DRAFT: Proposal to Repeal P-016

Governance Proposals
1

Voting period: 7 days

Categories:

Social Proposal
Request for Action
Constitution Amendment

Abstract:

This proposal seeks to formally repeal P-016 to address significant shifts in market conditions and the evolving priorities of the Tezos Domains ecosystem. Building on the rationale of P-017, which halted P-016’s implementation, this repeal ensures a fresh start for future pricing models that reflect the current scale of transaction activity, active user growth, and contract interactions on Tezos.

The repeal also acknowledges the unintended consequences P-016 would have had, such as discouraging registrations, destabilizing revenue, and undermining trust due to inconsistent pricing progressions and abrupt price hikes for key products like 5-character domains. By repealing P-016, we reaffirm the DAO’s commitment to logical, equitable, and community-driven governance. This will enable the creation of a consistent, scalable pricing structure that balances affordability with platform growth and aligns with the long-term vision for Tezos Domains.

Rationale:

The decision to halt P-016 through P-017 was rooted in several concerns, including the lack of a communicated start date, a desire for broader community input, and changing market conditions. While P-017 effectively paused the implementation, formally repealing P-016 ensures clarity and alignment for the platform moving forward.

Key reasons for this repeal include:

  1. Evolving Market Conditions:
    Since P-016 was originally designed, the economic dynamics for users and for internal operations-continuity outlook
    • The [USD] price of tez has more than tripled
    • Transaction activity on Tezos has surged,
    • Number of Active users have surged
    • Contract interactions have surged.
    This increased ecosystem engagement highlights the need for pricing structures that reflect the platform’s current activity and scale.

  2. Fresh Start: Repealing P-016 provides an opportunity to rethink the pricing structure from first principles, focusing on long-term considerations and user-centered design principles that ensure pricing is clear and equitable

  3. Impact on 5-Character and Up Domains:
    P-016 introduced a sudden 3x price increase for the platform’s most popular product—5-character and up domains.
    • This increase would likely reduce revenue by discouraging registrations, increasing turnover, and establishing no incentive for long-term renewals after the price change.
    • The abrupt hike could undermine trust, as users might fear future unpredictable price jumps, deterring them from registering or renewing domains.

  4. Lack of Inherent Incentive for Long-Term Registrations Post-change:
    The structure proposed in P-016 would fail to encourage users to commit to long-term registrations after the price change is implemented.

  5. Inconsistencies in Price Structure:
    The inconsistent pricing progression across domain lengths (e.g., 6x, 4.17x, 8.67x, and 4.62x) would be perceived as arbitrary, undermining the perception of logic or fairness, which risks reducing trust and willingness to engage.

  6. Maximizing Value:
    Future proposals should aim to balance affordability for users with sustainable revenue growth for the platform, ensuring a mutually beneficial relationship that supports the ecosystem’s growth.

Details:

The repeal of P-016 ensures a transparent and unified foundation for future pricing changes. Added details to consider:

  1. Previous Issues with P-016:
    P-016 introduced significant inconsistencies in the rate of increase across domain lengths, which did not align with the scarcity and premium value of shorter domains.
    Specifically:
    5-character and up domains: 3 tez per year
    Increase to 4-character: 6x (3 → 25 tez)
    4-character domains: 18 tez per year
    Increase to 3-character: ~4.1667x (18 → 75 tez)
    3-character domains: 100 tez per year
    Increase to 2-character: ~8.667x (75 → 650 tez)
    2-character domains: 650 tez per year
    Increase to 1-character: ~4.6154x (650 → 3,000 tez)

  2. Abrupt Pricing Hikes:
    The 3x price increase for 5-character domains, the platform’s most popular product, would likely have had counterproductive effects, including:
    • Reduced revenue: Higher prices could discourage registrations and renewals, impacting overall revenue.
    • Increased turnover: Users may abandon domains rather than renew them at higher prices, reducing platform stability.
    • Lack of incentives for long-term registrations: Without a clear benefit to long-term commitment, users would likely opt for shorter registration periods, further destabilizing revenue streams.

  3. Impact of Repeal:
    • Clarity and Focus: Repealing P-016 removes lingering ambiguity and allows the DAO to focus on designing a pricing structure that reflects current conditions and aligns with strategic goals.
    • Rebuilding Trust:
    By demonstrating responsiveness to user concerns and market realities, the repeal emphasizes the DAO’s commitment to user-centered governance. It highlights the adaptability of the governance model and reinforces confidence in the platform’s decision-making process.
    • Alignment with Governance Principles:
    The repeal underscores the importance of user trust and highlights the DAO’s commitment not only to self-amending governance, but to agile and adaptive economic decision-making as well.

