Snorlax, can you please stop taking a position and act like a proper Steward?
This underscores my criticism of your competency for this position.
I realize who you think is your “boss” made the previous proposal in question, and so you feel inclined to defend it and downplay criticism and obvious problems with it. But you need to stop and reset and let the DAO do its work without you acting like a lobbyist.
Thanks.
Hi Kevin, apologies if my earlier comment came off the wrong way. I was simply supporting a more common-sense counterpoint to the current proposal.
That said, I’m growing increasingly frustrated with how this pricing discussion is unfolding. It feels like you’re making assumptions without conducting proper due diligence or presenting solid data to support your claims. Much of what you’re asserting appears to be speculative rather than evidence-based.
Not only this, but the whole back-and-forth on pricing is very unprofessional, as I’ve mentioned previously. It’s unproductive and detracts from the serious nature of what we’re trying to accomplish here.
I’m also finding it difficult to continue this dialogue constructively when you dismiss my input, seemingly because I’m SoG. I want to be clear: I approach these discussions in good faith and from a neutral standpoint. My views should carry weight, especially when there’s a lack of transparency or data from your side. I’m not here to argue for the sake of it, I just want a fair, informed process for the DAO.
Thanks
This pricing change needs to be reverted immediately. There is no valid data being produced right now. Multiple major changes were stacked at the same time—standard pricing was tripled, premium pricing was reduced, a new UX with a five-year default was introduced, and it all hit during the single most renewal-heavy period of the year. On top of that, the market is volatile and sentiment is shifting. This is not a controlled environment. No matter how long we wait, we will not be able to separate the effects of these overlapping changes. Keeping this pricing structure in place will not make the signal clearer over time xstrong text.
The revenue “bump” you’re pointing to is not validation and you know it. You know as well as I that it is the result of seasonal renewals that were already expected, because this is the season when Tezos Domains began in 2021, hence the time when everyone stocked up, whale hoarders and small buyers alike.
You’re also ignoring 5-year/long-term default in the new drop down UX. You’re discounting the attrition of those who now have to decide if that annual renewal which was once a no brainer, is now worth triple the tez. The system is shrinking. Users are downsizing. They’re abandoning names they would have kept at 1 tez, and they’re holding fewer domains overall. That is not growth. That is attrition, and it is happening now—not hypothetically, not in the future, right now. Moreover, it erodes trust in the system as it breaks the constancy we’ve had for 4 solid years, because of action and urgency bias that has miscalibrated this move.
This was not a test. A 200% price increase is not a test. In any real pricing discipline, even a 50% increase is considered aggressive and risky. 100% is extremely rare and usually reserved for hard segmentation or value redefinition. 200% without segmentation, in the most price-sensitive domain category, is beyond bad strategy. Proper elasticity testing is done in small, incremental steps. You raise by 5%, 10%, maybe 15%, then watch behavior. If the reaction is tolerable, you proceed. You don’t take the most widely used product in the system and triple its cost overnight. That’s not smart by even the most aggressive of methodologies. That’s a blunt instrument. And your response to this has always been the action bias fallacy, of “we don’t have time to this the right way.”
Brings me to the next point: You’re also trying to frame this around revenue risk, as if reverting the price would somehow endanger funding. But you’re not acknowledging that the greatest risk to funding is already unfolding: users are leaving. The data you’re treating as proof is structurally polluted. It’s made up of layered effects you cannot separate: premium pricing changes (for 4 other domain types), UX changes, seasonality, volatility, and you’re interpreting that pile of variables as if it were a clean, causal signal. It isn’t. There is no insight here, only distortion.
You’re also trying to repurpose the logic of variable isolation, something I emphasized from the beginning and you ignored. Now you’re twisting that argument to suggest that waiting longer under these same broken conditions will give us clarity. It won’t. That’s not how system design works. If the input is entangled, the output remains unreadable. You can’t wait your way into clean data. You have to create it.
This proposal isolates the most volatile and sensitive variable so we can observe the others. It leaves the premium pricing change intact. It preserves the UX upgrade. It keeps the rest of the system in motion while removing the one component that is actively corrupting the signal. That is not reversal. That is correction. If the other changes are working, this allows us to see it. If they aren’t, this allows us to know.
Snorlax, your comments are not neutral contributions to this discussion. You are not just a participant. You are structurally conflicted, and you should not be weighing in on this proposal at all.
You hold an operational role. You are part of the system that executes and benefits from this pricing structure. When a proposal challenges the validity or sustainability of that structure, your ability to argue against it as if you are a neutral observer is already compromised.
If you cannot separate your personal involvement from the need for governance neutrality, then you should not be involved in this vote. If you cannot reconcile your funding interests with your responsibility as a steward, then you should resign your post.
Now let’s deal with the substance of what you’ve said (i.e. reverberated from Primate).
You’ve defended the price increase as something that should remain in place because it is “working.” But this was never a test. A 200% price increase is not a test. In any serious pricing discipline, even a 50% increase is considered aggressive and risky. A 100% increase is extremely rare and typically only justified when the product’s perceived value is being repositioned or when tight segmentation is involved.
