There is no ‘free market’ for allocating 1- and 2-character domains. The DAO is free to set whatever rules it wants for those unreleased categories.
Revenue is important for the DAO’s continued existence, and it’s important to empirically evaluate whether prices are appropriate to meet all the DAO’s goals and needs. ENS is first-and-foremost a public good, though, and considerations of revenue maximisation do not outweigh the goal of making it maximally useful to people. Thus, “we could bring in more money if we sold this” shouldn’t be enough to outweigh the public good of allocating a name for something that will be generally useful to everyone.
Then the same can be said to anyone else looking to acquire the name.
Allocating 1 and 2 char .eth names should be market based.
Using a 3 char instead of l2.eth doesn’t impact ENS status as a public good at all. l2s.eth will be as useful as l2.eth without missing out on revenue that will serve to support public goods more.
But what does impact ENS as a public good is what you supported here:
I’d rather say it to someone who wants to give it away for free than to someone who is willing to pay for it because he values it.
Appreciative of you coming on the forum and sharing your thoughts. Others can, and should do the same.
The forum is where these discussions happen. Respectfully, individuals passionate about ENS should be checking the forum anyway. If people need a tweet to signpost them to this discussion I would argue they are not that interested in ENS.
Less intuitive. Longer.
Hard disagree.
I appreciate that there are precedent considerations but at this stage this is a single 2 letter name. If the potential revenue loss is dangerous to the functioning of the DAO, we have bigger problems…
The wider discussion about issuing 1 and 2 character names is here:
I mentioned my personal interest in having a separate registration controller explicitly for ultra clear transparency on which names the DAO are voting to directly allocate. I am only supportive of the allocation of l2.eth at this point, as I agree that more general allocation does have an abundance of associated social/revenue/allocation considerations.
I think we should get a move on and make this happen.
Hey @jrudolf! I’ve sent you a DM on telegram about a domain that’s available and fits this purpose really well.
If the domain l2.eth is still preferred, I’m supportive of moving forward, although I think the other option is better (and we should be careful on what precedents this set around issuing 1 and 2 letter domains).
Trying to save some times for everyone involved on the process.