P-017 ACCEPTED: Stop Execution P-16 Price Changes

Governance Proposals
1

Voting period: 7 days

Categories:

Social Proposal
Request for Action
Constitution Amendment

Abstract:

This proposal is to confirm a STOP or PROCEED with P-016 price changes from occurring on the 3rd of December.

Rationale:

This proposal is to help govern issues relating to P-016 and it not having a communicated start date in the proposal along with and DAO members wishes to include optional price changes other than what was listed in P-016. The only real way of settling any issues surrounding this would be to vote on stopping the planned changes on the 3rd of December 2024 stemming from P-016 Acceptance.

Details:

Once in vote, DAO members will have 7 days to conduct their vote.
The vote will include 3 options.

Option 1: STOP

  • 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.

Option 2: PROCEED

  • Voting for this option will not change anything already planned to happen on the 3rd of December 2024 (Prices to change to 3000,650,75,18,3)

Option 3: Abstain

  • Voting for this option will grant your votes to a neutral stance.

All those who voted for P-016 are advised to vote on this proposal which option you think is best for Tezos Domains.

Specification:

  • CM to Communicate with DAO Members of this proposal.
  • Socials updated about this proposal.

Voting will go live at 19:00 GMT
No Discussion Period.
Proposal will end 3rd December at 19:00 GMT*

  • If the Proposals outcome is in favor for ‘STOP’, the Proposal will be marked as ACCEPTED, but changes planned from P-016 will be stopped and a new proposal will be uploaded shortly after, here on the DAO forum, which will be open for other suggestions too.
  • If the Proposal outcome is in favor for ‘PROCEED’, the Proposal will be marked as DECLINED and changes from P-016 will go ahead as planned.

This proposal has been created on Homebase after meeting all ACTIVE criteria.
Vote on P-017: Tezos Homebase
Vote Ends: Dec 3, 2024 19:03 PM GMT
Proposal Passing Requirement (Request for action): 50%+ Yes votes, 10%+ TEDv quorum

2

Looks good. P-016 didn’t have an implementation date so it should be discussed further.

3

The initial P-016 proposal represents yet another decisive step toward the dismantling of the Tezos Domains initiative. The proposed price adjustment exacerbates an already precarious situation.

  1. From a commercial perspective, the project is unsustainable in the foreseeable future. Something needs to be done.
  2. Proposal P-016 unfairly burdens regular users—those registering domains with five or more characters—with a staggering 200% price increase within a single year.
  3. Users are now forced into a dilemma:
  • A) Retain their Tez holdings to benefit from the bullish market trajectory, or
  • B) Allocate their funds to a naming service whose resilience during the next bear market remains dubious, given its financial instability and dwindling community engagement.
  1. Crucially, there is no assurance that competitors won’t emerge to create alternative name-service projects on the Tezos blockchain, whether under different extensions or even the same .tez extension. The first-mover advantage—a critical factor for long-term viability—risks being squandered if users are alienated by disproportionate price increases.

In essence, the P-016 proposal appears to be a cash grab—a direct assault on the wallets of its remaining user base. The original Tezos Domains community has already eroded significantly, with social presence nearly extinct and registrations plummeting. Why alienate the few loyal users left with an exorbitant 200% hike for five-character domains? While it’s true that “we cannot survive without better financial stability,” the equally valid statement is, “we cannot survive without engaged users.” In fact, the latter is arguably more critical.

This pattern of short-sighted thinking jeopardizes not just Tezos Domains but the broader Tezos ecosystem. The focus should not be “What does the project need?” but rather “What do users want, and how can we deliver it most effectively?” A draft based on P-016 itself explicitly states: “This initiative addresses the platform’s immediate financial needs.” However, the proposal leans heavily on jargon—terms like “loss aversion,” “framing effects,” and “prospect theory”—that mean little to the average user. Aligning economic incentives in this manner seems destined for failure.

Merely citing “loss aversion” as justification for a price surge suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of user priorities. The implication that users can be exploited because they fear losses more than they value equivalent gains is, frankly, an astonishingly cynical stance—arguably bordering on sociopathic.

Arthur B. once remarked, “Projects fail because nobody cares.” What he perhaps neglected to highlight is that nobody cares about projects that continually disregard, marginalize, or exploit their users, developers, and stakeholders.

With numerous competing blockchains offering their own naming services, making an already unattractive product even more expensive is a counterproductive strategy.

The essence of P-016 can be boiled down to:

  • Problem: Financial shortfall.
  • Solution: Increase prices.

