Namespace Creation & Stewardship


#1

Hey Everyone,

After reading the release notes for 0.17

It indicates the details about Namespace Creation.

Namespace creator receives register and renewal fees

It then goes onto describe the context of how the creator will receive the registration and renewal fees.

The namespace creator will collect all fees starting from the block height of the NAMESPACE_REVEAL, and ending to 52595 blocks later (about 1 year).” … “After this period of time passes, name registration and renewl fees are sent to the default burn address 1111111111111111111114oLvT2.

Which honestly did leave me a bit confused about the situation, because in essence this would imply that as a namespace creator you are not the Owner the namespace, but rather you are more of its Steward.

@ryan indicated that the logic in the decision here was to help prevent namespace squatting. Which is fair. After all it would be kind of stupid for someone to register say .facebook and expect to be paid for the registration of all names into infinity (looking at you Zuckerberg lol)

However after thinking about the situation I had two concerns that the average developer like myself would probably also have (hence this post)

  1. If I (dapp dev) only receive registration fees for the first year after namespace creation, won’t this basically mean my dapp will have to go viral if I expect to make a decent living off the time invested in its development?
  2. If I (dapp dev) can no longer depend on long term recurring revenue based on registrations won’t that lead me to seeking a conventional method of monetization such as advertisement (not entirely bad, just not ideal since its riddled with problems in todays landscape and in essence would lead the dapp developer to care more about the advertisors and their concerns rather then the user bases, if FB and YouTube are any example)

@ryan did indicate that if namespace bidding were implemented then this restriction is no longer that important.

I suggested a good compromise would be to build in a calculation that lets the creator of the namespace determine how long they wish to provide Stewardship for the namespace with a max of like X years, and then have that help determine the cost, also obviously have the rarity/length factor be calculated in too.

@ryan seemed to agree that combining that plus the namespace bidding would be a good setup.

This post was created to make sure the community has a dialogue about this, since this may not be completely self evident and deserves to be debated.


#2

Thanks for starting this discussion @cryptocracy! I think there are some really interesting incentive mechanisms at play here. The model will likely evolve as we get more community discussions going and as the native Blockstack token gets ready (it has some properties that lets you have more expressive conditions around namespace creations and registrations fees going to creators/stewards).

Looking forward to following this discussion on the forum.


#3

@muneeb I look forward to this discussion as well, hopefully details around the Token help put things into greater perspective around how the developer community has viable monetization options, short and long term, that avoids centralized advertising models.

Thanks!


#4

How will owned namespaces be effected by changes in purchase rules - say from current algo to auction based?

Also, why not just restrict namespace registration fees to burning only? One time sign up fees for apps is not a great revenue model for developers. It would also remove the complexity of trying to answer cryptocracy’s great questions above. And strategic squatting would become less appealing. Anyway, Nice points @cryptocracy.