What to like about the piece: 1. Author likes some cryptocurrencies and so takes on this single project with that lens rather than dismissive of all crypto 2.

What to like about the piece: 1. Author likes some cryptocurrencies and so takes on this single project with that lens rather than dismissive of all crypto 2. Links to some sources 3. Disclosure about financial interests at the top 4. These are valid concerns around censorship. I believe the ENS creators have thought about these but still when someone starts registering offensive names that will be the true test, or using ENS to point to scihub or something. What to improve: 1. Seems like a long winded way to say "ENS isn't decentralized like Uniswap but it would be better if it was" 2. Title is overly clickbaity. Doesn't deliver. ENS team works hard from what I can tell. There's room for criticism but "clowns" is out of place. 3. Some of the exploits seems like they could be explained better. "3 ways to take down ENS are:". It's basically a penetration testing style analysis. But since you don't go to that level of depth it just comes across a bit sloppy. Overall, better than 95% of the cryptocurrency content out there, unfortunately.