But is the financial deficit truly rooted in domain pricing? Or is it a symptom of insufficient user adoption and retention? Wouldn’t a more effective remedy focus on expanding the user base? Are there no alternative avenues for generating revenue or streamlining costs?

Dismiss these arguments or deride the messenger if you must, but the underlying issue remains unaddressed. The path forward lies not in P-016’s misguided approach but in re-evaluating the project’s foundational strategies and identifying innovative, user-centric solutions.

Kind regards,
Noor

2 Likes
4

I am super confused because the only proposals that mentions “loss aversion”, “framing effects” and “prospect theory” and " This initiative addresses the platform’s immediate financial needs" is @Kevin’s Draft Proposal: Advancing Pricing Adjustments for Scalable Revenue Growth… and : The Revenue Surge and Sustainable Growth Plan

This makes no sense.

2 Likes
5

I modified the phrasing to ‘A draft based on P-016’, but the essence of the message remains unchanged. The tenets outlined in that draft are egregious. It proposes ‘a gradual price escalation from 1 tez/year to 6.25 tez/year over 24 months,’ representing an astounding 625% increase from the current rate.

Moreover, the 200% price surge in P-016 disproportionately benefits those managing the Tezos Domains project, offering little to no added value for the users who bear the brunt of these hikes.

Users gain nothing substantial from a proposed 625% price escalation. One of the justifications cited is ‘loss aversion.’ Can you not perceive how terrible this reasoning is? At the very least, it’s undeniable that this constitutes a poor strategy for fostering user retention.

6

What pricing structure would you propose @Noor?

Whilst I don’t have any particular pricing option preference, I do think 1XTZ is (currently) too cheap in general for the sustainability of the project.

7

The current volatility in the XTZ price understandably poses challenges for fair product pricing, creating issues in both market scenarios. During bearish periods, the revenue generated is insufficient to sustain the project, while in bullish markets—when attention and demand peak—pricing becomes prohibitively expensive for loyal users.

Operational costs such as wages and server maintenance are typically accounted for in USD. Why not peg domain prices to USDT, adjusting annually for inflation plus a markup? Payments could still be made in XTZ, but this model would ensure transparency and predictability for both buyers and the project. A .com domain, widely perceived as unique, costs approximately $10–$12 for standard non-premium names. For 5+ letter .tez domains, starting with a price of $5 and incrementally increasing to $10 over time could provide fair and sustainable pricing. Without such adjustments, XTZ price spikes during bull markets—e.g., reaching $8—could lead to exorbitant costs of $50 or more per domain when priced at 6.25 XTZ.

Tezos Domains, and namespaces in general, have tremendous potential but currently suffer from limited demand and utility, rendering them more of a novelty than a necessity. Denominating prices in USD or USDT while accepting payments in XTZ could stabilize the project’s budget and remove the barrier of unpredictable costs. Buyers would no longer need to delay purchases due to market fluctuations, and the project would avoid the revenue pitfalls of low-price, multi-year registrations during market troughs.

The Ethereum Name Service (ENS) already employs a fixed-price model for 5+ letter domains, pegged to USD. In the last bull market, I recall paying a staggering $1,400 for a single ENS domain renewal, with gas fees as high as $450—unavoidable due to the risk of expiration. Today, ENS offers fair pricing of around $5 for similar domains. By contrast, Solana’s 5+ letter domain names, priced at $20, are disproportionately costly given their current utility. While premium-length domains understandably command higher prices, Tezos could strategically undercut competitors by offering 5+ letter domains at $5–$10.

A related opportunity lies in expanding the .tez domain’s reach beyond the Tezos blockchain to compete with e.g. Ethereum and Solana. This would increase exposure to potential buyers and provide additional revenue streams. Given Tezos smaller market presence compared to Ethereum, leveraging price competition could prove advantageous. For example, offering .tez domains priced at $5–$10, payable in SOL, while supporting multi-chain wallet addresses (e.g., Tez, Eth, Sol) could attract a broader audience. Currently, .tez is confined to the Tezos ecosystem, raising concerns about long-term viability. If Tezos fails to sustain user interest while blockchains like Ethereum or Solana or even SUI thrive, locking .tez into Tezos alone could be a critical limitation. By enabling cross-chain compatibility, .tez domains could secure greater utility and broader adoption, ensuring their relevance regardless of Tezos’ fate.

8

My original suggestion from earlier this year was to peg to USD. However it would cost the DAO a lot to implement, it’s definitely something that would be happening in the future depending on the future of the treasury.

