Author Topic: BitShares DNS general thoughts.  (Read 849 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
BitShares DNS general thoughts.
« on: August 06, 2014, 02:33:46 pm »
I've read some of the threads, apologies if  this has been covered or not do-able just giving my ideas & my thinking behind them.
1. A 10% Auction system.
2. A minimum opening bid which decreases each month
3. Current top 10 000 valued ICANN domains have higher minimum opening bids which decrease each month
4. 0.5% Renewal fee auction every one or two years.


1. A 10% Auction System

I really like the .p2p auction system in general to incentivise people to bid a domain up to somewhere near it's current value. I also think it is exciting and interesting, this is something people will want to take part it in!
As for the auction system described in the OP, I think it's fine.  But what's wrong with with a very simple to explain system?

To start an auction you must offer the minimum required opening bid. 
Another bidder must offer at least 10% more.
If there is another bidder you get 1/2 of the difference between his bid and your bid and 1/2 is dividends for shareholders. 
This means you will make a minimum of 5% return if someone bids higher than you.
If no-one else bids you will own that domain.


2.     The Minimum opening bid (decreases over time.)

Problem: It is likely domain names will be undersold and most of the good & valuable names taken via a land grab by initial shareholders in the first two months. 

(This is bad as we get a lower price as shareholders and I think it's very important in order to increase adoption that people both want to join as quick as possible but also don't feel like they've missed the party and that all the good names have been taken in the first two months.)

Possible Solution: A minimum required opening bid that decreases over time.

Price fixing is good imo. Most sellers of product start high and over the course of a season (or a day in fresh produce) the price drops - to avoid underselling yourself at the start

In month 1 the minimum opening bid is say circa $10-20 and it decreases by $1/2 a month until it reaches $1 in month 12. (I know we don't have BitUSD just a general concept/idea.)

This decreasing minimum opening bid stops the bulk of good domain names being undersold in the first few months when DAC participation is low.


3. The Current top 10 000 ICANN valued domain names

A bit more out there...

Problem: Even with no.2, all the most popular domain names will be undersold and most of the good names taken via a land grab by early adopters.. (Sex.p2p, Casino.p2p, Apple.p2p, Nike.p2p, 888.p2p  etc.)
It will feel unfair that initial shareholders have taken all the best names. It also removes a lot of potential excitement and interest from the DAC imo.

If you think of DNS shareholders as native Indians and domain buyers as settlers of the New World, even with an auction system, we would do better rather than auctioning the best land to the first 100 settlers, at least waiting for a few more thousand settlers to arrive on ships before we sell the best land.

Possible Solution: We already have an idea from existing domain systems which domain names are likely to be more popular & valuable so why not reference valuation sites to derive a minimum opening bid for them?

Before the DAC starts we input the current 10 000 most valuable domain names into the system. (The minimum opening bid for a top 10 000 domain is it's $ value on the DAC start date divided by 10 000 with a 25% monthly drop.  (I know we don't have BitUSD, just a general idea.)

Example: is valued at $11 Million so it would cost $1100 to open the bidding on Nike.p2p in month no.1 of the BitShares DNS DAC! This sounds expensive right? It is! But by month 12 it would only be a $35 minimum bid.

This will stop an unfair situation where all the most valuable & popular names are taken in the first few months. This will be great for the perceived fairness of the DAC and I think it will create a lot more excitement and interest. Watching and seeing some of the most popular domain names come down in minimum opening bid price and wondering when people are going to grab them & taking part in the auctions. It could also give time for the actual companies that currently own them to take notice. (If they all were all auctioned  in the first month it would be pretty bad imo.) 

4. Renewal fee Auction

Problem: Domains are worth vastly different prices at different times & the DAC also has a long term sustainability problem. 

Possible Solution: A renewal fee that takes into account the domains current value.

Even including something like ideas no.2 & no.3 above, in a couple of years the majority of the good names will have been sold and the value of the DAC will decline unless there is a renewal fee which extracts a fee from domain names that is somehow related to their current value. (It would also be a small deterrent or a tax on squatters if they could be forced to pay a higher renewal fee for a popular domain.)

Renewal fee auction - Every one or two years there is a renewal fee auction. If there are no bids in the auction the site owner pays the minimum renewal fee. If there are bids, the site owner only has to pay 0.5% (maybe higher?) of the highest bid (within 30 days) to retain his site for another 1/2 years or he loses it to the highest bidder.


I bid $10 000 for Nike.p2p so the owner must pay a $50 renewal fee to keep it for another 1/2 years or I get it for $10k (The final bidder gets 50% of the renewal fee and 50% goes to dividends)

This one may be controversial as it is a form of paying ground rent, why I think it is important is also here....

Edit: I'm always a fan of the most simple clear system  but arhag's basic concept here has some merit.

But we can make things even better in order to strike an appropriate balance between disincentivizing squatters and not punishing legitimate domain holders too much. The tax rate could be a function of the length of time the domain holder has held onto the domain

Other thoughts

-It would be good if the equity release only kicks in after 30-60 days
-There is quite a lot of equity being funnelled through delegates maybe people would be happier if normal delegates only get fees& only the top 10-20 delegates by approval are trusted with directing equity release.

« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 06:06:41 pm by Empirical1 »