I think the vast majority of people would agree that pricing renewals in fiat is outrageously terrible as a plan. It has also been suggested to reduce registration fees to avoid the project falling off a cliff like other NFT projects. Most of the rare names have already been registered, and while renewal fees discourage squatting quite well, there are many things that don’t make sense. It is clear, without a pricing study (that should have been done early last year), that the DAO will lose massively on renewals in the coming years as the project contracts.
There is also the problem of domain holders not participating in the DAO and being disenfranchised by insiders who who hold most of the governance/security tokens used to vote in the DAO and speculating on the project’s odds of success.
It would kill two birds in one stone to change renewal fees to the ENS token. It would also be advisable to reduce renewal fees in the interim while this solution is rolled out by 80%. This would protect the digits and other clubs that make up a bulk of the ENS DAO’s revenue. The changes could also be asymmetrical and favor only digits clubs, as these have no issues with squatting.
Use the ENS token for renewal…well that isn’t going to work as it has a fixed supply and by using it for renewal you evectivally burn it, so over time the supply is getting less and less and thus your renewals will get more and more expensive
I think there is a solid core group of active and regular contributors. Any more could really congest communication. But that isn’t saying more are not welcome, because like I have said before “anyone is welcome to voice there opinion” at the same time it is up to the DAO as a whole and it’s participants to make that opinion move.
This topic is a continuation of other threads.
“Since I have an iPhone, my opinion about Apple MUST be considered by all of Apple”
You’re laughing at the majority of DAO revenue. You won’t be laughing after this year.
Use the ENS token for renewal…well that isn’t going to work as it has a fixed supply and by using it for renewal you effectively burn it, so over time the supply is getting less and less and thus your renewals will get more and more expensive
Tokens can be split into infinite decimals including derivative token contracts if 18 decimals isn’t enough.
You don’t burn it if it is used for governance. It goes to the DAO. If it’s not a security then nobody should be concerned with its value, only its purpose in terms of governance.
Twitter sentiment, which is the majority of users.
ENS is not an “NFT project”
It is in fact one of the very first NFT projects. I’ve been here since before the original registrar launched. The entire point of ENS is that it tokenizes domains. Ever try to sell a domain on Sedo? Yea, you haven’t because it’s impossible to even validate half the time.
I’ve let a lot of higher value domains expire because it’s just not worth the hassle of selling for 4 or low 5 figures. They get swept up by the registrars and sit for years squatted for high prices. The speculation market in ENS is what stops this. Fair value and equilibrium is found because the market has magnitudes less friction.
Do you have evidence to support your claim? Saying “it’s clear” is not evidence.
The average address age of domain holders. The total Ether in accounts newer than 365 days. The total domain renewals. The floor prices of the domain market. The total volume of domains being traded. Twitter sentiment for key hash tags dropping worse relative to other Ethereum projects.
Choosing not to participate is not being disenfranchised. Unless you mean disenfranchise oneself. Then yes, it is that.
The DAO has a disconnect from the people using it. If the DAO does not serve the end user, then everything fails. There’s no doubt that DAO governance is hard. There’s been considerable effort to try and make this work, but it isn’t. The airdrop was a disaster, and all smart money dumped their tokens, just like insiders continue to dump now on the weekly. It wouldn’t be a bad thing to have a security token, but the ENS token is touted as a governance token to foster the ENS community. Right now it’s just not working.
You talked about using the ENS Gov token as payment for the yearly registration instead of FIAT or ETH
My answer is still correct, it simple won’t work, if you are paying with a fixed supply token then the token supply gets smaller and thus gets more expensive, yes you could reduce the cost of what is needed for the renewal cost, but again eventually you will run out of the Gov Tokens no matter how small you make the cost, obviously, it would take a long time, but it’s not a model that should be considered at all.
As for the digits, if you fell for that marketing pump then i’m sorry, but it was going one of 2 ways, either the rest of ENS would catch up, or the digits price would fall, those with poor risk management didn’t see that it was all hype, FOMO and pump from a few people pushing them hard and the risk of them falling was high
I remember people pumping digits stating that you can pay the yearly fees by selling sub-domains as everyone will want to have a sub-domain of a digit as they are so scarce, 1000 999 names, 8 billion people in the world, everyone will want a sub-domain
As I said, all manufactured FOMO by some people who are semi-good at marketing and have now disappeared
ENS is a decentralized naming service. It is not designed to be an investment opportunity. Obviously, you do you… but the DAO is very well capitalised at this point and can (and imo should) use that money to promote the protocol further. As I understand, they are (having met and spoken to various participants). It just takes time, and effort.
But y’all need to stop with this belief that because you invest in a ‘club’ the protocol should be fundamentally changed to make it easier for you to make money…