Specification:

Action #1:
Formally repeal P-016: Pricing Structure Change #2 by submitting a DAO vote to remove it from the governance framework.
Action #2:
Announce the repeal publicly, providing the rationale and emphasizing the commitment to transparency and trust.
Action #3:
Collaborate with the DAO, stakeholders, and community to design a new pricing structure that reflects market conditions, user needs, and long-term goals.
Action #4:
Publish the draft proposal for community review to gather feedback and ensure alignment with user expectations.
Action #5:
Submit the refined pricing model for DAO approval, with a clear implementation timeline and adequate notice for users.

1 Like
2

Looks good, we definitely need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to price changes due to price increase in XTZ as mentioned.

@Kevin are you able to add an ideal timeline on this proposal, please?

1 Like
3

P-017 states that “STOP” accomplishes the following:

Voting for this option is to stop planned changes from happening on 3rd of December and for a new price proposal to take place with additional pricing options.

To me this indicates action #1 is completed. Additionally action #2 is already done as well. Additional verbiage to be posted should be outlined, discussed and presented to me to edit and post.

For action items #3-#5, it looks like it’s already being discussed here: DRAFT: The Revenue Surge and Sustainable Growth Plan?

I’m happy to proceed with this proposal as well, provided all the specificity is added (i.e. timelines, verbiage, etc.) but it seems like it would save time to just move on with the new proposal to change the pricing structure.

4

I agree as well. Let’s finalize this and get voting!

5

Part of the point is though that perhaps a new pricing structure isn’t needed yet. Getting caught in the trap of changing pricing just to change it is counterintuitive.

Moreover we need to stop this practice of stuffing too many things in a single proposal. It compels us to do unwise things in a poorly measured way.

6

Also why does Primate get final say and final edit on every single proposal that gets put to a vote. I certainly didn’t even know he was going to add a line to p-017 to compel the DAO to vote on forcing new pricing changes. And I’m certainly not permitted to have a final edit on anything he wants to put to a vote. Double standard and self aggrandizing privilege.

7

Kevin, Primate didn’t edit anything on P-017 Proposal. The point about making a new price change proposal after P-016 is stopped was in the original proposal I wrote P-017 and hasn’t been edited in.

I don’t see the issue of putting this to vote, other than including a timeline on how you expect this to be. It would just be easier to put in a proposal of your price changes and provide a space of other pricing opinions from the community so they can be included in the vote.

A new pricing change proposal is to encourage conversion about price change (or if any change is needed) and see others give their opinions, there will be an option for no change.

8

We must formally repeal P-016 to ensure that its provisions are not subject to statutory inheritance by future proposals, leaving no room for overly broad interpretations that grant excessive executive authority to some or prevent other proposals that ‘conflict’ with its reach from being submitted for a vote.

Formally repealing P-016 is essential to prevent doctrinal carryover, which would effectively mandate changes to every single product’s pricing and perpetuate the apparently enormous and broad executive power it granted into subsequent proposals.

It’s easy to dismiss the necessity of this repeal when you’re an executive empowered from the wide berth of authority enabled by the legislative entanglement, rather than those whose contributions would be directly affected by it.

Obviously, you’re the one at the keyboard posting proposals, but it has become increasingly clear that you’re doing so only with the direct or implied approval of Primate. While his stepping up when others weren’t undeniably commendable, it seems this has created an implicit dynamic where Primate is treated as though he holds a supervisory role, with the power to influence your position or responsibilities as if he were your employer. This perceived dependency further underscores the need for a reassessment of governance to ensure the integrity of the DAO. Hence another reason for replacement.

9

I’m trying to save the DAO work in repealing something that had been already neutralized.

You will notice at the bottom I say

I’m happy to proceed with this proposal as well, provided all the specificity is added (i.e. timelines, verbiage, etc.) but it seems like it would save time to just move on with the new proposal to change the pricing structure.

Please stop making everything a war for that is not how consensus is built.

10

Nobody is dismissing it, what primate is saying that we can just save the process and create a new proposal for pricing as mentioned in the proposal P-017. It makes no difference repealing P-016 or not as there isn’t stopping someone from suggesting the same pricing on a new price change proposal. The idea of adding the step that if P-017’s outcome was to STOP, stemmed from private messages me and you had, so I’m pretty confused what you’re not happy about now considering you agreed to the Proposal P-017 being done and even voted on it, this would just suggest you don’t read the details when you vote.

