No. They are just identifiers. Anything you can do with one ENS name can just as easily be done with any other ENS name. Your project should be the innovative work, and the ENS name is merely one of many web3 utilities that the project uses.
Lower character count may just look nicer in marketing because itâs shorter, succinct. 3-4 characters are typically used for company/project abbreviations, for example. And companies typically want to own their own abc.com for that reason. There are many projects and companies out there with identical abbreviations, but only one of them owns that .com. That doesnât mean that those other companies are now blocked from innovating in the marketplace. The short .com identifier is undeniably desirable (hence why pricing is higher), but not necessary by any means.
This appears to be the crux of your argument. That the current pricing of 3L/4L somehow means that âinnovationâ is being stifled. No, I reject that axiom outright, sorry.
In order to really have scientific understanding about prices would be nice to have some econometrics specialist who can provide quantitative insight into the matter
Kudos to @Bromhil for initiating this discussion. I agree with we should brainstorm on how to encourage adoption of ENS. However, focusing on pricing is not the answer.
We all know that .COM remains the most valuable domain extension, even after the introduction of over 1,000 new DNS extensions since 2001. Speculators jumped in only AFTER there was significant adoption for .COM.
However, the reverse has happened for new gtlds and web3 domains. Speculators were first in line. These âearly adoptersâ of new gltlds provided must needed early cash flows to the registries but have actually discouraged actual adoption by users looking to build a new identity by scooping up the most valuable names. As a result, most of the new gtld speculators are still waiting to sell their inventory of âempty lotsâ
A similar scenario is playing out in ENS. While speculators provided early cash flows, they own a lot of âempty lotsâ and are waiting for others to develop around them and thereby increase their resale value. If anything, the cost of an empty lot should be increased to encourage development (sounds like a solution to the housing crisis!)
One opportunity to consider is how to get more brands to adopt ENS. But that would require an anti-abuse policy to address the trademark cybersquatters among the speculators. But that is another discussionâŠ
I also agree with the considerations of outsized risks, of doing more harm (seen-and-unforeseen), and/or incurring costs to decentralized systems (seen-and-unforeseen).
Why is there an intense focus on preserving 3L and 4L domains as luxury goods, especially when the potential number of âpremiumâ domains is relatively small compared to the trillions of possibilities Unicode brings?
This question cannot not be overlooked.
We must question if this preservation is truly serving the broader ENS ecosystem or simply perpetuating a limited and artificial scope of âluxuryâ due to these exorbitantly high fees which are not observed in working, feasible DNS pricing models.
Itâs also important to clarify that this upfront premium, as I have proposed, is designed to deter non-serious squatters and the proliferation of âcopycat domainsâ â a concern that admittedly seems overstated, especially given the lack of evidence for such issues in the 5L+ category, where lower costs would presumably have led to rampant duplication as expressed by concerned forum posters.
Yet⊠we see that squatting has in-fact not been eradicated at all but rather shifted, and the data from âENS Summer 2022â illustrates this issue starkly.
It shows a worrying decline in the long-term holding of domains, indicating that the current high fees are not just deterring speculators but also otherwise genuine users who find these high costs prohibitive and I argue that you donât have to look very hard to find examples of this everywhere.
This trend suggests that our current approach might be counterproductive, inadvertently stifling creativity and participation in the ENS ecosystem.
Itâs essential to recognize that squatting has not been eradicated but merely redirected⊠an oversight I have yet to see acknowledged by responders to this proposal thus far.
By insisting on a hefty upfront premium for 3L and 4L, we actively encourage a thoughtful commitment to the ENS space rather than stifling those who would have otherwise participated within the ecosystem.
This is a strategic move meant to dissuade the frivolous hoarding of short domains while paving the way for genuine users to innovate and truly utilize their ENS for its intended purpose⊠and the DAO as an open protocol should NOT be expected to define what these purposes are.
In doing so, weâre not just preventing squatting; weâre actively promoting a more vibrant and participatory domain landscape which encourages more use across character lengths.
This should be seen as a win for everyone.
