[Lima] proposal for initial bid prices for Names [Poll]

UPDATE:

I closed the old poll. We had very few votes and results without any binding option. During side chats I got overwhelming feedback to increase initial prices. I lift them up a bit and created new poll. Here are bids and the poll (below is the closed one).

New Poll:

  • It’s too cheap!
  • it’s right on spot!
  • It’s too expensive!

0 voters

OLD POST BELOW =================================================

Here is my proposal for initial bids.

When you claim a name you must submit bid no smaller than initial bid configured in governance.
Counter bids need to be higher by at least 3-5% (up for discussion).
Winning bid will pay second to highest price (previous price).
Exception is the initial bid; the winner pays in full if that is a winning bid.

The claim transaction is extended with a Name Fee that is a bid value.
Tokens are locked until the auction is finished or until there is a counter bid.
When the auction bid expires, current winner becomes an owner of the name.
The winner pays second price and gets reimbursed for the fee paid.

Here is the proposal for initial bids. TLDR: The most expensive 1-letter init fee is $170, over 6-letters it’s less than $10. Over 32 it’s base fee of $0.00009.

EDIT: closed poll

  • It’s too cheap!
  • it’s right on spot!
  • It’s too expensive!

0 voters

EDIT: old poll results

1 Like

I think the starting price is too low. I recommend 2000AE starting, 100AE one hand.

OK, so to be specific: you suggest 1-letter domain for 2000AE? And price progression at 100AE?

100 is 5% of 2000 - so this is roughly what I suggested in another post (3-5% progression).

2000 AE is about ~$700.

I see the voters agree with you. I will prepare 2nd version EOD Monday according to vote.

Btw. my secondary goal was to keep initial bid below 1000 fiat money, to encourage participation.

1 Like

Thank you for contributing, for a better AE.

I will keep the poll open. Results are mixed. I think we can hike prices one or two levels up (to 250-450).

Compared with the price of ae token,it’s a little expensive.

The 3rd column is USD, so it takes under consideration price of AE token.

We talk here about 1-letter domains. It’s not too many of those and they are considered premium.

will the price rely on data of oracles or will this be a fixed AE rate?

Price will be expressed in AE tokens

Please remember we talk about the initial bid (minimal price).

@superlan @marc0olo @Aeternity-9527 Edited top post & new poll

Oh, good job. thank you very much!

Hello, I am an investor from China, shu. There are some problems here. The current bidding price may be somewhat high. Let’s figure it out. For example, how many four-digit alphabetic and digital domain names are there in this domain name system? At a minimum of $105 per unit, all four-length domain names are worth $140 million. In addition, what is the original intention of the domain name system, in order to facilitate the transfer exchange in a short name. Now, if I don’t spend more than $15, I have to use eight-digit names or longer, which is very detrimental to the promotion of the domain name system. A single domain name needs more than 1500 tokens. If AE can replace eth in the future, it will be a lot of money. I’m thinking, why not release domain names in batches and adopt the mode of bidding so that the market decides the final price of domain names?

HI,Shu,你忘了一个常识性问题,没有谁强迫谁去注册,所有域名也不可能注册完,价格目的是让需要的人可以拥有,不是让人随意注册。稀缺应该有对应的价格。

The preceding is just an example. AENs has created hundreds of millions of dollars in value out of thin air, and AENs has not really played its role. I don’t think people need to pay such a high price for it, and the initial bidding price remains to be discussed.

@Aeternity-9527 @superlan

Thanks for your points, this is the discussion we need here.

To begin with - we burn those fees. So, it is not producing any value. The cost however is real. It is meant to exist to moderate access to those domains.

  1. Total value
    I would not sum all domains to get to millions of USD, just as I would not sum all DNS entries from regular web to get to trillons/quardrilloins(?) of USD as there are multiple beneficiaries and cost factors on the way.

I think it would be good measure of size of the ecosystem, but surly not it’s accessibility nor profitability.
The high total, is exactly there to limit possibility of squatting those name by one party.

  1. Single price
    This is valid point. Is 6-letter at $15 or 5-letter at $24 cheap or expensive?
    What would be good method to estimate it?
    Cost of a hardware wallet? Cost of an hour of work of a developer?

So, again, having in mind, cost as moderation technique to obtain names, it has to have real value.
Just like, Proof of Work needs to cost a lot, to be useful as state change moderation technique.

  1. Batches
    It is org & tech problem. We don’t have enough time to introduce such comprehensive system. It is yet another argument to rise the prices to limit access to names and design even more fair system as we go.

Till now it took 2 years to implement current platform. I am not sure, if for registrar companies this time would be enough to implement complete domain management solution. We need to be realistic here and use blockchain leverage, which is game theory and crypto economy.

1 Like

Thank you for your reply! In order to ensure fairness, a bidding mechanism is necessary. However, the price of aens is still open to question. I have asked friends of the ae community, they generally feel that the current price is too high. Perhaps we can redefine another price that most people recognize.

The current situation is that ae is too cheap and aens is too expensive, which is not reasonable.

To recap where we are: aens prices are now arbitrary, placed between some border conditions.

I would be very interested in working on mechanism that lets self tune governance values
(min gas price, aens values, etc). For now we can just react to changing economy and bring them up (if AE fiat value skyrockets) and bring them down (if AE sinks) in hardforks. I don’t like the latter as it is very similar to FED management of interest rates - double-edged sword.

First of all, we will negotiate the initial price and make it reasonable and fair.
Then we can call oracle to achieve this balance point. And set a repeating time period on the smart contract to adjust this point in real time, I think this can reduce the pressure on the main network.

I would much rather have it contain in within aeternity ecosystem.

Our final goal should be moving this economy activity to the blockchain and keep it here.
So, we could monitor general activity and difficulty and measure ratio of name claims tx to all tx.
When it fells, that’s an indication that it is too expensive. For that we need to get some history data points and introduce price modulation next time.