by 0xd11a019a70986bd607cbc1c1f9ae221c78581f49 (Yemel)
What are NAMEs?
Decentralized NAMES are a key piece of our identity system. They represent our avatar name in the game and in the dapp ecosystem.
How do they work?
NAMES are implemented as subdomains of dcl.eth, thanks to the ENS protocol. Any wallet can spend 100 MANA to mint a unique NAME. The address receives the NAME and with it 100 Voting Power (VP).
What is the problem with setting rates in MANA?
Using MANA as a medium of exchange is a great way to support our internal economy. However, using it as a pricing measure is not a good idea due to its price fluctuations.
An alternative is to set the fee in USD and make it payable in MANA using the current exchange rate. A similar strategy has already been implemented for wearable publication fees, defined in USD but payable in MANA.
Should we denominate the fee to mint a NAME in USD?
I had to deal with the MANA fluctuations on my vesting contract, ~$2,600 USD instead of 5k. Same thing with ARTORDAI. If this gets changed, I hope lower tier grants get paid properly what they deserve as well.
considering the ridiculous amount of added utility that the worlds alpha adds to names, if we move to denominate the fee in another currency we should take the opportunity to set the price a bit higher imo.
I know this is not a popular proposal, but I believe current name prices are ridiculous. A name should not cost more than $3 to $5. That was how it originally was, until MANA price went up. I would totally peg it back to those prices and have people actually use the feature. We keep building products for nobody to use… it’s the LAND story all over again.
User experience is really bad with the fluctuation of MANA price. If MANA shoots to $3, and a new user encounters a $300 price tag on a new name, that’s very off-putting. As @cazala mentions, the original price target was $5. @Vaporizador also raised this point.
User experience, particularly for new users, should be prioritized to onboard more members into our community.
I think if we went for the price to be pegged to a USD amount, then the VP should reflect as much mana you spent (if it was 150 MANA then 150 VP, if it was 10 MANA then 10VP). It sounds more fair to me (each MANA spent is 1 VP).
TBH if it was my call I would make them free rather than keeping it at 100 MANA (only diehard DCL fans would pay that). I would rather let everyone have a name, that’s better for the platform than having 38 users. But then if made free it would be squatter paradise, so there needs to be an amount high enough to disincentivize name squatting. I think a few bucks does the trick, and setting this squatting prevention mechanism to a USD value is smarter than pegging it to a volatile asset and then having to revisit it every month. I’m not trying to think what’s the best for the MANA token, I’m trying to think what’s the best for the product and the users.
I would say no… I was able to take advantage of MANA being low and I minted two names in the past few weeks. $100 for a name is too much. I minted my names at the lower price because I believe in Decentraland and I have goals to build a business here one day, but I am not the average user. Please correct me if I am wrong but I assume average users make their money in dollars (or pesos, or colones etc), don’t have much, or know much about crypto and make under 50K a year. I think names should be much cheaper and stay tied to MANA to encourage users to follow the price of the coin. If we make names more accessible to the average user, the market will widen and we will benefit more.
USD is Fiat and completely unstable. Soon will be worthless. What’s the point in having MANA, if it isn’t pegged to anything? The reason the US dollar gained its strength is because it was pegged to many things like Debt, Oil and Gold (no longer the case). Right now the only thing keeping the Dollar alive is the Debt, because OPEC is losing it’s monopoly. If the Dollar loses its pegs it becomes worthless.
In comparison, MANA needs to be pegged to valuable things needed in our community. Voting Power, DCL Names, Wearable Submissions are all extremely important. If we de-peg them, MANA will slowly lose value.
Respectfully @esteban I disagree. Disney World is full and their user experience is better than ever. People go there from all over the world. Their prices are ridiculous. However people pay for what things are worth. Let’s better ourselves and keep moving forward.
Are you under the assumption that MANA is not supposed to become more valuable? Should MANA remain the same value forever? I think stability is important for a strong currency, however we haven’t hit adoption yet, we cannot expect to have a stable CPI until we get fully adopted.
The lack of stability of MANA results from not being pegged to enough products, services and utility. Instead of price manipulation or de-pegging our system, we should do some reflection and figure out how to create a more natural demand for MANA. Peg it to more utility or DCL commodities.
On the contrary, I would argue the USD’s value is extremely unstable and that is why these price actions are occurring.
I bet you my house that Disney World ticket prices are very carefully optimized to maximize revenue and a ticket to Disney World is not pegged to the price of $DIS. That would be ridiculous. That would get someone fired.
This current price strategy for a NAME is outrageous and should change.
100 MANA = $41 usd right now ser. Pretty cheap imo better than 100 usd(currently 240 MANA) I would say, why didn’t we do this when MANA was trading around $2-$5 usd?
When it was - wearable submissions was pegged to 150 usd from a 500 mana flat rate - people still complain 150 usd is a lot. I agree that MANA at the prices it is currently plus the current state of market this would make sense while combining with the other proposal to stop the burning and direct those funds to DAO. So genuinely asking, is the real goal growing DAO funds on the bear or making prices for NAMEs attractive to new users? Because it seems we trying to get DAO some mana on bear honestly.