For the passionate users that can explore more possibilities and for the DAO and its increased revenue stream as people are now incentivized to maintain their âluxuryâ domains for longer periods of time.
Keeping all of these factors in mind I argue that the current strategy does not prevent squatting; rather it simply redistributes it to a different tier of domains as we can see openly and publicly as a majority of these âluxuryâ domains sit in wallets such as ENSAgent.
If we are genuinely committed to fostering a fair and dynamic ENS environment, we must address this imbalance.
The luxury status of short domains should be a product of their inherent value and usage, not an artificial price barrier that stifles the ecosystemâs growth and the exploration of its full creative potential.
I look forward to exploring these thoughts with you all further as we seek to find a balance that benefits all parties.
Looking back what would .com have done different to make sure names are actually used, not squatted on and not just used for price speculation
These are the aims of ENS, and they have the opportunity to put them in place for the future
Just now, the groups squatting on names and making clubs have deemed the short ENS names as luxury goods priced at a high value, ENS has not done that, the public has
Everyone that gets into ENS in the next 2,3,4 years is an early adopter in my view, itâs all still very very new, even though it has been around for years
No offense intended, but I believe this perspective lacks much nuance and misses some highly critical points to the overall conversation.
Hindsight bias is indeed a potent factor, and itâs important to recognize that the context in which .com domains emerged is vastly different from the present-day ENS scenario.
.com played a pivotal role in introducing the internet to the masses, essentially laying the groundwork for domain name understanding as we know it today.
Itâs important to understand that by the time ENS arrived, the DNS and .com model had been well-established for over two decades⊠therefore setting the stage for far more informed and rapid speculation about other naming systems such as ENS.
To address your point about .com and its approach to squatting, itâs crucial to consider whether DNS even experiences squatting to the same degree.
In fact, DNS operates within a free market system that doesnât exhibit the same squatting concerns by design. Something that ENS mirrors yet paradoxically condemns within its own walls.
By adhering to a protectionist stance, we risk stifling the potential growth and evolution of ENS and I strongly disagree with the notion that it doesnât.
The primary role of the DAO should be to facilitate an open protocol, not to regulate or dictate how individuals use their domains, as long as their activities are lawful.
This is why I advocate against categorizing domain renewals based on speculative or subjective values.
An open protocol like ENS thrives on simplicity and clarity, not on the complexities of tiered or pricing models based on subjective attributes.
Regarding the notion of âclubsâ, itâs essential to understand that these are constructs created by third-party speculators, not inherent elements of the ENS system.
Speculation is a natural byproduct of any capitalistic model, including the web3 space in which ENS operates.
Itâs not the role of the DAO to manage or control speculative behavior and it is becoming more evident that its current attempts at deterring squatting has, ironically, created unintended consequences such as the shifting towards massive squatting on 5L+ domains by accounts like ENSAgent.
In essence, the ENS ecosystem should be a place where creativity and participation are encouraged, not constrained by artificially inflated barriers or dictated usage.
The DAOâs responsibility is to maintain ENS as a fair, open, and accessible platform, ensuring it serves the broadest range of users effectively and, unfortunately, I donât believe the current pricing model has done its job in achieving this responsibility.
Go through the digit .coms tell me what % actually get used for an actual web page
If you do, you will find it to be under 1% actually get used for an actual use, the rest are squatted on by speculation and used as a tradable digital asset
ENS can do better as it can see what has happened in DNS and still has the potential to make sure names are actually used
The 999 club has been fully minted for how many years, anything that goes into premium gets snatched up before it hits zero, same with the 10k and some other clubs, so obviously the pricing cost works in some places, this is why a tiered system should be put in place
The floor on the 999 was up at 50eth at one point was it not? Was that 100x the registration price
You have also forgotten that the registration is paid in ETH but at USD value
The current 52 week range for ETH has been $1259 - $2443 so roughly if you bought ETH at the low and re-registered you ENS at the high then the registration cost for a 3 character name would be roughly 50% of $640 so ~$320 for a years rego
ENS registration can be extended at any point, you donât need to wait to expiry to do it, this means you can take advantage of the âexchange rateâ
If you are proposing to evaluate the potential impact of reducing domain renewal costs, it is important to understand the objectives.
