[Lima] .test namespace drop [Poll!]

I would like to hear your opinion about drop of .test namespace

We introduced it, because we didn’t have fair distribution mechanism of names.
It let us test naming usage.

For Lima we will have protcol level auctions.

I realize there is couple big parties owning large amount of names. Please advise.

In favour of the drop:

  1. Database gets emptied from test names - lighter full node - faster sync
  2. Less code to maintain as old structures are gone


  1. Someone already using it extensively
  2. Tokens burned (maybe foundation can re-imburse or we un-burn them?)
  3. Good to have .test namespace (why? tools should be oriented around .aet one)
  • delete test
  • keep test

0 voters


it indicated test all the time, so I hope it is only used for testing purposes

it’s a minimal amount that shouldn’t matter

testing should be done on testnet

1 Like
  • Someone already using it extensively

Database gets emptied from test names - lighter full node - faster sync

1 Like

I realize there is couple big parties owning large amount of names.

The distribution of aens should be as fair as possible, avoiding the centralization of aens resources, thereby attracting more people to use aens.

1 Like

Drop the previous one and start over.

1 Like

Why are tokens burned when deleting the test namespace?

Is the fee collected by an account owned by the aeternity foundation? If so, what is the address of this account and why is it called „burned“ if the account is still accessible?!

There are no tokens burned when deleting the namespace.

No fees are collected by any foundation.

When names are pre-claimed/claimed fees are burned (in our lock account).

So, the problem I was referring to, in context of deletion of the .test namespace is following:
In the past users burned tokens to claim names in .test namespace.
Now, we propose to delete it. There was some sort of mis-communication, because not everyone was aware that .test namespace is temporary.

As you see, the fees that got spend on the namespace that will be deleted are wasted.
I was looking for a solution, protocol level or org level.

Maybe there is no problem actually, because those fees were super small.

Burned tokens should never be accessible

If people spent fees to claim .test namespace names, then I don’t think it should be reimbursed because that was never stated anywhere and they probably spent it on there knowing they would not get it back. I would have tested creating a bunch of .test namespaces just for fun if I knew I would be reimbursed afterwards. Also if I did use any fees to create a .test namespace, I would have created it knowing there would be no reimbursement

And it’s kind of obvious .test would be a temporary namespace.


To clarify, the purpose of our lock account for burned tokens is to keep count of burned tokens.
There are no keys for lock account - it’s all zeros.

It let us (devs as well as community) easily check total amount of tokens generated in the system really quickly (no analysis of the history needed). Such check is useful to know, if no tokens but coinbase and erc20 migrations are present in the system.