[Temp Check] [Social] Temporary Premium Name Acquisition Guidelines

This Temp Check will be available for discussion for a period of (1) week

Starting: Wednesday February 1st, 2023 1200 PST // 1900 GMT
Expiry: Extended, Continued Conversation,ufn

ENS Fairy Budget proposal was voted on and passed. Due to the response of many twitter users showing strong opinions against the initiative, I think it would be best to collectively have discussion.

This can be adjusted until officially proposed and voted on. If the DAO chooses to take this to proposal and vote on, acquisition of names can best be directed by the following.

The DAO can only register names if they are unregistered or when they expire, the same as all ENS users.
Unlike other users, when the DAO registers a name it effectively only has an opportunity cost - the income it would have received if someone else registered the name so it makes sense to have some guidelines around when it is acceptable to do that. Here are my suggestions:

Names can not be purchased from an individual and require that any persons must be able to have the opportunity at a fair market. i,e. No obvious privates sales or transactions between ENS DAO and any other entity besides the contract(s) that govern the process of temporary premium and act as a mechanism for transfer to ENS DAO

Names should have a maximum upper tier temporary premium price so that a fair market is made and that acquired price isn’t especially unfair.

Names to be acquired

has clear and obvious potential to be used in deception, misuse or fraudulent activity that would otherwise cause damage to consumers, users of decentralized finance services or tarnish the reputation of ENS DAO or any part of Ethereum Name Service.

Name must be previously registered by an address that is not affiliated with ENS DAO such as active contributors, stewards, lead stewards, employee of ENS Labs, ENS Foundation Administration or persons whom have received grants or awards in current term, period or round ( which ever the initiative outlines)

Also including that a name previously belonging to an individual that is active in any projects, organization, business, company or any other entity that would subsequently be receiving a gifted name.

This is are open for discussion and can and will be appended or deleted so as the DAO decides.
After Temp Check time period has completed, a formal RFP will be submitted to the Ecosystem Lead Steward and Stewards for review and subsequent proposal if the DAO wishes.


All of these are enforced by contract code - there’s no need to make a ‘guideline’ because it’s impossible to acquire a name any otherway.

1 Like

Thanks for this temperature check. Certainly would have good optics and assuage community fears that the DAO will be responsible and neutral to acquisition of names in premium. Guidelines make the process more transparent and allow the community insight into the decision making process.

How would enforcement by code bypass the need for guidelines? Isn’t there some discretion on the part of the stewards? Forgive any stupid questions. First post.

@nick is saying that the ‘parameters’ per se, are enforced by code.

as a name being in the expiry period is not necessary to include because that is already a guaranteed parameter / prerequisite to enforced by contract being in the temporary premium stage of it’s life-cycle.

things that are not enforceable by code (well im sure they are but aren’t applicable in this scenario)–
name categories like, colors or colors+numbers, or other parameters that are broad.

On another note, Welcome ! @006.eth

Congrats on making your first post. If you need anything my inbox is always open.

Just a few quick things.
Please take the time to read over the code of conduct.

Be sure to adjust your settings so you will receive alerts on specific topics or topics in a specific category.

Have you participated in any other DAOs?

If you need anything my inbox is always open.

1 Like

Ah I understand. Thank you for the patient education.

Are there any items which you have spoken about which have discretionary elements on the part of stewards in the working group which are NOT enforceable by code?

I like these guidelines, specially the ones barring individuals or organizations that had the name and let it expire. The goal is to outreach companies not in the space, not to reward those who let it expire.

It’s also of note that the names themselves obviously can’t be subject to a vote otherwise ENSFairy would be sniped.


Although I am not directly involved with this initiative, I put this out there as a neutral non participant.

As in; I was not involved in the discussion that developed this idea and I am or will not be a person in position to decide which names will be sought or take part in any of the procurement process.

Like @AvsA mentioned about name disclosure. I do know that there isn’t (for as far as I know(wait what…) a particular targeted category of names.

Thanks for the clarification. I’m unfamiliar with the process of accountability when it comes to working group process. Appreciate you weighing in despite having limited context here.

I’m curious to see if anybody else can weigh in and shed some light on what kind of guard rails there are for discretionary decisions which cannot be governed by code.


  1. Which names will be targeted, or the criteria for selection.

  2. How are the names treated or processed after acquisition.

  3. Considerations for after market consequences, like communications, post impact survey, and the such.

If there are none, it’s fine too. Just want to get a gauge of the process maturity right now.