2 ms·
i haven’t kept up with ENS to this deal. they moved from a multisig to a DAO. as GP claims, they also restricted the set of actions available to governance befo
by wallacoloo 5y ago
i haven’t kept up with ENS to this deal. they moved from a multisig to a DAO. as GP claims, they also restricted the set of actions available to governance before this move. on the face of it then, it doesn’t look unlikely that the DAO will vote to further restrict its own abilities as time goes on. this exact mechanism has been used to progressively decentralize other protocols, and as we see with other “governance tokens” (e.g. Uniswap — where IIRC governance can tweak like one single boolean parameter), massively restricting governance abilities doesn’t destroy the viability of the token (which is to say, it’s not clear to me in which direction the finance incentive — if any — points with regards to such “ungovernance”).
- carlosdp 5y ago^ this, except I'd add that as a large ENS delegate myself (as one of the founders of Metaphor), I and other large delegates don't factor in the price of the token into decisions. We never intend to sell $ENS, it's a public good, not a profit-generating protocol. Think of it like an on-chain B-corp. That said, if you really want to make sure you can't ever face the "egregious renewal fee" attack vector, you could just register it for a really long time. For most names, it costs like $500 to register it for 100 years.