This is purely my personal opinion. Every time I bought a name, I knew it was basically a sunk cost, either in my own personal branding, or a risk for a return on it later. That return was not dependent on the name staying at a 100 MANA price, from the beginning of my time in world I felt the name price would have to drop in order to facilitate mainstream adoption, but rather from a) selling my own brand/being my own-self in the Metaverse; or b) selling an actual name for a profit in the future. This doesn't actually directly correctly to the initial vs. current name purchase price. I think there is an argument to be made that lowering the price on names now does not actually lower the value of those purchased previously, but could increase it. It will lead to more rapid name adoption, quicker dilution of supply, and increase demand on high value names, that early adopters were able to snag at the 100 MANA price, which when purchased was done so at VERY cheap USD prices. In this regard it may actually make it MORE likely that you get the return on investment you are looking for, and it does not need to come from the DAOs operating budget, and from a non-existent MANA source, since that MANA spent on names is burned.

I would love to sit down and write half a page to attempt to elegantly circumnavigate what you have argued above, but I am not going to. Also I should apologize if I came across rude. Know, that I partly understand your view and there was a time 6 months ago when I argued in the same manner when we discussed L2 wearables minting review fees. Yes, the cost of something sets the minimum value because noone should be willing to sell at a loss. I agree. As long as the numbers are material that logic could probably be applied. Having said that I look at the 100 MANA as a registration fee. You are not buying anything from DCL. You are getting any available name you want as long as you are willing to pay for registration fees and ETH network fees. Whether you pay 1000 USD ETH fees or 5USD ETH fees you still get the same unique name. The same is true for the registration fee of MANA 100 or 25. You are not buying anything. You are registering and minting your name with transactions costs. Period. The value of the name is actually 0 from that point on until someone wants it or until not having a name starts to incur costs. I think you see where I am going with this. I am sure one could argue something else, too. I think we had our fun. Let us move on.

On a final note, "Debasing the intrinsic value" is not "a lot of smart nonsense", and I'm sorry you feel that way about my writing. The best way I can explain the above is with the following example: Suppose your friend came to you and said they wanted to buy the name "xyz.dcl.eth" from the creator, but didn't know how much to bid for. What would you say? This is not a trivial question and is part of the reason why this space is so exciting, is because there really isn't a 'correct' answer. With a conventional asset, such as a stock or bond, one could simply take the present value of the future expected cash flows to arrive at a sensible valuation, which depending on the industry etc., would be more or less a 'correct' answer. With DCL domains, however, in some ways it's a lot more complex to come up with a sensible valuation. For domains, a relative comparison is often a lot easier. We would all agree, for instance, that "CocaCola.dcl.eth" is infinitely more valuable than "xyz.dcl.eth". "xyz" has no obvious cultural significance and is not a multi-billion dollar brand such as Coca-Cola. So what would you say to your friend then? You could do a basic comps analysis, and look at what similar names traded for in the past, although that universe would be very very difficult to define and would be very imprecise at the best of times. What's the solution then? Well, the creator paid 100 MANA to mint the name, so logically it's pretty reasonable to assume that around 100 MANA is a fair value for a name such as "xyz.dcl.eth". The creator is very unlikely to sell the name below 100 MANA unless they're desperate, and if your friend really really wanted the name, they should bid at a good premium to 100 MANA to increase the likelihood of the creator accepting. However if names now only cost 25 MANA to mint (and likely lower in the future), then the "intrinsic value" in MANA terms is drastically reduced. Suddenly a bid of 50 MANA for "xyz.dcl.eth" doesn't sound so bad, as it's a 100% premium to current mint value. I agree with your assertion that "Names that sell for 10k MANA are not going to lose in value because of this" because they fall into the elite category of highly culturally relevant/ billion-dollar brand. But to be honest that's not most names. For the majority of good, but not amazing names, the only anchor of value is the 100 MANA minting cost.

Well doesn't really matter anyway now. One 1.6M VP whale just shitcanned the proposal.

Seems the DAO isn't for it

You didn't pay 100 MANA to the DAO for your name. Your burnt 100 MANA to generate your name, the DAO didn't have anything to do with it, it's not like it has the funds to refund you. Generating a name requires burning MANA, so it's gone now. Voting NO.

