DRAFT: 1D Temporary Domain Stay; Partial P-014 Stop Execution

Voting period: 7 days

Categories:

Social Proposal
Request for Action
Constitution Amendment

Abstract:

To propose a temporary stay on the sale of 1-character domains, building on the progress and framework established by P-014 to ensure these rare assets achieve their maximum potential value through strategic timing and data-driven optimization.

With only 36 in existence, 1-character domains are the most exclusive and valuable assets in the Tezos Domains ecosystem. Rushing their release risks selling these gems for far less than their true worth. By allowing the 2-character auctions to proceed first, we can gather critical market data—such as pricing trends, demand patterns, and speculative growth—which will enable a more informed and optimized approach for releasing 1-character domains.

This proposal ensures that the Tezos Domains ecosystem maximizes revenue potential without leaving money on the table. By aligning with the ongoing Tezos growth cycle and leveraging insights from the 2-character market, we can position 1-character domains to achieve significantly higher valuations—potentially $1M+ each. This is about protecting value, capitalizing on opportunity, and ensuring we don’t sell ourselves short.

Rationale:

  1. Rarity and Exclusivity: With only 36 available, 1-character domains are the rarest and most valuable in the ecosystem. Releasing them too early risks undervaluing their true worth, especially during a period of rising interest and activity in the Tezos ecosystem.
  2. Market Calibration and Optimization: Allowing 2-character auctions to proceed first provides critical market insights—such as buyer demand, pricing trends, and speculative growth potential—that can inform and elevate the strategy for releasing 1-character domains. These benchmarks ensure 1-character domains are positioned for maximum value.
  3. Timing with Growth: Tezos is entering a boom cycle, and delaying the sale of 1-character domains allows the market to mature further. A patient approach could yield significantly higher revenue, with potential for these domains to generate $1M+ each.

Details:

1-Character Domain Supply: Only 36 1-character domains exist, making them the rarest assets in the Tezos Domains ecosystem. This level of scarcity warrants a cautious and strategic release approach to ensure their full market potential is realized.

2-Character Auctions as a Benchmark: The 2-character domain auctions provide an ideal opportunity to gather real-time market data. Insights on buyer behavior, demand levels, and speculative pricing trends will help refine strategies for the 1-character auctions, ensuring the highest possible value for these rare domains.

Economic Context: Tezos has seen significant growth recently, and ongoing ecosystem developments suggest the potential for increased activity and higher spending power in the near future. Delaying 1-character domain sales ensures they are released during the most favorable market conditions.

Auction Strategy: While this proposal focuses on timing, it also leaves room for future discussions on the most appropriate auction format for 1-character domains, incorporating lessons learned from the 2-character auctions

Specification:

  1. Implement a Temporary Stay: Place a temporary hold on the release and auction of 1-character domains.

  2. Gather Insights from 2-Character Auctions: Allow the auctions for 2-character domains to continue as planned under P-014, using their outcomes to gather data on pricing trends, demand, and buyer behavior.

  3. Evaluate and Optimize: After the conclusion of the 2-character auctions, analyze the results to develop a data-driven strategy for the timing, pricing, and auction methodology of 1-character domains.

  4. Set a Reevaluation Timeline: Define a clear timeline for revisiting the 1-character domain strategy, such as after all 2-character auctions have completed or after a specific period of market activity analysis (e.g., 1-2 months).

I am unable to accept this proposal for voting.

It is conflicting an already 100% VOTED FOR proposal which is less than a week from being executed.

Reason for being unable to accept this proposal for voting is as follows:

You and the community were made aware the date 2 weeks ago. I understand it does not have an explicit date in this proposal, it does however have a plan to action which includes mentions of * Dev team shall work with CM team to plan and implement changes * within Specification Section, which indicates that a plan was being made in the background (off-chain) on when the changes were being done. The date was given 2 weeks ago via this forum and all socials, this is causing a lot of confusion within the community. The proposal met all eligible criteria to be put to a vote and it wasn’t voted down.

Secondly, the proposal was to implement 1D/2D names via Auction, along with the price of 1D/2D. You cannot change this.

If you felt like this wasn’t needed, or wasn’t how you visioned it, then sure, you could’ve voted it down, just like everyone else in the DAO.

Whilst I personally agree with your version of rolling things out, I can only follow procedure for a successful DAO.

Snorlax, this isn’t a conflict—it’s an amendment. Governance is an iterative process designed to revisit and refine decisions as needed. The purpose of this proposal is to adjust aspects of P-014 based on new insights, which is exactly why we have the option to put amendments to a vote. Calling this a conflict misrepresents the nature of the proposal. The community deserves the opportunity to evaluate and decide if these changes are worthwhile through the proper voting process.

Also, the execution date of December 3rd was never approved by the DAO, so the argument that this proposal is invalid based on timing doesn’t hold. If there’s a specific rule that makes this proposal invalid, please point to it.

The community has already voted for this change. I get what you’re saying, but, you’re asking for the community to re-vote for a proposal that passed over a month ago, a vote you didn’t even vote in and had clear detail & specification on what’s going to happen if the proposal passed.

It is a conflict as you’re looking to add onto a proposal that has already been accepted via vote.

Snorlax, it is not within your authority to undermine the governance process by unilaterally deciding what is or isn’t valid without grounding your decisions in the Constitution or proposal rules. This is not a ‘conflict’—it is an amendment, and amendments are well within the scope of governance. Your logic appears to be based on personal interpretation rather than any codified governance principles.

Furthermore, you keep citing an execution date as though it were ratified by the DAO when no such date was ever approved in a vote. By blocking this proposal, you’re not enforcing procedure—you’re circumventing it by creating rules that don’t exist. It’s the DAO’s right—not yours—to determine whether amendments to passed proposals should proceed. If you believe this proposal violates governance rules, cite the specific provision. Otherwise, allow the process to work as intended.

Can you point to me where in the constitution or rules that you can amend already passed proposals?

Snorlax, you’re committing a fundamental error in governance logic.I pointed out that nothing in the Constitution or rules prohibits this amendment, which you have not contested. Instead, you’ve shifted the argument to demand proof that the Constitution explicitly allows amendments. This reasoning is flawed and circular.

Governance doesn’t operate on the principle that everything must be explicitly allowed; it operates on the principle that anything not explicitly prohibited is permissible, provided it follows proper procedure. Your approach creates arbitrary barriers and concentrates decision-making authority in ways that governance frameworks are specifically designed to prevent

If you believe this proposal violates governance rules, it’s your responsibility to show where the Constitution prohibits amendments. Otherwise, the process is clear: proposals are reviewed and decided by the DAO, not unilaterally blocked based on subjective interpretations.