[Temp Check] l2.eth to Enable Chain-Specific Addresses

[5pence.eth]

@clowes.eth

That said, there’s an argument for the DAO wallet owning the name itself IMO.

Setting the resolver would require an executable, but realistically that shouldn’t need to be changed often. We also have the ENS Security Council providing an additional level of security coverage. Why go to the effort of establishing a new multisig?

This isn’t providing a short name to a private company with a trademark, but rather provisioning a name for utilisation as a chain data discovery mechanism. In my opinion this should be considered separately to Nick’s more generalised Temp Check. An ownership structure like that may be more palatable to delegates…

This is well said and highlights a crucial distinction.

Supporting obvious infrastructure projects like this through verifiable discoverability should be something the DAO leans into. It harnesses the power of the protocol for the good of the ecosystem.

This should be done with l2.eth, but it should be done by the DAO owning the name and only assigning management rights to the multisig that @jrudolf proposed (this would allow the multisig to manage subnames under l2.eth while the ENS DAO retains ultimate ownership and the ability to intervene if necessary). In my opinion, this is exactly the type of responsibility that should be at the core of the ENS DAO’s mission.

---

Note - This is a very different scenario than the thread Nick began about the DAO allowing 1 and 2 character names for other purposes. With both of these threads unfolding in parallel here in the forum, it might be easy to evaluate them in the same mental space, but I don’t believe we should.

The general thread of Allowing the DAO to manually issue .eth 2LDs, including 1- and 2- character ones should be considered separately from this proposal.