I like the idea, it also would be nice if Gen 2 names would be on Polygon, otherwise I would be paying more for gas than for a name. ~100$ to swap ETH to MANA ~100$ to buy the name additionally ~25$ to approve spending ETH and/or MANA

Love this KJ. This is one of the best solutions in terms of keeping value for those who spent their mana earlier, without going as far as refunding insane amounts of mana. I bought names when mana was both under 1$ and nearly 2$... was not asking for fiat valuation or refunds then. We barely made it to $10 and everyone freaks out. Aside from your clever suggestion KJJK, I would suggest name vouchers. Even if they likely wont give us 3 vouchers per name, even 1 per name would be reasonable in my opinion. And while were at it, do the same for wearable creators who submitted wearables before the reduction proposals timeline :man_shrugging:

I own 56 Names. And I've had nearly 24 hours to digest both sides arguments. While I am thrilled at the potential 4200 Mana I could receive, and could finally purchase my first land parcel, the precedent set by this is concerning. I knowingly minted those names for a well established price. And it wasn't until just a few months ago that I actually obtained VP for those names. I minted names for an investment. When you collect items as an investment, the cost to collect changes over time. This doesn't diminish the value of what I purchased. It doesn't warrant a refund. Here's my solution: All names minted for 25 Mana be Gen 2 Names Gen 1 Names minted before cost change - Bolded and in bright color to denote Gen 1. Same names maintain 100 VP. Gen 2 Names minted after cost change. Normal font and white color. 25 VP. Seems like a pretty simple fix if you ask me.

Was certainly not meant to be a personal attack, was meant to be rhetorical and self-reflective. So if the shoe fits... Everyone can ask themselves - do you have an issue with the other side of that event? If "with a completely independent 75% overnight **increase** in valuation", should we require 75% more mana from previous purchasers (a "debit" instead of a "credit")?

While I think WordSalad is clearly at an advantage being very articulate and well spoken, I agree with the others. When I started people bought hundreds and some thousands of names at USD 8 a piece. Can be seen in the DCL Bloggers Discord, I think. From what I understand some of the people want to send these guys, (and yes I am going to call it) a "refund", hundreds of thousands of USD for making the same mistake the rest of us did with wearables. Does not sound right to me. "Debasing the intrinsic value" sounds like a lot of smart nonsense to me. Names that sell for 10k MANA are not going to lose in value because of this. These are not commodities and it really depends on the name and the demand for that specific name, not on its initial registration cost. All in all, it was an interesting read but to me it sounds like a debate club session showing of some linguistic superiority. The whole point of this is to allow for new guys to register names at a reasonable cost, even if the fees are still going to be hard to take on L1.

Once again you somehow manage to conflate the idea of a change in market value (e.g. your NASDAQ and electronics example) with a completely independent 75% overnight devaluation by outside decree. This really is a very simple and clear distinction; perhaps you should read over my prior post again to see if you can understand more clearly. In your final sentence you decide to personally attack me for some reason that is quite unclear. I have been a loyal and active member of the DCL community for nearly a year now, and have put a lot of my own capital and attention into DCL to help make the community and experience better for everyone. Some of the most engaging and productive members of the DCL community have voted in favor of this proposal, so I resent your judgemental and entirely unfounded accusation that "you're only interested in one side of that trade" and "not in the best interest of the DAO". What's not in the best interest of the DAO is actions that destroy long-term value for its community members.

"It's not a refund"... ::immediately proceeds to define it as a refund:: You enter into an [explicit] contract at the time of purchase. You do not get a refund on your electronics after the price comes down the following year. The purchaser of a home does not owe the appreciated value to the previous owner. NASDAQ does not compensate you for the value of your stocks going down - the price was fair at the time of purchase. If you want to change the terms of owning a name to be more like a swap, then you need to consider both sides of that exchange. If mana goes down, we should also require more mana to be coughed up by the purchaser - it's only fair. In fact, this could all be done programmatically. We can deploy a smart contract that you approve it to touch your mana and name at the time of purchase. If mana goes up in value, mana gets pushed to you; alternatively, if mana decreases in price, we can automatically pull the mana right out of your wallet. If you don't have enough mana, we can automatically revoke the name until the debt is paid. If you think the above is ridiculous, it's because you're only interested in one side of that trade which means this is personally benefitting and not in the best interest of the DAO.