9

You’re absolutely right—fair product pricing does need a stable currency. Imagine if $XTZ dropped to $0.15; even 6.25 tez wouldn’t be enough to cover operating costs in that scenario.

I’m curious, though—why would a daily USD-to-XTZ conversion be expensive? Do you have a resource or link where I can learn more about this?

Payments could still be made in XTZ, just as they are now, so the user interface wouldn’t need to change much. The payment interface could simply pull the XTZ/USDT price in real time by combining data from multiple CEX websocket feeds, which is essentially free.

Alternatively, Chainlink provides a reliable XTZ/USD price feed here: XTZ / USD Data Stream | Chainlink. There might even be DEXs offering free, accurate price feeds worth exploring.

Does Tezos Domains rely on external developers for its operations? I wouldn’t think so, right?

10

I’m no longer a supporter of P-017 to stay the execution of P-016. After further contemplation I feel like I must change my vote to PROCEED with P-016.

The price changes make sense from a self-sustaining angle and from a fair price angle, when it comes to serving users who are not speculators, above serving name speculators and flippers. As a name speculator myself, I’ll have to let go of around 50% of my “good” names and keep only the really good ones. This means that in my scenario, I’ll still be spending more tez overall while also freeing up domain names other people can actually use — as their primary domains.

We have great analytics with the current price structure. The current price structure does not result in self-sustainability as things stand. Let’s get some more great analytics with the 75/18/3 structure in toe and if necessary, the DAO can adjust prices again after 6-12 months.

Keep in mind that P-013 has enabled a provision where a steep rise in USD/XTZ would result in a core dev decision price change that would keep the domains affordable from a fiat perspective.

Let’s implement the changes that have been agreed upon and voted through and focus on making good, data-driven decisions in the future. This whole changing of directions in the last minute is very uncomfortable and less than useful.

11

“This whole changing of directions in the last minute is very uncomfortable and less than useful.”

What about revising your vote just two days before the deadline? Or altering the initial pricing framework right on the cusp of a bull market? I find these actions equally disconcerting.

Modifying the rules mid-course at this precise juncture shifts the burden of these missteps onto us, the paying users. At present, ENS boasts trading volumes nearly tenfold that of Tezos. Meanwhile, Tezos Domains remains conspicuously absent from platforms like CoinMarketCap. The proposal deals with trying to generate income instead of trying to garner extra users.

The argument of “speculators are detrimental” doesn’t hold much water. Speculators, or substantial buyers willing to invest significant amounts of tez in auctions and register numerous domains, were pivotal to the inception of this project. They are also likely to foster engagement, draw additional users, and, in many cases, spearhead real-world initiatives tied to these domains.

Primate, are you not one of the largest domain purchasers yourself? Yet even you are not generating extra income in the new situation, as you’ll likely relinquish most of your domains. And with the user base so diminished, who exactly is left to acquire the domains you drop?

Keep in mind that P-013 has enabled a provision where a steep rise in USD/XTZ would result in a core dev decision price change that would keep the domains affordable from a fiat perspective.

[P-013 → P-016] primarily creates conditions where shorter domains become more prone to monopolization, comparable to what’s already possible with domains over five characters. Domains shorter than five characters have historically been hoarded to a similar degree. Ultimately, this policy harms the average user, forcing them to subsidize rebates that benefit players with deeper pockets.

… and focus on making good, data-driven decisions in the future …

That is something I can agree with, but “good” is a very debatable term.

12

What about revising your vote just two days before the deadline? Or altering the initial pricing framework right on the cusp of a bull market? I find these actions equally disconcerting.

Totally right, I should have voted to proceed from the very beginning and I would have if I knew what was to follow in the days since my original vote. Thank goodness the governance model allows me to change my vote until the end of the period.

Primate, are you not one of the largest domain purchasers yourself? Yet even you are not generating extra income in the new situation, as you’ll likely relinquish most of your domains. And with the user base so diminished, who exactly is left to acquire the domains you drop?

I’m not one of the largest domain purchasers and that’s not the takeaway from my initial message mentioning my 5D holdings.

13

Primate, I picked just some random names you registered for 5 years or longer:

  • assassin.tez
  • psycho.tez
  • murderer.tez
  • cheater.tez
  • terrorist.tez
  • criminal.tez
  • attacker.tez
  • violent.tez
  • genocide.tez
  • furious.tez
  • baller.tez
  • hacks.tez
  • fuckmylife.tez
  • warden.tez
  • stupid.tez
  • fuck.tez
  • cocky.tez
  • mobster.tez
  • jackass.tez
  • karma.tez
  • scarface.tez

Is this a serious attempt at building a portfolio? What are you trying to eradiate, that you are some kind of hardened sociopath? And you want to join a serious conversation? How old are you, like 10?

bigdick.tez - registered for 67 years

Seriously? And you are the one that was chosen as community manager and having a large vote here?! What the hell is this for joke?

