[raffy]

> But this is actually good, nuanced stuff.

What's good about it? Half the post is about Bitcoin. A large chunk is about the ENS token distribution.

There's no link to any of the contracts or code. There's no comparison with existing providers and the trade-offs. There's no discussion on how DAOs are still very immature and evolving. There's no acknowledgement of how ENS has behaved since inception.

Flash loan voting? Clueless.

[yanmaani]

> Half the post is about Bitcoin.

Yes, because Bitcoin is an actually working, properly designed system used by people for real-world ends.

> A large chunk is about the ENS token distribution

That would be two lines just below "Which one is ENS?", plus the image text?

> There's no link to any of the contracts or code.

What is there you want me to link to, specifically? I mean, I suppose I could give a source for "they could crank up the fee for renewing only your name to $1,000,000,000, and then allocate it to whomever they please once it expires" if you insist. But this is not contentious, surely? Is there any specific contract or code you think the article would be improved by linking to?

> There's no comparison with existing providers

Unstoppable Domains is arguably even less serious, Handshake doesn't allow you to own domains at the second level but is otherwise solid, [project] is good but there is a conflict of interest associated with me promoting it, MoneroDNS and Emercoin seem all right but I haven't looked into them deeply.

> the trade-offs

The trade-offs only exist because ENS exists as a "crypto-asset," the governance of which has to be freely traded on the open market for the economic structure to work. If ENS wouldn't have the purpose of making a profit for the insiders, there wouldn't be any reason to make all of these strange trade-offs in the first place.

When you sacrifice censorship-resistance and decentralization, what is it that you get in exchange? What are you trading it for?

> There's no discussion on how DAOs are still very immature and evolving.

How do you expect them to "evolve" in the future? Is there a specific issue that will be solved in a certain way, or is it like Proof of Stake, where "new developments" at an unspecified point in the future are supposed to fix all the problems, so you shouldn't ask too much tricky questions today?

> There's no acknowledgement of how ENS has behaved since inception.

Well, I note that ENS made direct lies about their decentralization status prior to November 10, 2021, I note that ENS publicly announced their intention to censor if required, and I note that a few hundred keyholders is better than seven.

Is there something else you think I should acknowledge?

> Flash loan voting? Clueless.

Does ENS have some special precaution against this? Or is it simply outside of the threat model?

[magicjosh]

> What is there you want me to link to, specifically? I mean, I suppose I could give a source for "they could crank up the fee for renewing only your name to $1,000,000,000, and then allocate it to whomever they please once it expires" if you insist. But this is not contentious, surely? Is there any specific contract or code you think the article would be improved by linking to?

I can imagine raising the price of renewal on a domain. But how would "they" control allocating the domain when it expires?

[yanmaani]

For example, by raising the new registration price to $1,000,000,000. Then, the DAO can register it at zero cost (it will get 100% of the fee refunded instantly), but anybody else would have to pay sticker price.

I believe there's also more complex schemes, where you directly restrict who can register it, but I'm not sure about those.

[magicjosh]

Oooh good one. Yes you need to spell out just how devious you are getting with these exploits. Love it. Skip all the broad sweeping stuff and get specific.