The only people that have used the word "refund" in this context are those opposing the motion. It's not a "refund". That's an entirely misleading and dishonest statement, as well as a complete non-sequitur. All the community is asking for is some compensation for the MANA we put in, if in fact it goes ahead that our purchases are explicitly and directly devalued by 75% overnight. Some people here seem to conflate the idea of the market devaluing an asset (which is entirely fair), to a directive passed to explicitly and directly devalue an asset by 75% overnight, completely independent of any market forces.

Hold up - you guys are asking for *refunds*. In *crypto*. Do you hear yourselves? All sales final by design. Also for what it's worth, should probably choose a programmatic way to set prices for things going forward else this argument could just get rehashed ad infinitum. I'll continue to press that No button as hard as I can until the idea of refunds is removed from such a proposal.

You're conflating 2 points here and making a straw-man out of my argument. Let me explain: Although the DCL wearables market has met an unfortunate fate, it is based on the reasonable supply and demand of those assets. We can debate the merits of allowing user-generated wearables and the impact that had on the short-term value of the market, but it was not entirely unexpected, especially given other metaverses such as Cryptovoxels had made a similar decisions. Although L2 wearables clearly indirectly had a negative impact on L1 prices, there was a fair market dynamic that I believe will change over the long-term. I lost a lot of money on wearables, but that's fair, and is fair market pricing. I am **not** suggesting and never have suggested that market-based price fluctuations should be justification for refunds, of course not. However this is a completely separate and distinct issue from DCL reducing the only intrinsic value in the names, the minting price, by 75% overnight, without compensation. The difference in these two scenarios would be say the difference between the government unsurprisingly growing the monetary base during a deep recession vs the government going into your savings account and giving you a 75% haircut (as they did in some capacity in Greece, for example).

Prices in MANA for L2 wearables has also gone down, should everyone who bought these wearables get refunded the delta? Lets just give out all the DAO funds to users as a refund!

Yes, and 31.1k * 100 MANA = 3,100,000 MANA of that was put up by loyal DCL community members, who had an understanding that they wouldn't have 75% of their intrinsic value debased overnight. You mention that "it has been their choice to invest". I personally find this attitude very troubling, as if huge and sudden debasement of a loyal and trusting community is somehow morally acceptable. If you woke up tomorrow and found out that the value of your portfolio had declined by 75% in real-terms because of debasement, I doubt you would have the same callous attitude.

It is a fact that moving minting to 25 MANA is debasing the intrinsic value of all current names by 75%. I personally believe that reducing the minting fee has merits, but if you knowingly destroy 75% of the intrinsic value of names held by active community members and loyal DCL participants without renumeration, it will be disastrous. What capital would want to stay in an ecosystem where user value and early adopters are massively debased every time MANA rises. It is an incredibly foolish idea, is terrible for long-term community trust and capital attraction and is a very dangerous precedent to set of destroying user value. Many DCL community members took the risk of investing in illiquid names in a very early metaverse because of their trust and belief in the long-term vision and viability of DCL. If the intrinsic value of their long-term investments is destroyed by 75%, compensation is the only fair and ethical solution. Finally, I have been an active and loyal community member of DCL since March 2021, and have invested in many names and L1 wearables. It is fair to say that these investments have not performed well over the past year, even as MANA has risen substantially. I would seriously caution anyone who thinks further destroying value for loyal DCL participants is a good idea, especially at a time when other popular metaverses like the Sandbox are strongly competing with DCL. Early adopters of DCL should be respected and treated fairly, and not treated as disposable commodities. All we ask is that any value destruction be fairly acknowledged and compensated for. Thanks, Wordsalad

I am all for reducing price for a NFT name (maybe 25 MANA is a bit too low), but I am against refunding 75 MANA to the people that bought names before this price reduction. It has been their choice to invest their money in DCL names instead of holding MANA. Currently there are 31.1K names according to OpenSea, 31.1K * 75 MANA = 2 332 500 MANA = 8 023 800 USD (at the time of writing this comment).

