Rethinking the registration/renewal model for ENS

Just to be clear - revenue to ENS or True Names is not a motivating factor here. The pricing scheme should stand on its own as the best way to allow as many users as possible to get the names they want to use, not as a revenue source.

Again, the goal here would be to reduce the fees for most registrants. Only those registering for short periods would be likely to see any kind of increase.

I did do some research on long registrations - there are very few names that have been registered for long durations (much less, by squatters); it may even be practical to offer a refund to users to reflect a new discounted fee schedule.

Again, the point of this post isn’t to discuss the exact prices of one possible proposal. Those prices were only intended to be illustrative.

Why? Squatters will predominantly want to register for short periods to save their funds, while regular users likely want to keep their names for an extended period. Do you disagree? I think it would be more productive to have a conversation about whether this assumption is correct than to waste time litigating a fee schedule that was not intended as anything other than a demonstration of the discounting function.

Again, the goal is not to increase prices on users - quite the reverse.

Squatters’ goals are to buy names cheaply and sell them for a lot more to people who want to actually use the names. In economics terms this is a “deadweight loss”, and it runs directly in opposition to the interests of our legitimate users. Making squatting less profitable makes life easier for end-users.

Can you start a thread about this, and what it is you’d like to see? It could be an interesting conversation, but I would like to (try and) keep this thread on-topic.

You may be right about this, in which case we should be discussing other ways to distinguish user types and make it easier for users who want to use their names. I would say, though - habits can be changed, and are affected a lot by UI design and what is easy and straightforward. Gas fees currently outweigh registration fees by an order of magnitude, so I don’t think a lack of budget is the deciding factor here.

To put it succinctly: Every dollar a squatter makes comes from making the system more expensive for end-users.

This is a factor of market perceptions, and propaganda against ENS/ True Names.

This will hurt normal users more than squatters, since normal users have less capital and tend to only register for 1 or 2 years at a time (as your research shows). And Squatters don’t care about price as much.

Yes, for a millionth time, I disagree. See previous answer–Per your own research, users do not typically register for longer than 1, maybe 2, years. Also, at the “year 1 and 2” ranges, price increase will be widely seen as a betrayal from ENS; competitors will pounce; ENS will loose reputation and network effect. (In contrast, squatters are not bad people, they will think through this. If you try to hurt squatters, you will then hurt normal users, mainly.)

I am not sure what your counterpoint is–I will just say this:
The base cost for normal users should “stay the same” or “decrease”, on the “one year at a time” basis.

You will not make squatting harder. You will not make squatting less profitable.
By trying to hurt squatters, you will hurt normal users. Focus on just making ENS great.

You are right about this, BUT you must place the competitors into consideration; both their UX/UI, And Also, their marketing, messaging, and their propaganda (pro-them & anti-ENS).

You are fighting existing Web2 habits, with new Web3 habits, with what the competitors are doing. (ENS is still figuring-out pricing, and “squatters”, while UD is hosting AMAs on Clubhouse.)

It seems like ENS gives too much faith for “normal users” finances (which are more bare). People are opening their eyes to Blockchain; they like owning the assets the identify with (and competitors know this). People expect these system to be simple, and with everything ENS has put out there, it is “hard to relearn” what users think they already know. We should be comparing & competing ENS to other competing “blockchain naming/identity services”; but instead we are targeting to “hurt ENS squatters”. We need ENS to be great for all users.

I can’t explain how trite this sounds to me. Second markets add market value to the overall systems, which benefit the users over time. All squatters are your strongest community advocates. Squatters do free marketing and raise awareness, and create market demand. Squatters amplify the network effect to increase traction. Squatters are typically business & technology savvy, and they will end up adding significant value to the system and network.
PS: Every dollar you [try to] squeez from “a squatter” makes the system more expensive for all other end-users, whom then suffer. But I am just some dude with some tea, keep stabbing the leg of the beast. Ni.

I don’t think users are hurting for capital so much that they can’t afford $20 to register for several years instead of $5 to register for one. If they were, nobody would be registering with the current gas fees. And if someone is really so hard up that they can’t afford $20 on Ethereum, I doubt they’re registering an ENS name in the first place.

Squatters care very much about price. If you double the price a squatter has to pay for domains, they can only buy half as many. Likewise, if you halve the cost a user pays for a long-term registration but don’t change short-term costs, that helps users more than squatters.

How do you suppose ENS would look today if registrations were free from day 1?

If your answer is the same as mine - that every interesting domain would have been snapped up on day 1 and it would now only be possible to register names by buying them off squatters - then you agree with me that price is an effective way of counteracting squatting.

Squatters typically do none of these things; they buy a name, then list it on a marketplace to try to resell it. In 3 years of operation I am yet to see an ENS squatter contribute meaningfully to making ENS a better system through their squatting.

