NRS Brainstorming Megathread

I agree coding in Rust has advantages over JS but I’m not sure what the motivation is here.

At the moment I don’t think there’s a way to run WASM without JS but that could change if there’s an advantage to having a browser without JS.


I think the motivation would be to enable a very simple and limited api that allows wasm/js-lite based safesites to offer dynamic capabilities that don’t break the pweb.

Maybe its just a reduced set of the language. Call it SafeScript or SafeWasm…


Is it worth the effort when many future APPs will be written in the likes of RUST with all these abilities rightly or wrongly allowed. To spend the effort to restrict JS may not be the best place to place the efforts.


Wouldn’t Rust/wasm present the same ways of breaking the pweb as JavaScript? You have randomness, you have ability to load content from the outside.

If you give a person 0.1 MAID for zilch, rarely would you hear them complain about “the price”.
The only word I use when talking about the SAFE Network is “patience”, of course they totally forget about it and go about their life. One day though, in the future when I contact them, we’ll have a working network and a real reason except “the price” for their token to be useful as resourcebased money.

How much would it cost the community to give 1M people 0.1 MAID each? “The price” is 2000 Algorand, 0.001 to send them the token and 0.001 for them to accept the token on Algorand. An CEP, BGF, community or a 3 way cut imho could cover the costs.

About “the price” it would help considerably if 1 SAFE could buy up to 1B NRS on the SAFE Network. Sure some kids will see domain hogging as a problem. I see the lowest denom to proof that you truelly hodl a SAFE (not that I fear ETF’s, cause if you don’t hodl SAFE you can’t get network resources) and onboarding 1B iot’s or whatever with a mav script with 1 SAFE.

Some might say if you exabyte or ∞ a SAFE you’ve devalued it’s competitive storage “price” potential. I would say you’ve given some people “SAFE it for life” and ensured that people won’t think twice about their storage goto. Clueless if these are even possible hihihi :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Consider the two above, because “the price” is also an attack vector that could hold back or distract the SAFED from true value. :money_mouth_face:


Neat idea. Even at a loss for the network for the first X sections, a Safe will buy you X. So they don’t necessarily hold onto an appreciating asset, but a promise of service? One for @JimCollinson and @joshuef to mull over too. I like it as it ticks lots of boxes,
Regulatory issues (it’s a utility token for sure)
and many more.

Community designed projects man, they’re the best!!


Blockchain metrics like unique wallet addresses are being used with Metcalfe’s law to project adoption. The lack of movement of coins along with off exchange coins is being used to inform distribution intent of strong or weak hands, providing some general market sentiment.

If we could somehow provide at least similar metrics then that would help translate to the new kind of blockchain or tech analysts who are some of the biggest evangelical speakers. Such as Raoul Paul or Willy Woo.


  • Unique addresses or maybe ‘Safes’
  • general data on the transfer of change in ownership of a Safe

Something like that. Cool idea about Safes @19eddyjohn75!


The easiest metric is total unique data stored (eg. Exabytes). This could be estimated from current section prefix length and average data storage per section.


The easiest, most useful, or both in your opinion? I could see that being actually more useful than unique addresses because of

  • deduplication (so it’s novel data)
  • you have to pay to put (so highly unlikely it’s spam to provide false growth metric)
  • shows actual growth of users/adoption, novel data, and network splits/growth.

Love that @jlpell great stuff


It’s a bit unclear to me what’s being proposed here.

Are we suggesting that there be a fixed number of NRS domains that can be purchased for 1 SNT?

And using that as the basis of SNT valuation?


Not really, more that we make 1 SNT buy a certain fixed amount of something in the first few sections. So folk holding SNT initially get a valuation based on network services for the network start. After say section 4 (prefix size 2) it’s just business as normal where the network “price” discovers.

Could be for network start 1 SNT == 100Gb of storage for instance.


Interesting, no idea if it is an issue or not but I wonder if the amount of storage chosen for 1 SNT isn’t right, could that lead to people either not storing anything at the start in the hope they can get it cheaper, or everyone trying to store everything they think they may ever want to store all at once and overwhelming the network because they think it will get a lot more expensive in the future?

Generally fixing prices centrally is difficult to get right, but I don’t know if that’s relevant to a temporary thing like this.

SNT should ultimately be related to the cost of storage on the Network as you say.

However, for NRS, I’d argue this is one of the few areas where it would be advantageous for the cost to be decoupled from the storage size.

The purpose of an NRS name is in making a XOR address human readable/pronounceable, with a name that’s selected by me; that’s where the value is.

So it would ideally have a price significant higher than the raw storage cost of the string, but not unattainably high. So perhaps a dollar or two rather than $300.


Yes, that makes sense.


Seems like the easiest way to represent that is to have NRS cost be at a fixed ratio to the PUT charge instead of a fixed ratio to SNT. For example, 1NRS = 1000 PUT. In terms of Fiat, the cost of a NRS reference then naturally tracks the price of 1GB storage.

If you want to make domain squatting more expensive then you could set the ratio at 1NRS = 1000000PUT to have a name track the fiat price of 1TB of Safe data storage.

Rough estimate - Based on current hdd prices per TB and 8x redundancy this would be about $200 per NRS at the high end. Otherwise you get sub dollar pricing for the 1:1000 ratio.


This concept has always been problematic to me. All NRS are not equally valuable.


To humans and that is subjective. So if one is less valuable and one knows it then they may not make it, if it’s valuable to them then they likely don’t care, and if it’s more valuable to others then they are making it to sell at an appreciated price.

Unless you have a proposal I’m not sure how else it’s dealt with. There have been discussions on domain squatting in the past that are worth a read but not so much on the cost I don’t think.

Regarding squatting, this was my favorite solution by @Seneca RFC - Decentralised Naming System II - continuous auction (by Seneca)


Mine too!

Well… Does that mean that the discussions about NRS possibly just being an addon and being exchangeable is from the table…? Because if not and you’re planning on making an expensive nrs system I’d be tempted to make an inofficial one that just charges for the storage costs

Just to state this: I’m pro NRS just being an exchangable plugin and I don’t see why there should only be one… I do want to try using a petname system too!

1 Like

This thread popped up in my feed the other day of someone’s first experience with web3, and an auction based domain sale. It’s worth a read.

Yeah, there’s nothing stopping you!

I’ve said it a bunch already (sorrynotsorry) but I agree a petname system would be great! But it would work alongside the NRS rather than be substitute for it.


I think what is different with Seneca’s approach is that registering is unique because it’s the domain + public key so there can be countless, therefore it can still be cheap and not a bidding war.

What the browser has to do is resolve the highest rank which is the “continuous auction” part, someone not getting PtD or without a community etc is going to have to pay continuously whereas a legitimate domain that is in use ought to be able to afford keeping a top rank. Doesn’t have to be excessively expensive either.

Plus would still work with the idea that 1 SN(T) can afford you 1B (or whatever number) of domains.

Flexible and a win win for sustainability and adoption to me.

Let’s keep this to ourselves though, eh? :wink:

1 Like