As far as I understand from this proposal, the author and supporters identify the following goals:
Growth of registrations.
There is no doubt that reducing the renewal price will increase demand, the only question is how much? ENS names have a static (registration/renewal cost) and a dynamic (network and gas commission) part of the price.
The registration price has never changed, making it impossible to study from an econometric point of view. In classical companies, in such situations they usually conduct A/B testing or some other experiments, which is difficult within the framework of a DAO.
At the same time, the dynamic part can be studied and qualitative conclusions can be drawn. The algorithm will look like this:
Identify general market factors (which I did in my previous research); The above-mentioned macroeconomic factors, such as inflation, are already built into general market factors, which have been empirically proven, and therefore do not need to be included in any models;
Conduct statistical tests for L5+ domains. In my last article, I examined the effect of commission on generalized demand (L3 + L4 + L5) and concluded that there was no statistical significance. However, it is worth understanding that this factor affects different categories of names differently (for L3 domains this is on average 1% of the price, while for L5+ it is 50%), which makes it possible to judge that with a segmented analysis we will see greater importance of the commission factor;
Extrapolate the obtained data for L5+ to L3 and L4;
Extrapolate the data obtained on the impact of the dynamic part of the price on the growth of registrations and make assumptions about how changes in the static part of the price will affect the growth of the ENS community.
At the output we will receive quite plausible data in the format: âChanging the renewal price from X to X/n will increase registrations by an average of Y% in the time frame under consideration.â But! For more accurate output, marketing metrics are needed due to their high significance. ENSLabs has such metrics, but last time an attempt to request them was unsuccessful.
Expanding the audience.
The influence of price on the dynamics of growth in the number of unique users can indeed be the subject of econometric research, but this requires enormous work with data parsing.
If you want an answer to the question - will lowering the renewal price for L3 and L4 increase the number of unique users or the number of registrations by their squatters, I cannot answer that for sure right now. From my experience with ENS data, one thing I can say with certainty is that this will cause a speculative short-term boom that will give way to busts and disappointments in the community, without leading us to long-term growth.
I would like to hear from the author a specific mathematical justification for why the scheme â3L: 640=>160; 4L: 160=>80; 5L: 5=>10â will lead to âa balance of accessibility and resistance to squatting.â
General increase in community satisfaction.
Iâm definitely not able to help here. Twitter polls, of course, seem unrepresentative to me, so itâs not entirely clear what you can work with here. If we take this as data, then letâs take into account that the people who tweet a list of names and the people who ask to reduce the renewal price for L3 and L4 are the same people. Whether it is worth taking into account the opinions of people for whom ENS is not about identity, but about money, is a matter of long and complex discussion.
To summarize, I am ready to undertake economic feasibility studies if I am given a specific task and provided with the maximum number of metrics.
Dude, you are absolutely hardcore! thanks for that
I think even if we were to do this study, DAO might finance it via working group, after all you have extremely unique qualification at the intersection of econometrics and understanding of âwhat is ENS isâ
As a fellow economics trainee in the past I can strongly relate to your points
For A/B study something comes to mind - make an isolated case with ânumbers clubâ, whereby DAO doesnât change the price, but rather somehow (I donât know how to do it technically though) subsidies the prices of renewal via some additional mechanism. That way we can study effect on that isolated sandbox. Just a brainstorming thought though
Frankly I just keep thinking, that this proposed change will just not do anything, because this â
L3 L4 namespace is so much more smaller than the rest. If you want to build, just pick any L5+ name and go for it. Additionally I donât think we necessarily need to accelerate growth of registrations within L3 L4 space, we need to generally accelerate it within the whole namespace
EDIT: Instead of price change, can we have some viral killer marketing campaign for .eth names please
@Bromhil -
Current pricing:
3L @ $640 / year
4L @ $160 /year
5L @ $5 /year
5 character names at $5 / year is a very good price. The available user support, general maintenance, and ongoing protocol upgrades makes this an exceptional value.
