[DAO: QmZZL8S] I propose that if the cost of claiming an NFT name is dropped to 25 MANA, any wallet that holds an NFT name that was claimed for 100 MANA will be credited 75 MANA per name. Are you in favor?

On a final note, “Debasing the intrinsic value” is not “a lot of smart nonsense”, and I’m sorry you feel that way about my writing. The best way I can explain the above is with the following example:

Suppose your friend came to you and said they wanted to buy the name “xyz.dcl.eth” from the creator, but didn’t know how much to bid for. What would you say? This is not a trivial question and is part of the reason why this space is so exciting, is because there really isn’t a ‘correct’ answer.

With a conventional asset, such as a stock or bond, one could simply take the present value of the future expected cash flows to arrive at a sensible valuation, which depending on the industry etc., would be more or less a ‘correct’ answer.

With DCL domains, however, in some ways it’s a lot more complex to come up with a sensible valuation. For domains, a relative comparison is often a lot easier. We would all agree, for instance, that “CocaCola.dcl.eth” is infinitely more valuable than “xyz.dcl.eth”. “xyz” has no obvious cultural significance and is not a multi-billion dollar brand such as Coca-Cola. So what would you say to your friend then?

You could do a basic comps analysis, and look at what similar names traded for in the past, although that universe would be very very difficult to define and would be very imprecise at the best of times. What’s the solution then? Well, the creator paid 100 MANA to mint the name, so logically it’s pretty reasonable to assume that around 100 MANA is a fair value for a name such as “xyz.dcl.eth”. The creator is very unlikely to sell the name below 100 MANA unless they’re desperate, and if your friend really really wanted the name, they should bid at a good premium to 100 MANA to increase the likelihood of the creator accepting.

However if names now only cost 25 MANA to mint (and likely lower in the future), then the “intrinsic value” in MANA terms is drastically reduced. Suddenly a bid of 50 MANA for “xyz.dcl.eth” doesn’t sound so bad, as it’s a 100% premium to current mint value.

I agree with your assertion that “Names that sell for 10k MANA are not going to lose in value because of this” because they fall into the elite category of highly culturally relevant/ billion-dollar brand. But to be honest that’s not most names. For the majority of good, but not amazing names, the only anchor of value is the 100 MANA minting cost.

I would love to sit down and write half a page to attempt to elegantly circumnavigate what you have argued above, but I am not going to. Also I should apologize if I came across rude. Know, that I partly understand your view and there was a time 6 months ago when I argued in the same manner when we discussed L2 wearables minting review fees. Yes, the cost of something sets the minimum value because noone should be willing to sell at a loss. I agree. As long as the numbers are material that logic could probably be applied.

Having said that I look at the 100 MANA as a registration fee. You are not buying anything from DCL. You are getting any available name you want as long as you are willing to pay for registration fees and ETH network fees. Whether you pay 1000 USD ETH fees or 5USD ETH fees you still get the same unique name. The same is true for the registration fee of MANA 100 or 25. You are not buying anything. You are registering and minting your name with transactions costs. Period. The value of the name is actually 0 from that point on until someone wants it or until not having a name starts to incur costs.

I think you see where I am going with this. I am sure one could argue something else, too. I think we had our fun. Let us move on.

This is purely my personal opinion. Every time I bought a name, I knew it was basically a sunk cost, either in my own personal branding, or a risk for a return on it later. That return was not dependent on the name staying at a 100 MANA price, from the beginning of my time in world I felt the name price would have to drop in order to facilitate mainstream adoption, but rather from a) selling my own brand/being my own-self in the Metaverse; or b) selling an actual name for a profit in the future. This doesn’t actually directly correctly to the initial vs. current name purchase price.

I think there is an argument to be made that lowering the price on names now does not actually lower the value of those purchased previously, but could increase it. It will lead to more rapid name adoption, quicker dilution of supply, and increase demand on high value names, that early adopters were able to snag at the 100 MANA price, which when purchased was done so at VERY cheap USD prices.

In this regard it may actually make it MORE likely that you get the return on investment you are looking for, and it does not need to come from the DAOs operating budget, and from a non-existent MANA source, since that MANA spent on names is burned.

I propose that if the cost of claiming an NFT name is dropped to 25 MANA, any wallet that holds an NFT name that was claimed for 100 MANA will be credited 75 MANA per name. Are you in favor?

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 40% 1,759,667 VP (127 votes)
  • No 59% 2,486,095 VP (49 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 1% 79,254 VP (8 votes)

I propose that if the cost of claiming an NFT name is dropped to 25 MANA, any wallet that holds an NFT name that was claimed for 100 MANA will be credited 75 MANA per name. Are you in favor?

This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfe91c0c482e09600f2d1dbca10fd705bc6de60bc)

Rejected by community vote