3DNS

[trechriron]

This proposal is now in Committee Review.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z4VbYjkclVOdbD0pxrvm8ZxViI2y6oZXHV-lYUAVkNs/edit?usp=sharing

Please leave any comments, questions, concerns, or attestations in this thread. Thanks!

[frol]

Feedback: There are similar initiatives in NEAR ecosystem, though they don't provide access on DNS level:

1. web4: https://near.page (which provides https://account.near.page for contract-served HTTP, e.g. https://thewiki.near.page)

2. NEAR Social: https://near.social (my page is automatically created based on account id: https://frol.near.page)

The problems I see:

1. I don't see a demand for *.near domains that would be worth spending $2M
2. Having *.near domains as NFTs would be misleading since there will be a clash with the native named accounts in NEAR, so root.near account might not own root.near domain name. If anything, the implementation should not be around NFT, but rather around transferring accounts (namesky already does that)

[carrabre]

This question was asked as a comment in the doc a few days ago, you can see our response at the bottom of the above doc!

[trechriron]

This proposal is now in Voting.

[ewiner]

Given that NEAR already has a native built-in DNS-like system for account names, I agree with @frol that NFT-based ownership would be confusing or duplicative.

Having a real IANA gTLD in .box is 3DNS's killer feature right now, since I haven't seen as much traction as we'd hoped for web3-native DNS providers. But new gTLDs (like maybe .near) won't be live for three years at the very earliest. Do you have leads on any other existing gTLDs that could be used with an on-chain registry, like .box? If so, we could make a new top-level account in NEAR to match it, and that would be pretty compelling.