[DAO: QmTntAp] Should users be able to use ENS names?

by 0xcf10cd8b5dc2323b1eb6de6164647756bad4de4d (Eibriel)

Interoperability is one of the key pillars of web3, in that spirit I would like to propose that Decentraland accepts ENS names (for example “eibriel.eth”) alongside the current DCL names (for example “eibriel.dcl.eth”).

To minimize the impact on DCL names value:

  • ENS names should display the “.eth” ending

This should not take too much resources from the development team, since DCL names already are ENS names, and I suspect a good chunk of code can be adapted.

  • Yes
  • No
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

1 Like

Out of curiosity, what would be the purpose to purchasing DCL names after that?


DCL names have some advantages:

  • Users don’t need to renew them
  • DCL names adds Voting Power for the DAO
  • Can be used as direct link to a Decentraland location
  • They are cleaner, without the “.eth” ending
  • If a ENS name is taken the DCL name counterpart is probably still available

I’m not sure what was the original idea behind DCL names at the time of implementation. Would love to know that if anyone have that information.

In the range from “creating tailored solutions” to “using standards” I feel like DCL is on the “tailored solutions” side.

But I would like to push a little bit for DCL to add some support to at least some basic standards. Mainly to prevent DCL to become isolate from the rest of the Web3 world


An additional positive point:

  • Allowing ENS names lowers the entry barrier, asking to pay 100 MANA for a name that the user already has is not friendly at all

@stateless how you feel about this one?

i think the solution could be:

  • lower the price of minting names
  • give og names minted in old price a color or some sort of “looks rare” indicators

supporting ens destroys the value of dcl names. It is not fair to the people who invested in dcl early.

Should users be able to use ENS names?

This proposal is now in status: REJECTED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 90% 456,699 VP (48 votes)
  • No 9% 46,189 VP (6 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 1% 1,738 VP (2 votes)