You increased the price of the most widely used, most price-sensitive domain category in the system. You did it without segmentation. You did it without incremental rollout. You did it without any kind of formal elasticity test structure. That is not measured governance. That is reaction and overreach, and the result is exactly what anyone who understands pricing would have predicted.
Users are compressing. They are letting go of names they would have renewed at 1 tez. They are shrinking their footprint, not expanding it. We are not witnessing sustainable growth. We are watching concentrated short-term revenue from a reduced base. And you are pointing to that as proof that the system is working.
The data you are using to justify this pricing structure is polluted. It reflects premium price reductions for four other domain types, a new UX rollout with a five-year default selection, seasonal renewals that always spike at this time of year due to the original domain launch timeline, and external market volatility. These are layered, overlapping effects. You cannot read clean insight from them. Time will not solve this. Leaving the price increase in place longer will not give you clarity. It will only distort the signal further.
You are also now co-opting the argument I made from the beginning about variable isolation. I warned before this was implemented that stacking all these changes together would break our ability to read the outcome. You ignored that, and now you are trying to flip that logic around to suggest that the broken test conditions should just continue. That is not governance. That is damage control masquerading as analysis.
This proposal does not remove the premium pricing change. It does not revert the UX upgrade. It keeps the structure you claim to care about intact. It removes only the one variable that is actively destroying our ability to evaluate the rest of the system. That is not reversal. That is correction.
And I want to directly address something even more serious. You suggested that this proposal and the back-and-forth surrounding it somehow threaten the credibility or stability of the DAO itself. That is not just wrong. It is reprehensible.
The DAO exists to allow proposals to be introduced, challenged, amended, and, when necessary, reversed. You are treating open governance as a threat to the system. You are framing discussion as instability. That is not the role of a steward. That is the behavior of someone who does not want scrutiny, and who wants past decisions to remain protected regardless of their consequences.
You are supposed to protect the process, not the outcome. But instead of defending the DAO’s ability to refine itself, you are defending a mistake by attacking those trying to correct it. That is indefensible.
It is clear to anyone paying attention that you should not be in this role. The only reason you remain in it is because DAO participation has not yet reached the level required to remove you. Do not mistake that for confidence or approval. You are not there because the DAO has validated your performance. You are there because the DAO has not yet been able to act.
And you have interpreted that silence as legitimacy, doubling down on your mistakes.
Shame on you.
I am able to voice my concerns when you are making all but assumptions, you have no concrete evidence or data to back up your claims.
Please explain how I solely benefit from a price increase?
This makes no sense, I am not involved in voting, I hold no voting weight.
You’re speaking like it was directly my decision that the price change was accepted, which is false. As you know, this was accepted via DAO vote.
You don’t need to be a genius to see that the back-and-forth price change proposals are harmful to users. Nobody will use the platform if there is a price change proposal every month.
I don’t know if you knew this but, the price change was VOTED FOR. you’re not giving enough actual evidential substance or data suggesting that this change is incorrect.
As Steward of Governance, I am doing precisely what the role requires: engaging with proposals that impact the system’s structure and functioning. Voicing informed concerns, especially when governance or operational implications arise is not a conflict of interest, it’s a responsibility.
You’ve accused me of being “structurally conflicted” yet provided no concrete evidence that my position is compromising governance neutrality within this proposal thread. What I’ve shared are observations grounded in data, operational context, and the broader impact on the DAO’s sustainability and user mindset. If you believe those observations are incorrect, I welcome that debate, but let’s focus on substance, not speculation.
The argument that I should resign simply for participating in governance discourse sets a dangerous precedent: that informed voices within the system must remain silent. That is not decentralization, that’s gatekeeping.
As for the pricing mechanism, your critique hinges on assumptions about market behavior, elasticity, and impact. But so far, your claims about harm are not backed by clean or isolated data either. You rightly point out confounding variables, yet use them to make definitive claims about failure. That’s an internal contradiction.
Governance is not about making no mistakes, it’s about ensuring decisions are challenged, reviewed, and refined. I fully support that. But scrutiny must go both ways. If we are serious about governance maturity, we cannot allow emotional rhetoric to replace clear evidence or substitute for a robust process.
Snorlax, the problem is not that you are speaking. The problem is that you are not neutral, and you continue to confuse participation with stewardship.
Being a Steward of Governance is not the same as being a participant with a strong opinion. Your role is not to steer the outcome. It is to protect the structure that allows the DAO to govern itself. But what you are doing here is using your authority to shape perception, defend a decision you helped implement, and cast governance challenges as threats. That is not neutrality. That is overreach.
You are projecting. The only speculation happening here is coming from you. You are making confident claims based on a revenue spike that came from multiple overlapping changes happening all at once. Seasonality, UX defaults, premium price cuts, and market volatility are all in play, and you are trying to package that as a clean outcome of a single price increase. It is not. That is not evidence. That is noise.