I have evolved to think that the fee/heartbeat is better to keep names in circulation, especially over the “decades” (I admit it has major benefits as a public good over the decades). That is not my issue. We NEED to separate the two ideas, the “fee game theory”, from “squattin’ hatin’”; By merging the issues into “anti-squatting game theory”, then the results will hurt everyone.

  1. Your “absolutes” are not true. 2. Your timeframe is short. 3. Yes, there is a bell curve of awesomeness. 4. Your definition of a squatter includes the vast majority of all users; they buy a great name, many don’t know how or when or what to do with it, they hold on to it like their dreams, they recognize the NFT has value. Most “squatters” are not bad people.

So what do you think would have happened if names were free from day 1? What purpose do you think fees serve?

I’m not passing a moral judgement on squatters, I’m saying that the “buy names and try and resell them for more” is a use-case we want to discourage, because it makes the system less useful for the use cases we do want to encourage - using names to, well, name things.

Can you point to examples of ENS squatters contributing positively to the ENS ecosystem through their squatting on names?

By “free”, do you mean “without reoccurring fees” (this is different than “free”)?

  1. People would feel sovereign ownership of their ENS NFTs;
  2. ENS would currently have more users, & more NFTs generated, than U.D. (yes, less supply on the main market);
  3. Competitors like U.D. wouldn’t have such strong talking points against ENS;

You mean reoccurring fees?

  1. Fees create a barrier to entry (supply vs demand) & a limit of ownership;
  2. Fees create a “fee attack” narrative (someone can increase the fees later);
  3. Fees make the non-profit org (True Names) a boatload of reoccurring revenue, to centrally receive development funding, forever (could be a good thing);
  4. Fees circulate forgotten names back into the primary market.

Is my engagement (with ENS here; and for ENS, on Clubhouse, online, & the world) a positive contribution?

I mean, without any fees whatsoever - first in, first served. I am not proposing doing this; this is a thought experiment to clarify the impact of fees on the usefulness of ENS.

Yes. Are you saying you can only do it by virtue of owning a lot of ENS names?

To reflect on your point of view, most dot com domains were registered in the 90s and got sold for the highest prices after 2000 (see the story of sex dot com for example) so holding the best ones for about 8 (!) years on an average would have been the way to go.

I am saying this because if we group the ‘best’ .eth domains by

  • highest bids on the 2017 auctions

  • highest historical market value but those that have already been sold outside the 2019 short name auction for example crypto.eth

  • highest last price yet only sold once on the short name auction

  • domains considered premium but failed to be sold yet

  • other domains of personal, less popular or meaningless names

you will see that most of them have been registered only because of an ambition for their future value. But those holding the best of the best just won’t care about changes.

Proposals to ‘hurt squatters’ will mainly hurt those who really believe in the success of ENS Domains and its ecosystem and are willing to hold let’s say Class B domains over Class A ones and not those who were lucky enough to get a hold of the already-proven best ones.

You say squatters add no value but they might as well do indirectly. They create a shortage of supply, and history tells there is demand for items considered rare or harder to acquire.

Just an opinion but see how dot com domains are the most heavily squatted and still the most demanded; or how much quick money can Supreme make selling limited amounts of their products while resellers and collectors are front-running one another to be the first in their FOMO.

Why exactly do you think squatting is essentially bad? I’m seeing people constantly registering new names while gas fees are still sky high.

See previsions answer. Yeah, that would be chaos, crazy, and gas would spike. Names would be lost. New companies would form and they would have become the registrars. It would be glorious, organic, spider-web of death and new ideas. The structure, including the rents’ “catch & release” has added a life into the project, to help it become “breathing”.

No, I can do it with or without owning a lot of ENS names.

But caring takes energy, for better or worse; Resources are limited; Web3 is a passion.
I don’t care because I own ENS names, but owning ENS names does energize me to care.

There are a lot of projects/purposes to give ones self to. Everyone requires motivation. People can be paid as a job/career to think and take action, which helps anyone’s “external motivation”.
When anyone owns ENS names, they are investing into the ENS project, including the concept, and the vision, (similar to how anyone invests into any NFT, or ERC-20 Token). There is additional “internal motivation”. With so many projects to follow, humans will contribute toward their passions & interests. This adds layers of value into systems, especially when systems are designed well.

2 Likes

I don’t think that’s a fair comparison; the Internet was very new back then, and the landscape looked very different. In fact, it’s a large part of why naming services that have launched more recently have had problems with squatting: everyone sees an opportunity and jumps on all at once, strangling the service in its crib before it has traction (see for example Namecoin).

Yes, if you sort names by the ones that have fetched the highest prices, those are mostly names that are being squatted on. This shouldn’t come as a surprise.

A namespace isn’t one market - it’s a trillion markets of one item each, because names are not fungible. Someone squatting on “nft.eth” does not make the system better (or worse) for someone who wants a different name.