You have 1319 domains which are still registered.

You are one of the biggest hoarders out there, but here it comes: Of those 1319 names 1130 are expiring after more than 2 years from now. Many have been registered for much longer. You are absolutely not the person who is being hit by these price changes. People have delegated a large holding to you to vote for them, the community, and you squander it.

That is a lie and you know it. Most of your names are already registered for many future years. And on top of that, most of the names you have are utter garbage.

To back it up, here are some stats for the names you have registered:

Total still active names: 1319 domains

  • 85.67% (1130 domains) are expiring after more than 2 years from now.
  • 64.29% (848 domains) are expiring after more than 3 years from now.
  • 50.18% (662 domains) are expiring after more than 4 years from now. (!)
  • 40.86% (539 domains) are expiring after more than 5 years from now. (!)
  • 32.83% (433 domains) are expiring after more than 6 years from now. (!)
  • 27.45% (362 domains) are expiring after more than 7 years from now. (!)
  • 25.77% (340 domains) are expiring after more than 8 years from now. (!)
  • 17.21% (227 domains) are expiring after more than 9 years from now. (!)
    and so on …

Primate, you are a dishonest fraud and it shows. Types like you disgust me. But thank you for joining the conversation. Your dishonest behavior, response, position and the contents of P-016 put the final nail in the coffin.

I am forking Tezos Domains to a second naming service. One that has a sincere feeling for community. I will out-price Tezos Domains on each metric. Even if that means I have to give away names for free. As long as cunts like you have a large vote here. Well done.

14

Before giving me the third degree and accusing me of weird stuff, make sure you have your facts straight.

Furthermore, please keep your communication professional within the bounds of the rules of this forum.

2 Likes
15

These aren’t @Primate’s names, I understand why you would think that though considering that person has primate.tez, but I can assure you that’s not him.

1 Like
16

All the very weird stuff aside, I also keep advocating for a USD peg. The peg is needed if we want to break into new sections of web3.

Domains should be $2-$5 dollars at all times with an adapting price model. We all agree and all of this has been discussed in P11-P16. If we were to add it in formally now, then we would be back at the issue of “Too much happening at once” which was a major cause of delays in the past few months.

So are we doing too much too fast, or not enough? :person_shrugging:

1 Like
17

Can we implement adaptive pricing now, if P-013 is already executed?
I understand the proposals were written when the Tezos price was about half its current value. However, P-016 and P-017 seem to create unpredictable price fluctuations, making it unclear and complicated for users to know what to expect. Tripling prices in Tezos looks scary, while the real output might be different in dollars or not.
Sorry, if I didn’t follow all the discussions, it might be already discussed.

2 Likes
18

If we combine proposals P-013 and P-017, the result will be:

  • Now prices for 5D domains are tripling, while 3D/4D domains get only a 30% discount
  • However, with P-013, prices would be reduced again in a few months to keep a price of around $2, if the XTZ price triples from $0.70. In any case, the price would then fluctuate around $2 following this adjustment.

Basically, if XTZ continues to rise, we just need to wait a couple of months, and domain prices will stabilize at around $2.

Is this interpretation correct?

I worry the timing is not ideal for a price increase in tez. The team behind the project managed to survive the bear market, but now, just as a new cycle is expected, prices are tripling. For users, this could mean a significant increase in cost when measured in dollars.

$2 seems reasonable, in my opinion. However, anything approaching or exceeding ENS domain prices doesn’t seem attractive, considering the low current interest, poor liquidity on second market and availability of many good names for just 1 tez now.

3 Likes
19

Great suggestions!

After P-017, everyone could give their POV on how the pricing should look and then we can put it too a vote. You would need to do so with due-diligence and back your ideal pricing up with maybe some comparisons to other naming services for example.

2 Likes
20

After some additional discussions in the last few days, I’ve been convinced that it’s a good idea to briefly stop changes and reassess the new situation
vis-Ă -vis the steadily rising price of XTZ. In these more favorable conditions for the project, we have more time to look at where things are and adjust from there.

To that end, I encourage everyone to read P-013 once again, especially the provision that allows for the repricing of domains upon significant and steady XTZ price action.

3 Likes