Why not give ETH rent to ENS holders?

[cthulu.eth]

What I’d be concerned about with giving eth-rent to $ENS-holders is that this would incentivize people to increasingly vote for more eth-rent to $ENS-holders, or in the case of profit-via-delegate that it’d incentivize selecting delegates who’d vow to maximize profits.

I can’t see that benefiting ENS as a project, or ENS domain owners as users in the long run.

And I think the constitution was written the way it is precisely to try and avoid situations like that.

[liujuny]

Since ens is erc-20 so natural, it can have a corresponding price. I think the main topic of this post is how to increase the price of ens, and it is within the scope of reasonable regulations. This is a problem that we need to consider , Although it is only for voting, haha

[dumshiba]

@grasponcrypto.eth

I think its a double-edged sword. The more value the token has, the more protected the DAO is from any type of hostile takeover - Though price action typically prevents this as well since as a single entity begins hoarding more and more, the value goes up and it costs said entity more and more to accumulate enough for takeover.

Yes price goes up as more people wanna control ENS network. Which is a motivation of control not profit. And this is bad. $ENS has nothing to do with ENS atm, no matter how many people buy ENS names the price will be the same. Until some people wants to race to take control over it. And something like ENS with these features certainly not gonna live for thousands of years. Too bad they have the .eth name. I’m saying “they” because it’s managed by people. Which is wrong for a basic naming service

@grasponcrypto.eth

ENS DAO is a company:

• it has a product: ENS names and everything that comes with it
• it has income: from ‘rent’ of said product
• it has Organization: ENS DAO

That’s what is wrong about it. If something managed by people, its not truly decentralized.
ENS didn’t suppose to have this forum. ENS didn’t suppose to have DAO.

Some say “But ENS needs to change and improve”. It’s suppose to be a naming smart contract used by everyone and managed by nobody. Literally what can you change about a naming service?
You can add stuff like IPFS support or other things.
But those are suppose to be just separate projects, smart contracts talking with the ENS smart contract, which isn’t suppose to have any owner.

@grasponcrypto.eth

Bring in more smart people, more discussion, more action.

You are just hoping for this. But it’s just gonna bring people who wants to control it including you and others, you wanna shape it in your vision. This is wrong for something as simple as ENS.

I was excited about ENS, now I’m just disappointed.

But now we have $ENS, so we need to fix it.
If you have something like $ENS it’s going to have some value, even your has a value. Your job is the make sure the value of $ENS represents the value of ENS. Otherwise its valuation is a broken. And corruptible from outside.

Don’t be evil.