Against this proposal - this only seems to have the intention of benefiting the creator of the proposal.
nah think I’ll pass on this one
This proposal certainly would benefit me because of the appreciation of the asset I am selling to YFI, but I also think it would be good for YFI to begin integrating more ENS names into their UX. Perhaps it was the proposed price which is a bit of a meme, but I don’t really know any other approach to this. I think it would be really neat to have the YFI treasury begin to own other assets like ENS names, and to integrate itself into the infrastructure.
Is it the validity of using ENS, or the price?
Maybe you could donate it?
The question I have is why pay some much for that specific one? I don’t think having that specific ENS will generate more value than a less expensive one. From an return on investment perspective, I would just go with the cheapest ENS available.
Now if you donate it as @franklin suggested, that’s another thing.
Nope, trying to incentivize earnings or randomly spend funds for no reason whatsoever?
I have a strong feeling this proposal will not pass.
No I think I will pass on this call
Seems you guys were not fans of my proposal for vault.eth. Did not mean to offend. I’m a big fan of this project, hold wifey, and really thought it would be a good addition to yearns platform to use this succinct term. I may be biased because I think ENS is a great project, but I also speculate on NFTs and see value in rare digital goods like names. I won’t bother you guys again since it seems this project doesn’t care to speculate on digital goods.
Should do a poll with multiple prices let the community decide the price of the domain.
no, 1.337 is the right price believe me. He thought this through, he’s of the yearn elite after all.
This seems fair then @cry can decide if he wants to accept our offer. Not sure how useful the ens would be though.
@cry don’t get me wrong. There could be a lot of value in an ENS, but right now these are different from say a .com domain because no one finds an Ethereum service by searching for key words.
If there are operational benefits that I may not be aware of in having an ENS and/or the community would like to have this for some other reason, I think letting the community determine how much they would pay for it makes sense.
Elaborating on its use, you currently can point an ENS name to any other address. I think you could send any collateral to vault.eth in metamask, and have the name and contract set up in a way to auto route those tokens to the appropriate vault for earning yield. Using names instead of addresses can sometimes lower user error, such as people sending tokens to contract addresses irrecoverably.
ENS names are also able to be website domains. One could setup vault.eth to point to a yearn page. This is recognized natively in some browsers, and a workaround of vault.eth.link already works in other browsers. These names are decentralized so they can’t be taken down like traditional .coms can be by ICANN.
ENS names are also pretty universally adopted in the ecosystem, and there’s some swagger to go with having yearn contracts natively labeled with vault.eth. Could even separate them out like link.vault.eth subdomain holds all link. This might be a less appreciated aspect though haha.
I believe there’s value in using them. Like I said I already see devs adopting ENS names, like labeling the multisig ychad.eth
I’m open to this. It’s a bit exciting to me to have a DAO purchase and operate an NFT. Eventually I think this idea could lead to DAOs that speculate on ERC721s and ERC20s.
Way too expensive and not worth it.