frenzy and when ENS was much less popular. I thought ENS is not owned by anyone and is decentralized.
I will stay in ENS, but yes, looking elsewhere too. I am not the only one.
I expected to hear from Nick at least some counterarguments to my suggestion. No need to mention what the market (including adopters) thinks about the current renewal fee structure.
But I don’t expect anything anymore. @nick.eth is still ignoring, previous replies were not a constructive discussion but more an arrogant denial, we are “squatters”, this thread is in a slow mode (very interesting discouragement) etc
Well, daylon.eth then confirm that you see 0 reason to change the renewal fees but know that
3ch registrations went down more than 70%
there are A LOT more 5 & 5+ character domains which are “squattable”
3ch set (around 2% of the supply) makes/made more than 40% of the protocols revenue
You don’t see a reason to adjust the renewal cost for 3 4 ch domains. For an naming system which is out since 5 6 years, there is no reason to do so? Charging x64 of the $ what web2 is doing but we’re still ok with that?
Yes or No ?
(also coltron.eth, since you liked daylon.eth reply , would love to get an answer from you too)
I’m requesting this to be closed.
-Very little delegate interest
-Lacking convincing evidence
“seems to be focused on squatters”
Not everyone can acquire the most desirable name unfortunately. Personally I don’t see anyone complaining or complaining to me. Please think about this–a handful of people are calling for reduced fees. At the same time there are dozens of handfuls that don’t mind at all. If it’s an affordability issue, then I would suggest looking into a different chain for your financial endeavors or register a longer name for only a few bucks. I’m sorry but this topic is dragging focus away from other initiatives.
And where is the problem with my suggestion? If you are right, and I am not (possible), nothing will be changed. But if I am right, we will see the EVIDENCE before any price change.
The market is the one that should set prices. Squatting is inevitable in any market and that is nothing bad. Moreover, I explained why it would be good for ENS in general to have more liquidity and more sales. You can check some categories that are registered as a whole and you will see that prices are dropping. The market is doings its job and setting prices to a fair level at this moment. Very simple.
The only clearly visible evidence we have at this moment is that this pricing is rejected by the market. That is a fact and I doubt anyone could argue that.
My suggestion would provide clear evidence that it is a better solution, or… nothing will be changed.
I am sorry, but as someone who is into domains for about 20 years, I believe I understand them and that I understand end-users. There is a very few end-users who are willing to pay $640/y or $160/y.
Check Twitter, many people are not agreeing with this pricing structure. But the real disagreement is even outside Twitter and especially outside this forum which rarely has more than 5-6 users online.
If people are dropping even good short names and new registrations are barely happening, nobody should be vocal that he/she is not agreeing with this price structure, it’s pretty clear what they think by their actions.
U really can’t believe that this fact is still ignored. Who are we waiting? Or what we are waiting for? A Bitcoin to develop layers and become what .eth and ENS should be?
unfortunate to see the discussion turn out like this, but also predictable. just another example of how the “dao” will just default to nick’s perspective on the matter, essentially delegating all(or nearly all) decision making to him.
why not just make 3char cost 1mil/year? then you would have zero “excessive speculative registrations” guaranteed
why not make 5char cost $10000/year? again, it would solve all your problems of the disdainful squatters
it’s very clearly a sliding scale with reasonableness somewhere in the ballpark of $10 and unreasonable costs-are-too-high has clearly been hit by the time we get to $650. would love to see stats on how many primary ens are set as 3chars(and 4chars) and how many of those have them set for more than 1 year. i dont even need to see the data to know that it is extremely low.
i think the high fees played a very important role during the bootstrapping phase. but i think it’s very clear we’re past that point and it’s time to start toning them down so that end-users can start adopting them without having to choose between a car they can drive for over a decade and typing out a couple less characters when they want to move some eth around.
it seems to me the dao likes to move slowly and carefully, which is great. which is why i recommend a gradual reduction in prices(over the course of years) until we start seeing a substantial increase in 3-4char primary ens that are happy to renew for multiple years in a row. ideally it should be for decades, should it not? the idea of a “forever ens” is becoming more common every day.