P-011 REJECTED: Pricing structure change

Governance Proposals
1

Voting period: 21 days

Categories:

Social Proposal
Request for Action
Constitution Amendment

Abstract:

Change pricing structure for 3D/4D/5D+ name registrations.

Rationale:

We need a price structure change to better theoretically be able to address bull and bear market scenarios. For example: currently in a bull scenario (XTZ = 10USD) it would cost 1000 USD/yr to keep up with a 3D name; conversely in a bear scenario (XTZ = 0.7 USD), the inactivity of the market causes the velocity of the 3D/4D registrations and renewals to drop by not being low enough.

Most people agree that some kind of pricing model change is needed

image
image715×430 35.4 KB

Details:

At our peak we had somewhere around 130K actively registered domains and now we’re slowly bleeding domains, down to 62K (check out ⁠📊stats). I think as long as we consider domain squatting issues (i.e. too cheap, can take all the desirable names without enough personal expense to prevent it), we can somewhat lower all the costs. This plan addresses both the scenarios of tez price increase and decrease.

The solution to the price structure is to change it to one where domains are affordable in both bull and bear markets but for different reasons. To that end both 3/2/1 and 1/1/1 pricing structures fit the bill.

Long term, a change that prices domains in a stablecoin or some other similar method makes sense. Currently we don’t have the resources to take on a big redesign for this but we have the resources necessary to change the current 3 tier pricing structure in order to start trending in the right direction, which is: domain name registrations are going up. Whether that’s because Tezos is popular or because we’re “giving them away” (by being so cheap) is immaterial. The end goal for us is to keep the Tezos Domains project going.

To keep the Tezos Domains project going we have to fund the Tezos Domains project. This is where market existence and velocity come into play. By pricing down our premium domains we ensure that there develops an independent secondary market of dedicated Tezos Domains supporters (i.e. sellers)

I originally suggested 25/5/1 but the 3/2/1 and 1/1/1 options have proven to be more popular with core Discord supporters. I think I can kind of understand this factor, in that the popular pricing structures are complete departures from the same model as currently, the one I scaled down slightly.

image
image721×496 38.7 KB

All 3 structures are equally popular with the Twitter poll with over 150 participants.

image
image730×490 55 KB

To get this proposal passed we have to agree on the necessity for change and to converge to a single popular choice of change.

I’m hoping to hear from other delegates about this subject and also hope to see your own DRAFT submissions for other approaches on how we should turn the tide of domain registrations into the positive.

Specification:

Action #1: Price out and plan cost of pricing relaunch (Core Dev, Treasurer & CM)
Action #2: Proposal vote approve pricing relaunch plan
Action #3: Launch new price as agreed upon in Action #1

This proposal has been created on Homebase after meeting all ACTIVE criteria.
Vote on P-011: Tezos Homebase
Vote ends: Jul 30, 2024 8:49 PM BST

2 Likes
2

Has this been decided on?

I’m curious as to why anyone would want to keep the original pricing structure when it’s clearly cost prohibitive to adoption…

1 Like
3

I will be putting this to a vote regardless of Delegates lack of discussion. A few delegates have talked about this on the Discord, however nothing has been said here. I will be putting a vote option to keep pricing the same to keep the options more open, rather than having only 3 reduced options provided in the temp check polls.

4

I don’t follow. Isn’t that option already represented?

Are votes now closed?

Can further discussion be had in the Discord?

I’ve mentioned this elsewhere previously, but I have premium tezos domains that I don’t see the merit of paying 25 xtz annually for with so little activity on-chain.

1 Like
5

No option to stay the same isn’t in the temp check. No, it hasn’t even been pushed to voting as of yet.

Yes, discussion can be had on discord, however this should be our place to speak about proposals etc.

The 3/2/1 option is a favourite from what I have gathered when speaking about this with other delegates.

As previously mentioned, I will be pushing this to a vote regardless, there will be multiple options for the delegates to choose from, however most delegates haven’t expressed much interest in this post so far, only on discord and even then its only a small handful.

2 Likes
6

TBH I don’t even know what the current pricing model is. I don’t understand the underlying pressures and implications of this decision. This does not inform me enough to begin to make a decision. While I should be better informed, I also feel this post could do better at laying out the underlying economics of what is forecasted at the various price levels?

I understand that there is pressure on the high end in a bear market, which is likely the issue we are addressing now? However we don’t want to make it so cheap that squatters suck up all the good domains for pennies, and we don’t want to kill profits in a bear market? So to boil that down, we need a price that isn’t too high for shitty times, but not too low in good times?

Is it entirely impossible to make a dynamic pricing scale that takes the current trade price of XTZ against another asset like fiat or stables? We can make the domain price a derivative of the greater market position, so as the market improves the price goes up with it. That would help align the domain to a set value rather than a set amount of XTZ with swinging values.

I don’t feel a single price change is a big enough scope to address the underlying issue here.

