Should We Dissolve the ENS Token?

[Ronald]

@daylon.eth

It was never sold. It was given away for free. That alone means it is not a security.

It’s used as one. That’s all that matters. Token holders decide what happens with the money and project. It’s a security in most of the world.

@daylon.eth

The ENS token does exactly what it is supposed to. I assume you mean an economic failure? Again, the token is not a financial instrument, and there has never been any suggestion that it is.[/quote]

It’s a governance failure. Most people made a lot of money from the airdrop who are OGs, but OGs mostly don’t have interest in buying it for governance reasons.

@daylon.eth

Tokens are held in hundreds of thousands of wallets. The only way they can be burned is if the holders burn them. Governance based on domain holders would simply be changing governance from one group to another. What governance ability would this bestow domain holders, that they couldn’t already have, right now? Are you saying one domain should equal one $ENS token? If so, how would that change anything about the structure of governance?

Maybe you should’ve read the contract before offering an opinion on something so strongly. :-/

function sweep(address dest) external onlyOwner {
        require(block.timestamp > claimPeriodEnds, "ENS: Claim period not yet ended");
        _transfer(address(this), dest, balanceOf(address(this)));
    }

Even if that function were not abused, all insiders can burn, remaining tokens can be deprecated in governance to remove value. Alternatively, you can burn and remove insiders, and allow legacy holders the ability to vote.

@daylon.eth

ENS DAO is attempting to operate from the bottom-up.

And it so far has failed because of the structure. To deny the many failures is a weird position to take in light of current sentiment that is freely available, but fine.

@daylon.eth

I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Almost all votes have passed with >90% agreement. If you’re referring to disagreement outside of the formal votes, that is actually ideal, in my opinion. It means there is actually much consideration taking place, with differing stances.

This is the most illogical position you have taken. High support margins and uniparty states are inversely correlated with functioning democracy. Almost every vote besides the Brantly one has been apathetic, without much discussion. The only real discussions have been on normalization (no vote), and voting systems (mostly irrelevant since doesn’t address the structural issues).

Edit: Apathetic not pathetic, but that one might be Freudian.

@daylon.eth

The token has no economic fundamentals and should not be considered an investment vehicle. If one chooses to do this, it is based ENTIRELY on speculation, ie - gambling.

This is an actual definition to what defines a security in more than one country. A distributed vehicle of investment where chance determines the outcome. It also meets the SEC definition in a few different ways, but the US is not the only country in the world, and the ENS has very little interest there, if any, besides soliciting investors. The US of course is a common law country, so precendent matters a great deal. Just because something is grey now, doesn’t mean it can’t be black tomorrow and ensnare people.

We think collectively it is being used as a security, even if that was not the original intent. We are users of the ENS and former holders of the token. This post is evidence to this belief among actual users as well in case anyone reads this in the future. We believe it is on this day intended to be used as a means to adjudicate revenue distribution in the future.

It would be nice for others to chime in. You aren’t getting any support on Twitter, polls consistently show a majority, maybe super-majority in favor of dissolving the DAO, discontent with management, and unhappiness with the insiders and founding members.