.com names are squatted on because they’re in demand - not vice-versa!

Because squatters buy names cheaply and resell them at high prices, while adding no value.

You think a situation in which every interesting name has to be purchased at inflated prices from existing owners would be better? Why?

I used the .com domains for comparison because I believe there is a lot of room for growth here, considering web3 altogether is fairly new. Not so far in the future, .eth might also be used as domains for wallets containing digital dollar, who knows! Though I never thought about it your way; squatting wasn’t really that much of a problem back then.

Like Web3 is now.

The dinosaur came before the chicken.

Why does everything need to be a fight? Maybe I do & maybe I don’t. I thought it was a hypothetical…

If you want squatters to add value anyway, the best solution I can think of is a direct aftermarket at ens.domains with a commission on sales which could also make it easier for everyone to acquire their desired name.

1 Like

It’s not a fight; I’m trying to understand why you think this would be better than the status quo. What do you think the average price of a name would be in this situation?

That would make squatting more profitable. I don’t think it would mean that squatters were adding value.

Value in the sense that domains already registered and put on sale could be readily available and safely acclaimed on an already well-known interface. A certain percent of every sale could flow back into the development of ENS. Ideally leading to less profit for squatters but an easier deal.

  • 1 year: $2000
  • 2 years: $4000
  • 4 years: $6000
  • 8 years: $8000
    team be rich,ens dead.

ENS team, from the very beginning we all believe the same thing that ENS is an open mind and decentralized new age domain, unlike the traditional TLDs, ENS is on smart contract, which does not rely on any DNS server, it does not protect trademark owner, court notice cannot take your ENS away from you, in the blockchain world, yours is yours, the only way to take it away is the owner to give the key. The spirit of blockchain is also like we setup all the rules on the smart contract then you guys can do whatever you want here, open and freedom is the spirit here. So far ENS is already launched for 4 years, alll of us are on the halfway, now you are saying we should consider something(such as increase price for short term and reduce for long term) and purpose is to attack squatters. Changing price, differentiate users, by saying this, don’t you think we are already driving out from the blockchain spirit?

1 Like

It’s kind of odd if you think about it. So let me get this straight. Your practice of expired domains being sold for a great premium is considered fine. Other than that, the best short names were officially sold to the highest bids on OpenSea. Okay.

Both raking in huge sums of money.

Now if anybody else tried to make a few bucks off of selling domains (which could have been bought for thousands of dollars as said above) - should be considered taboo and they are a blatant squatter adding no value.

So theoretically said, how is buying for $2000 from ENS itself is any different or has more inherent value than buying from other people?

1 Like

Just read this whole thing. Mind blowing, I think that changing the yearly fee structure really is totally irrelevant atm, besides if you think that the domains are significantly overpriced, which might be the case, but the reason for the registration fee was to discourage squatting to a certain extent, as abolishing this completely only is possible by selling all at the price of the most valuable one or if some much more elaborate kind of pricing model is made, as the value of a domain is not only based on its length. Mostly I feel like all these theories and opinions by the team are damaging the project a lot and are wrong priorities at this stadium.

The idea that there is a total$ demand for domains instead of every domain having a value also makes no sense to me and is in any case unproven. IMO people either think a domain is worth the yearly fee or not. Lowering the average yearly fee will only cause longer average registration and not necessarily a lower average amount of domains registered per user. I also don’t understand why you would try to accomplish that? Seems unnatural and insignificant for the succes of ENS.

If you really think you are offering so much value and squatters are profiting unethically off of undervalued domains, based on what is that assumption? There is no secondary market. There is in no way a run on domains or a significant amount of domains squatted/registered. There are lots of great domains still available. There’s an unlimited amount of domains. There’s no way that anyone has not registered an ENS domain because there was none available and if so does that person expect to own his first name on twitter/insta/dotcom etc. You could be inclusive you might include some squatters but you could also be exclusive and exclude users. It feels like the latter at the moment.

Some arguments like ‘people forget to renew their domains’ and thus ‘accidentally loose control of their names’ and ‘reducing the costs associated with maintaining a domain’ honestly feel like they’re coming from a crazy person, crazily disconnected at best, trying to stop the tide. How do you even know anybody forgot to renew a domain, or if that is a significant percentage of all expired domains? IMO it is way more likely that the average (perceived) value of a .eth domain went down because of the perception of the project; the utility and narrative the ENS team has given to it. Maybe adding something much simpeler like an option for email/twitter notification would address this ‘very big’ concern. Or some way everyone could claim one domain for free for one year.

Maybe people are ‘squatting’ because they cannot do anything with the domains. Ask team members why they have inactive domains? Is every unused domain just squatted or might there be a reason or intention for registering besides reselling? Why aren’t people using their domains is a much more relevant question and the answer to that probably is not because everyone just wants a free ride.

1 Like