That said, Iâm reading your primary premise as:
âBecause 3L and 4L are priced higher,â
If this is true, there are âbroader applicationsâ and âinnovationâ that can only be done with 3L or 4L, but not 5L domains. I donât see these demonstrated anywhere in your argument.
My thought is to be creative or innovative with a name, all you need is the name. As others have said, anything that you want to build can be built on a 5L+ name.
Can you help the conversation by giving some examples of where creativity and innovation specifically requires a 3L or 4L? The innovation that canât be done with a 5L?
I ask because these comments seem to be resonating:
Iâd personally need to see much clearer examples and user stories that support your premise before I would vote in favor of what youâre proposing.
I agree completely with this as echoed by others. I havnât heard anyone complain about the price of ENS names in the context of their actual intended use as a naming identifier. Short names are luxuries, and no-one needs them.
I see it similarly to having a high end watch. A Rolex for example. Tells the time, looks nice, but my Timex does the job too. ENS is fundamentally a naming system and my name being 6 letters instead of 3 isnât diminishing the utility of the protocol nor am I disincentivised from building out my ideas because my name has three more characters.
If the prices are reduced and all 17,576 3 letter names are registered what then happens in terms of fostering continued growth. Economics (and more-so behavioural economics) are really intriguing and complex fields. A lot of thought went into the initial allocation of names, auction processes etc yet I think many involved would agree that it didnât result in an optimal allocation of names (with hindsight). I think one of the main reasons for that is because the ecosystem participants have changed vastly as have demands and use cases. I think it is better to go slow and have high barriers for pricing changes noting that we do not know what the future holds.
There are also real technological considerations to pricing changes and in my opinion there are more important technological challenges to focus on at this time.
As above, we donât need a solution that demonstrates commitment to 3/4 letter names for a summer or over a number of years but rather over the long term.
Maybe in 2015 XD
I think this is important. This is likely true (I have not checked) and it doesnât affect the use case of the DNS system. Entities that want websites use other names or other TLDs.
Shameless plug, I wrote my dissertation on the Economics of domain names and updated it in 2016. There is a lot that goes into valuing an asset like an ENS name.
The key dichotomy in your argument is your insistence on this:
But you repeatedly use the number of unicode domains as an argument for why short names should be more affordable:
and here:
and here:
The obvious solution is a more nuanced pricing model that treats a 3-character Hirigana name differently to a 3 emoji name differently to a 3 character a-z0-9 name. You provide very weak arguments for rejecting this, leading me to think that your real motivation is not a desire to make Unicode names more accessible to others, but rather to reduce your own carry cost for ASCII names.
Nobody in this thread is advocating doing this. The alphabet(s) used in a name are not âspeculative or subjective valuesâ.
I am really puzzled by this argument. Are you suggesting that the 5+ character names currently bought by speculators would have been ignored if 3 and 4 character names were cheaper, in favor of buying them instead? How would that be a good thing for ENS?
This might work for shortlists of names, but it wouldnât work for categories such as particular Unicode alphabets. I also donât think itâs a good idea for the DAO to get into coming up with lists of âpremiumâ names to apply specific prices to.
Limiting speculation is the primary purpose of ENS pricing. Itâs not a ânarrow perspectiveâ, itâs very nearly the whole point.
I like this. Thereâs a good opportunity to bring more people into ENS from areas of the world with logographic writing systems, such as Chinese / Japanese / Korean.
Some care would need to be taken in how any new ETH Registrar Controller contracts might apply discounted pricing policies for labels meeting a specific criteria. For example, we wouldnât want to increase the gas costs for all non-logographic registrations to check if a registration is all logographic characters.
For example, there might be a separate and dedicated contract call just for logographic writing systems. If youâre making a registration for âexample.ethâ then the existing contract calls could be used so thereâs no extra gas fee. But if youâre making a registration for âæç±äœ .ethâ then someone could make use of a new contract / controller for that. This might add some incremental gas fees to verify all characters are in a whitelisted set / range, but could offset that with discounted pricing policies.