“People paid 100 mana knowingly, gaining first movers advantage to name squat.” Were early investors of Bitcoin, Bitcoin squatting? Weren’t they taking a chance on a high risk investment? Don’t they deserve the reward if they happen to get it right? Don’t forget that it’s a risk/reward balance. When names could first be claimed, they weren’t even NFT’s at the time and there was no guarantee that they ever would be or that they could be sold or transferred. The only value in them was that we would be able to use it as our name in Decentraland. For investment purposes we were taking a risk at our own expense. Those that took a risk early should be rewarded for the risk they took. I knowingly and gladly paid 100 MANA per name. I think it’s a fair price. I’m not advocating that it change. In fact, I would prefer that it stay at 100 MANA. I don’t hear anyone asking to drop the price of Bitcoin because the early investors had “first mover advantage” like you are complaining about. “Overall, this idea of reducing prices over time AND simultaneously refunding the delta in all previous purchases is a terrible plan.” I don’t want the price to be reduced. Someone else has submitted a DAO proposal to reduce the cost of claiming a name without considering the consequences in terms of voting power and NFT value. I’m simply trying to respond to a bad idea with a potential solution. I would be glad to hear an alternative solution if anyone has one. “The precedent set here will reverberate through Decentraland economics system for a long time as it will make it normal the the DAO is a temporary holding fund for future refunds.” The precedent is being set by reducing the price of NFT’s while not addressing how it affects voting power and the value of the 30,000+ NFT’s that have already been claimed at a higher price. If you bought Bitcoin back when it was $10k and the price today is $50k and then someone proposes reducing it to $12.5k because it’s too expensive, wouldn’t you be upset for losing $37.5k in value per Bitcoin just because someone cried that it was too expensive? Wouldn’t you want someone to pay you back for that lost value? Or would you just be a Bitcoin squatter that didn’t deserve the reward for your risk for buying early? Basically you would have taken the risk with no reward just because someone complained about not getting in early enough. “As you mentioned, people are still spending 100 MANA which means the price is fine.” I agree, so why is someone trying to reduce the price? Have you criticized that proposal? “Imagine if any time someone spent bitcoin and the exchange rate went up, you took your products back to the store and asked for the difference…” Asking for the price on name NFT’s to be dropped is like asking for the price of Bitcoin or Ethereum to be dropped because you didn’t have the foresight to invest early. “Reduce the price if you want to…” You obviously didn’t read what I wrote. I don’t want to reduce the price. I’m simply responding to someone’s proposal to reduce the price while not considering the implications in terms of voting power and NFT value. Instead of bashing my bandaid, maybe try bashing the proposal to reduce the cost of names. Or at least address the issue of voting power and the implications of the value of these NFT’s if the price is reduced.

People paid 100 mana knowingly, gaining first movers advantage to name squat. You now want to doubly reward those folks by issuing a refund. Overall, this idea of reducing prices over time AND simultaneously refunding the delta in all previous purchases is a terrible plan. The precedent set here will reverberate through Decentraland economics system for a long time as it will make it normal the the DAO is a temporary holding fund for future refunds. Maybe we should go back to burning Mana to prevent this nonsense. This approach is barely a bandaid to the mistmatched tokenomics of Mana as a consumeristic currency. Imagine if any time someone spent bitcoin and the exchange rate went up, you took your products back to the store and asked for the difference in the exchange rate. It's an absurd request. As you mentioned, people are still spending 100 MANA which means the price is fine. Reduce the price if you want to increase the volume of names, but refunding is asinine.

I propose that if the cost of claiming an NFT name is dropped to 25 MANA, any wallet that holds an NFT name that was claimed for 100 MANA will be credited 75 MANA per name. Are you in favor? This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfe91c0c482e09600f2d1dbca10fd705bc6de60bc) Rejected by community vote

I propose that if the cost of claiming an NFT name is dropped to 25 MANA, any wallet that holds an NFT name that was claimed for 100 MANA will be credited 75 MANA per name. Are you in favor? This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes 40% 1,759,667 VP (127 votes) * No 59% 2,486,095 VP (49 votes) * Invalid question/options 1% 79,254 VP (8 votes)