7

Haha didn’t realize when you said to discuss to come here and do it (maybe highlights the need for the other draft proposal)

Honestly don’t think much discussion is warranted here. Every member I’ve had contact with has viewed this proposal in a positive light.

1 Like
8

Yes, that’s a good point, so we need to make it possible to renew domains cheaply while activity is low.

3 Likes
9

Not knowing what the current pricing structure is currently and commenting on the price structure should be doesn’t really make much sense to me, currently it’s 100XTZ/25XTZ/1XTZ in the order of 3 characters, 4 characters and 5+ characters.

It seems mostly all ‘good’ 3 characters are available, indicating the price being way too steep for people’s liking. I feel the squatting problem is irrelevant, at the end of the day, squatting is a thing at current prices let alone any price decrease.

10

Sorry, needs to be much more clear imo where to discuss. Originally was discussing via Discord but most of it gets lost and I doubt the delegators have time to search the discord.

Going forward I will be making it clear to discuss proposals here on the discourse first.

1 Like
11

I’m not commenting on what it should be, I am engaging in the conversation and asking questions. Also, making sense to you is not my intent. I am here to inform my vote.

Is there any hard data that suggests people on our platform care about shorter names? I know this is the pricing model on other chains, but is that the only reason we are tied to that model here? As you said, there is currently a surplus of “good” short domains. What makes them good then? To me, “good” is what people want to buy. I reject the notion that we accept this evaluation of ‘good’.

I never wanted a short domain name, I wanted one that fit my brands. My shortest domain is 6 chars and that’s because that’s all I needed.

That’s why I didn’t know the structure. It was always just 1 tez a year everytime I bought one. I didn’t even realize it was more expensive for shorter ones because I never wanted one. I think that’s an important perspective to share here.

12

Also, I want to say that I really feel that 1xtz is too low. I would be more in favor of a 5/4/3 model if we’re stuck to this structure. But again, that’s without having access to any data to evaluate. I could perform some market evaluations and model some different price structures if I had an aggregated dataset of sales over time. Is that available anywhere other than scrubbing the chain?

13

I’d still maintain, as discussed in the discord, that varying pricing structures are not even a great idea. All should be the same price. 3/3/3 or 1/1/1. As the user above mentioned “good” is what people will pay for, not necessarily “rare” although there is a market for that and pricing them differently is a bit of a slap in the face to investors, who at this early stage of development of this ecosystem would be the bread and butter of the DAO treasury. I don’t see “squatting” as a bad thing. It’s an indirect way to reward early adopters and those that believe in the future of the technology.

We can tell by 3L registrations that the 100 valuation is obviously overpriced.

In traditional .com/.net/.org domains all renewals are the same, no matter the rarity, and gTLDs that deviate from this standard seem to see much less success in not only investment but usage as well.

2 Likes
14

FWIW I pretty much totally agree with you.

Can I suggest that we discuss a model where, instead of pricing a premium on shorter domains, we instead charge a premium on the FIRST registration of a domain. Then I think renewal fees should be less expensive but higher than 1xtz, and scale down the further out you pay for. If you want to register for 10 years we give it at 1xtz a year, but 1 year is more like 2xtz per year. Then it scales the price between those points.

That way we charge a small premium on registering new domains, thus adding some barrier to mass squatting. Squatters probably also won’t pay for longer reg periods, so they again pay a small premium there. They have to price that in on the other side to make a profit, and if they can then good deal for everyone. I don’t see an issue with that.

We don’t want one person coming in with a couple hundred and owning all the domains, so there’s a spectrum here to consider. Making a fair profit on speculation versus claiming the entire thing for near nothing are two different things.

That all being said, it seems to be the fairest model to those of us that are engaging in and using the platform. I would lock up longer periods if I knew I could save.

Maybe that presents too much of a refactor and a cost of development, but I would like to explore what and where the barriers are.

15

A dynamic pricing structure is something that would likely be added in the future, however the cost to implement anything other than a solid cost per domain would cost the DAO money, its quite clear that the pricing is harsh as mentioned before.

The whole point of this is written in the proposal and price value changes wouldn’t be hard to implement and will more than likely drive more registrations. Registrations and continued renewals are what keep this project alive, so the price needs to be looked into.

16

Changed to P-011 ACTIVE. Proposal is now active on Homebase, locking the OP from further changes.

Voting info has been added to OP as per timestamp.

17

I’m voting for 25/5/0.5 because imo it’s the most sustainable price structure that doesn’t to completely against our current pricing model: 100/25/1.

Expecting PA to pick up, the new model will ensure that people can better afford their regular domains (5+) while not allowing squatters to completely take up all the good 3/4 character domains. It’s the best of both worlds.

3 Likes
18

How can I vote on this?

1 Like
19

You need to follow the link to homebase on the OP or here: Homebase & sign into your wallet and cast vote.

2 Likes
20

I have voted 3/2/1 because it is what most of the community has shown support for across all polling platforms. (against my personal wish to vote 1/1/1)

1 Like