The 3 groups tie into the current 3 pricing amounts
To a small working group ask the question:
How fair is it that this specific type of name pays the current fee for the group it is in, answer in a sliding scale between 1&10 with 10 being the most fair and 1 being the least fair
Set 10 different price levels with 10 being the original fee and 1 being the most reduced
Put names into levels depends on answers from questionnaire
My focus on the vast array of Unicode domains underpins the need for more affordable short names. With trillions of possible combinations, the current high fees for 3L and 4L domains seem excessively prohibitive and not reflective of their true potential or utility within the ENS ecosystem.
To pose a question that cuts to the heart of the matter: Where exactly do the figures of $640 and $160 for domain renewals stem from?
This stark discrepancy in pricing needs a clear rationale, particularly when the most accessible $5 domains are witnessing significant squatting. It seems incongruous to prepare the $640 fee to be inflation-resistant, while the $5 domains are left vulnerable to the whims of the market.
Your suggestion of ânuanced pricingâ seems to me a path fraught with complexity and subjectivity. The DAO should NOT be arbitrating the worth of domains based on subjectivity; this undermines the foundational principles of an open protocol like ENS, which should thrive on transparency and simplicity.
We must avoid the quagmire of subjective valuation, which threatens to muddy the waters of a protocol designed for universal accessibility.
Introducing nuanced pricing adds layers of complexity that could undermine the open nature of ENS.
Consider this: does the decision to shield roughly 20,000 ASCII-centric domainsâdeemed âmagnificentââjustify a uniform pricing scheme across all 3L domains? Thereâs a disparity here that needs addressing.
Nick, the narrative you present, one that suggests no one truly requires a 3L or 4L domain, doesnât align with the communityâs evident desire for them, often for aesthetic or branding purposes.
Imagine projects eager to offer free subdomains as a service or for community building, yet facing a $640 annual fee. Such prohibitive costs could stifle the spirit of innovation we all wish to foster within the ENS ecosystem.
We need to look at the public and observable data, which shows a concerning decline in sustained domain renewals across the board, and consider the substantial anecdotal feedback from the community.
These voices indicate a need for change, for a pricing model that encourages, rather than hinders, creative and practical use of ENS domains.
My argument is not crafted solely from simple self-interest, but rather from a commitment to inclusivity and practicality.
If my concerns were solely with my personal holdings, my focus would be on advocating for reduced fees for emoji domains, which, as you have previously acknowledged, face unjust hurdles such as punycode issues and normalization discrimination.
Yet, my advocacy extends beyond that, toward a pricing model that democratizes access to ENS for a broader spectrum for all users.
It is imperative that we remove the barriers that currently deter innovation and engagement within our ecosystem. We should not cling to the notion that shorter domains are inherently elite when the reality of Unicodeâs vast possibilities argues otherwise.
My proposal seeks to dismantle these barriers, not to preserve my so-called âbags,â but to catalyze the full potential of ENS as a truly open and equitable platform.
Nick, the discussion around pricing, particularly the specific figures of $640 and $160 for domain renewals, seems to have bypassed a crucial aspect: the logic behind these numbers.
This stark pricing discrepancy demands a clear and logical rationale, especially considering the rampant squatting observed in the more accessible $5 domain category.
If the $640 fee is prepped for inflation resistance, what does this imply for the $5 domains, vulnerable to market fluctuations?
The proposal of a more ânuanced pricing modelâ introduces a level of complexity that could be antithetical to the ethos of ENS as an open protocol. We must tread cautiously to prevent the DAO from sliding into the role of subjective valuation, which could undermine the transparency and simplicity foundational to ENS.
Itâs imperative to question the need to shield such a small number of ASCII-based âmagnificentâ domains with a blanket pricing structure that doesnât seem to consider the vast array of possibilities opened up by Unicode.
This protective stance not only seems disproportionate but also potentially stifling to the kind of diverse domain usage and innovation ENS should ideally encourage.
The decline in sustained domain renewals, as observed in the data post-âENS Summer 2022,â and the substantial community feedback, point towards a need for change.