@Primate had no say in how I worded the proposal, I put it up myself & even discussed it with you prior to putting it up

11

Kevin I really really wish this was true man. Snorlax and I work for the DAO and have no voting weight. So yes, we work for Primate technically cause he is a delegator, but we also work for you in this same respect. I’ve stated this many times, and is why @Snorlax.tez, @Primate and I, make sure you are NOT dismissed. It was literally the whole point of P-17.

@Snorlax.tez If we all agree p-16 is done. stopped. over. Cant we just repeal the thing, and get this done and out of our way?

I think this is just wasting time, and voting for the sake of voting, but if it allows us to proceed then by all means, axe the damn thing. repeal it, delete it, set fire to the desktop, whatever.

I will happily write up a tweet saying P-16 is invalid due to p-17 and future price changes will be had in a future proposal if necessary. :pray:

12

About Primate’s Influence:

Primate’s role as a delegator comes with significant voting rights. This adds considerable influence, beyond just being an executive figure, to decisions affecting governance. This dynamic raises broader questions about how power is distributed and exercised within the DAO and whether delegates should be taking executive positions.

There’s also a distinction between the idealized principles we aspire to in governance and the practical realities that emerge. No system is perfect, but to outright deny that any issues exist only exacerbates the problem. By failing to acknowledge these imperfections, we undermine our ability to address them and, by extension, validate their existence. Growth and improvement require honest reflection, even when it’s uncomfortable.

In my experience working as a participant in this DAO, I’ve seen the influence of these dynamics firsthand. It’s not something that should be dismissed as a minor issue or ignored because it’s inconvenient. We owe it to the DAO—and to the principles it represents—to take these concerns seriously and address them constructively.

About Repealing P-016:

Please give the original proposal above a close read. We can’t simply agree that it’s “done, stopped, over.” Not only does that defeat the purpose of a DAO, but it also leaves the door open to all the practical problems I’m trying to address—problems which the clause of P-017 effectively enables to carryover from P-016 to the new pricing proposal. The off-chain, informal ideas, combined with the broad authority it grants to executives for implementation, are perpetuated through statutory inheritance and doctrinal carryover by the mandate of P-017. This creates significant risks to governance integrity and introduces ambiguities that cannot be ignored.

Regarding a ‘new’ pricing proposal:

If we’re serious about ensuring clarity and accountability, we need to address a couple of key points. The clause in P-017 that mandates a new pricing proposal is problematic. I didn’t think it made sense when it was included, but it ended up there. Now, we have two paths forward:

  1. If we decide that pricing changes are necessary, we must develop a new rationale for those changes that reflects current market conditions, user activity, and other relevant factors. This must be a deliberate and informed process, not something driven by momentum or past decisions.

  2. If we determine that a new pricing proposal isn’t needed, then we need to formally repeal the specific aspect of P-017 that calls for a subsequent proposal. There’s no reason to act on a requirement that no longer makes sense just because it was previously agreed upon.

What we can’t do is continue to make decisions informally or presume that we must move forward simply because of prior formal decisions. Conditions change—that’s the entire reason P-016 was halted—and when they do, we have the power to revisit and repeal outdated mandates.

Governance is not about blindly following precedent. It’s about consistently reevaluating what’s necessary and appropriate for the current moment. If we’re going to maintain integrity in our processes, we must formally decide on each of these counts, starting with whether a pricing proposal is needed at all.

14

Nobody is dismissing the Repeal OR any other ideas suggesting potential changes.

The new proposal (suggested in P-017) would give everyone a chance to give their views on the pricing, if you feel we need to Repeal P-016 then nothing is stopping you, but it would just add an extra step (as previously mentioned about someone having the ability to include the same price structure in P-016.

Again, you say it doesn’t make sense, but not explaining why it didn’t make sense or advising me that it didn’t make sense to you at the time or during the 7 day voting period.

The whole point of P-017 was to stop P-016 because you wanted more inclusion & choice provided in the votes, which is understandable.

This proposal will go ahead for voting (given that you revise to add a time-line for how you expect this proposal to play out.)

15

Oh as far as I’m aware p-16 is stopped, done and over. P-17 did that.

However 17 mandated a new proposal to happen which is now @Kevin issue. So are we repealing 16 or 17 then?

How long are we going to dissect this? Just add the line Kev, so you guys can vote and we can move on.

Everything from 16 on is a gross over reaction to a unstable market imo. Only idea that ever made sense was an adaptive price model with a USD peg recommended by @Primate in P-13. Everything else is a reaction.

Are we a reactionary DAO, or a proactive one?