1. “While you present interesting theories about framing effects and behavioral economics, you haven’t provided any empirical evidence or case studies showing that your proposed approach actually increases long-term registrations in the domain name industry…”
This is a clear double standard. You’re demanding empirical evidence and case studies for my proposed approach, yet you’ve provided no such evidence or theoretical basis to justify your slider design. Where is the data or precedent showing that sliders are effective for domain registration periods? There is none—your choice is arbitrary and lacks grounding in industry standards or user experience design principles.
If you’re going to demand rigorous evidence, you must hold yourself to the same standard. Otherwise, this isn’t about collaboration or informed decision-making; it’s about dismissing opposing ideas to justify your own preferences. The basis for this proposal—framing effects and pre-selection strategies—is widely recognized and applied across industries. These principles are well-documented and effective in guiding user behavior and reducing decision-making friction.
But you’re not, rather it seems that these goalposts are designed for you to set up a future straw-man reply, but we’ll see.
2. “Looking at successful domain registrars (GoDaddy, Namecheap, Web3 Domains), none of them implement the left-to-right, expensive-first approach you’re suggesting…”
This argument is factually incorrect. Successful registrars like GoDaddy employ similar or even more aggressive tactics. For example, GoDaddy’s default selection in the cart is 5 years even if a user selected a 1-year price at checkout, and that’s the subtotal shown to users unless they actively adjust it. To change it, they choose from a dropdown of (1, 2, 3, 5, 10). This aligns closely with the pre-selection strategy proposed here and demonstrates that it’s not only viable but also an industry-standard practice.
If you’re not just moving the goalposts, this example should suffice to address your concern. However, based on your actions and responses, it seems likely you’ll find some superficial difference to dismiss this and revert to your arbitrary slider choice—a choice that appears driven more by a sunk cost fallacy than by sound reasoning.
3. “The argument that sliders are inappropriate for discrete choices doesn’t apply here since our users clearly don’t think about domain registration in discrete 1/5/10 year blocks…”
This reasoning is circular and nonsensical. The only reason users are currently choosing varied periods is because the existing system offers a custom field with no predefined options. To say users don’t think in discrete blocks when no such blocks have been provided is meaningless. It doesn’t prove that users don’t want or wouldn’t benefit from discrete options; it simply reflects the limitations of the current system.
The goal of this proposal is to introduce predefined options that align with user behavior while still allowing flexibility for outliers through a custom field. If you’re concerned about aligning with user preferences, we could refine these predefined options based on actual data—for example, focusing on 15, 7, or 3 years if those are common choices. However, dismissing discrete options entirely and relying on a slider simply perpetuates the flaws of the current approach.
4. “Regarding governance - I moved this discussion to Discord with the intention of collaborative, real-time design discussions…”
This claim is demonstrably false. What you actually did was create a sub-thread in Discord to announce your intentions, ignored feedback, and quietly moved forward with your testnet implementation. Simultaneously, you had Snorlax cancel the forum thread, effectively removing the DAO’s ability to weigh in on this decision. This wasn’t about collaboration—it was about maintaining the optics of collaboration while ensuring no one could interfere with your personal vision.
Your actions make it clear that collaboration was never your intention. Instead, you’ve sidelined the community and subverted the DAO process to push through your preferred solution.
5. “Feedback needs to be supported by data or industry examples, presented constructively, and focused on technical merits…”
Before I give you an example, let me say that this is particularly ironic given your own lack of adherence to these standards. Where is your data or industry precedent for the slider? Where is the constructive reasoning or technical justification? You haven’t provided any of this. Instead, you’ve arbitrarily decided on a slider and dismissed well-supported opposing viewpoints.
If you truly believe in the importance of data-driven and technically sound decisions, you need to start applying those standards to your own choices. Otherwise, this is not a collaborative process—it’s a top-down imposition of arbitrary preferences.
6. “I remain open to considering alternative approaches, but they need to be backed by concrete evidence of effectiveness in our specific industry…”
Martin, I’ve created a video/gif showing how GoDaddy—a leader in the domain registrar industry—employs the exact strategy proposed here. They pre-select 5 years as the default registration period, and unless users actively change it, that’s what they pay for. To change it, they choose from a dropdown of (1, 2, 3, 5, 10)
It’s a clear example of framing effects and pre-selection working effectively in the domain name industry, directly addressing your request for industry-specific examples. And even though this is more aggressive than my suggestion, it’s 100% ethical because users can select less than or greater options.
But I’m not sure this will matter, and that you’ll move the goal posts after this somehow. It seems that no matter what evidence or examples are provided, the standards being applied to this proposal are inherently different from those applied to your own decisions. While I’ve gone to great lengths to present a case grounded in logic, examples, and user experience principles, no level (let alone the same level) of scrutiny has been applied to the slider—an inherently inappropriate and less user-friendly choice—is the better option here.
If this example isn’t compelling enough to be taken seriously, I’m not sure what else could be. I hope this is considered in the spirit of improving the system, but at this point, it’s hard to see how anything would meet the standard being set as contributions from the decentralized community have been repeatedly thwarted, and our ‘team’ laptog-in-chief @Snorlax.tez will continue to wave the banner of centralization and continue to quash as many efforts to decentralize TED as humanly possible.