And the fact that you are presenting this as validation proves exactly why this proposal is necessary. You are not analyzing a signal. You are imposing meaning onto distortion. This is not how governance is supposed to work, especially not from someone in your position. If you cannot tell the difference between data and narrative, you should not be using either to defend a broken structure.
Let me remind you. My proposal is not based on definitive claims about causality. It is a structural correction so that we can finally measure any of this properly. You are the one making definitive claims about success while sitting in the middle of an entangled system with no clean inputs. You are the one insisting on maintaining a pricing structure that produces unusable data while calling proposals to fix that speculative.
You say calling for your resignation sets a dangerous precedent. No. The dangerous precedent is a steward who frames debate as a liability. The dangerous precedent is someone entrusted with neutrality, turning their role into a political shield while pushing a narrative they are personally entangled in. That is what undermines the DAO, not proposals, not votes, not arguments. Your conduct.
You are not being held to account because of a disagreement. You are being held to account because you have violated the core principle of your position: neutrality in the face of contested policy. And the reason that matters is because when governance roles are used to steer outcomes, especially outcomes tied to funding, it breaks the very trust the system depends on.
This is not gatekeeping. This is basic accountability. If you want to argue, argue as a participant. But stop using your title to project authority while defending decisions you are too close to. You do not get to wear the badge of neutrality while actively fighting to preserve a structure that serves your own framing.
Until you can recognize that distinction, your role is compromised.
Let’s be clear: Stewardship does not mean silence. It means ensuring that governance remains functional, principled, and inclusive, especially when proposals carry structural or systemic consequences. Participation with context and accountability is not a breach of neutrality.
You’ve framed my engagement as “overreach,” but what I’ve done is bring forward data, operational insights, and process-related concerns to support a better-informed discussion. That is not shaping outcomes, that is contributing to the debate, transparently and on the record. Governance maturity requires both participation and scrutiny, and that includes my own role, which I welcome.
I’ve never claimed perfect causality. I explicitly acknowledged the presence of confounding variables. My point was not that one input explains everything, but that dismissing a data-supported improvement outright, without proposing cleaner models or deeper validation - risks replacing rigor with conjecture. If the system is noisy, let’s improve how we interpret it. But don’t confuse calling attention to a pattern with manufacturing a narrative.
You suggest I’m too close to the structure to comment on it. I’d argue that proximity is exactly why my perspective adds value, as long as I’m transparent and open to challenge, which I have been. I’ve never framed debate as a threat, I’ve called for it. But debate must cut both ways. Accountability must be mutual.
Governance is not a purity test. It’s a collective process that thrives on rigorous, good-faith disagreement. The danger isn’t participation from myself, it’s silencing them in moments that matter most.
Let’s raise the level of discourse and focus on what the system actually needs to evolve. That’s how trust is built, not by shrinking the circle of participation. Refrain from launching personal attacks on me and focus on constructive communication.
Your AI reading this, is not you reading it and responding. If you gave things a once-over you’d see that.
Let’s correct the core misunderstanding here, because it’s clear your response misses the point entirely.
Stewardship is not about whether you’re allowed to speak. It’s about how your speech functions when you hold institutional power. You keep defending your participation as if the issue were your voice being unwelcome. That’s not the issue. The issue is that you’re using your position to insert yourself into decisions you helped shape, defend, and implement, while pretending that your contributions are neutral.
They are not. And calling that out is not gatekeeping. it’s accountability. You forget what your role is meant to do in the context of the whole.
You say you’re contributing “data, insights, and process-related concerns,” but what you’re actually doing is:
That is not transparency. That is entrenchment. You ignore the information which contradicts your point by simply reiterating your point as if the contradiction never even occurred.
Let’s be precise about the fallacies in your reply:
Post Hoc Fallacy & Confirmation Bias
You treat a revenue spike, one that occurred alongside multiple simultaneous changes (UX flow, pricing tiers, seasonality, volatility). as evidence that the price structure was effective. That’s not data-driven reasoning. That’s an interpretation layered on noise, exactly the kind of distortion my proposal seeks to fix.
Straw Man
You suggest I’m calling for silence. I’m not. I’m calling for a clear distinction between participant and steward, which is a distinction you continue to blur every time you defend your own entangled decisions from a position of governance authority.
Appeal to Position
You lean heavily on your access, context, and proximity to justify influence, without recognizing that proximity also creates conflict. Insight does not negate bias. It intensifies the risk of it.
Let’s return to basics:
The role of a steward is to protect the DAO’s ability to govern itself, not to use the weight of governance to defend personal policy preferences.
If you want to argue a case, do it as a participant, not as a steward. The badge of neutrality does not entitle you to reshape debate while discrediting dissent. Until you recognize that distinction, your role remains compromised, not because you’ve spoken, but because of what you’ve done with the authority your role carries.
looks like AI
…sigh
Yes lets return to basics, next time you submit a price change proposal or any proposal for that matter, please come with Data and Facts rather than Conjecture.
