Why not give ETH rent to ENS holders?

[dumshiba]

@grasponcrypto.eth

its a governance token. ENS already has the user base, it does not need defi schemes to bring more in. The point of holding ENS is to participate in DAO governance, not to store away in a vault.

The point of this is not bringing more users. But connecting ENS with ENS token. So the ENS token has a more accurate price like BNB does. Once we have a more accurate token price, participating in DAO has a more accurate price. As more people use ENS, participating in it becomes more expensive. As less people use it, participating in it becomes less expensive.

@Incentivize governance participation

With a scenario as I have laid out, we should quickly see ENS begin to accumulate to strong users who dedicate the time to discuss, propose, and vote. This is a good thing, because these are the type of users you WANT to be proposing and voting, those with the most knowledge.

I don’t think its a good idea to give some dedicated insiders more power. We have seen it with Wikipedia editors. it’s a bad idea. Making it more technically and socially complex only makes it more corruptible.

@grasponcrypto.eth

If you read the proposal I made, you would see that would not be beneficial to them

I have read it multiple times. I can’t see how It’s not beneficial. I can just give my votes to a random delegate in top 10 and still earn. People just want the reward they are just gonna find a delegate and give the voting power to them. Which makes it more centralized eventually.

@grasponcrypto.eth

again, you should read the idea I proposed. It would strengthen ENS by removing tokens from users who do not wish to participate (aka buying from those selling) and distributing to those who are participating in governance (either by voting, or even better by delegating their votes - which in my proposal would pay out better than voting directly).

I don’t see how It’s stronger like that. ENS is only changing hand basically and there are more sellers than buyers. That doesn’t make it more valuable. Also incentivizing people to give their votes to a delegate makes it more centralized, like BTC pools. When people buy a company stock they don’t necessarily wanna participate in it. If you remove the liquidity you just make it more corruptible.

The whole rewarding the ones who vote is a bad idea. You vote when you wanna vote. Not always.

Fix me if I’m wrong.

This part its not really about the topic, I'm just replying you

@grasponcrypto.eth

Not sure what this has to do with the discussion, but I agree.

Having nobody in control is more decentralized than having some people in control.

@grasponcrypto.eth

I will disagree strongly, however, that stuff should be static; always improving and changing should be the goal of every project.

Smart contracts like ENS should be a little tool. You don’t change and improve Math.Pow function. ENS is a basic name service. You can build many stuff on top of it. But it doesn’t need to change. Changing base layers is a bad thing, every government is an example to this.

That’s all I wanted to say. I threw an idea, giving rent ETH to ENS holders would be good. and the rent ETH would have a purpose and would not be in the hands of the creators. It can be burned too but I think giving it to ENS holders would gather more votes as a proposal I believe.