A pricing model that nurtures rather than impedes the creative and practical use of ENS domains is what we should be aiming for. This approach is about breaking down barriers to innovation and participation in our ecosystem, fostering an ENS that lives up to its potential as an open, equitable platform.
Again, the proposal Iâve put forth aims to recalibrate this imbalance.
By requiring a substantial initial commitment, we aim to deter speculative behavior while also encouraging genuine, long-term engagement with the ecosystem.
Itâs not about enabling squatters; itâs about laying down a welcome mat for innovators and creators.
In essence, the current strategy may not be halting squatting; itâs merely redistributing it.
A renewed perspective is crucialâone thatâs not hindered by an overly protective mindset but is open to the evolution of the ENS ecosystem.
We have to ask ourselves⊠what do we envision for the future of ENS?
Do we continue to clutch at a narrow view of artificial luxury, or do we embrace the broader possibilities that could unfold by making ENS more accessible?
The DAO should serve as a steward, not a gatekeeper, and itâs perhaps time to infuse new perspectives into our approachâone that aligns with the growth, diversity, and promise of the ENS and the web3 space at large.
Respectfully, I feel like the posts in this thread are somewhat repetitive in that contributors clearly have their positions and their justifications for those positions. It doesnât seem like anyone on either side is being swayed.
Itâs applicable to everything in life but I think worth mentioning that we all work within echo chambers based on our own understanding and interests - it may be worth all parties explicitly starting from a clear slate and considering the other point of view (if you have not done so already).
In principle if you believe that this is desired at large by the community as represented by the DAO it may be worth following the governance process, creating a temperature check, and reaching out to delegates. Personally, this post serves somewhat as a temperature check and I donât feel as though it (in its current form) has the backing of the community (as represented by contributors here)âŠ
I appreciate the reminder about the importance of open-mindedness and varied perspectives in our discussions and itâs important to keep discourse respectful as to move forward.
Itâs clear we all share a deep commitment to the growth and success of ENS, but I am concerned that there is an obvious disconnect between âthe DAOâ and âthe ENS communityâ at large.
The discussion here, while intense, has highlighted what I believe to be a concerning gap between the âENS DAOâ and the wider âENS Communityâ.
It seems the same voices have dominated the DAO for years, potentially leading to a disconnect in understanding and addressing the communityâs diverse needs.
Looking at the data from ENS Summer 2022, we can observe a significant drop in long-term domain renewals. This is not a good indicator and should not be conflated with pure speculative behavior.
This trend raises concerns that our current pricing model might be too restrictive, potentially stifling innovation - and that is precisely what I am here to convey.
The broader ENS community at large (you know, the ones that are keeping this operation afloatâŠ) have expressed a long-term dissatisfaction with our current 3L and 4L pricing models.
If itâs not the people paying for renewals today, who exactly are these mystical end-users that Nick.eth and other delegates of the DAO so desperately envision?
Where are they?
When will they be here?
Are they worth waiting around years for?
It seems there is an agreement (primarily between $ENS token holders conveniently) that renewals are âfineâ and that nobody 'needsâ shorter domains.
So where exactly do these prices come from?
Why do we accept at point blank that $640 is inflation resistant while the most easily accessible $5 category is not?
Iâm sorry, but it simply doesnât make sense to myself or many other concerned community members. I have found no clear rationale as to why these numbers exist in the first place or why legacy DAO members are so insistent on maintaining them, especially with no clear rationale when there exists so many inconsistencies with the proposed reasoning.
My numbers may not be perfect, but thereâs rationale behind them - something I seemingly cannot find from our current pricing structure.
I dismiss the notion that ENS is still its bootstrapping phase and that we must maintain this overtly protectionist stance.
Both the DAO and the secondary market have seen BILLIONS of dollars in combined interest flow through the ENS ecosystem and the technology has been live for nearly 6 years.
At what point do we let this bird out of its cage to fly?
The free market must be allowed to speak for itself, not continue to be hindered by protectionist policies of those too afraid to let go of the reigns.
thanks for that
