X2Y2 Space Review: The Rights and Wrongs of Web3 Domains, How to Define the Boundaries of Infringement

Author: X2Y2

Host (X2Y2): @alex_pengfei

Guests:

Wu Blockchain researcher Quankai

AvatarDAO Mod Cat Teacher

Recording link

Alex: Today's topic is actually about domain names, how to define domain names. We have invited three outstanding guests, and I am your host, Alex. The first guest is West, co-founder of .Bit. Could you please introduce yourself?

West: I'm very happy to be here today to communicate with everyone. I am West from .Bit, responsible for market and community-related work, and I am also an old investor, so I am excited to discuss today's topic with everyone.

Alex: Thank you very much. The second guest is Cat Teacher.

Cat Teacher: Hello, host. I am Cat Cat Cat from RickDAO, and they all call me Cat Teacher.

Alex: Why Cat Cat Cat? Does it have any special meaning?

Cat Teacher: Because I have loved cats since I was a child, and I have about five or six cats at home.

Alex: OMG, I hope to visit your home to pet the cats. The last guest is Quankai, a researcher from Wu Blockchain.

Quankai: Can you hear me? Hello everyone, I am Quankai.

Alex: No problem, let's officially start our discussion. The first question is for Quankai. We all know that domain names are mainly defined by a few unique numbers. Where does the originality of a domain name lie? Today we are discussing infringement. Since there is infringement, there must be an object of infringement, which should be some creative or original domain names. How do you think originality should be defined for Web3 domain names?

Quankai: This reminds me of TwitterScan, which created the same domain name .NFT, right? Because its creation time was later than the previously invested Unstoppable.NFT domain, some people said TwitterScan copied Unstoppable.NFT, while others felt that Unstoppable.NFT was the original. Let's discuss this topic today.

I specifically looked up what originality means. From the definition I found, originality may be a temporal concept, referring to the time of release, representing when a work is first exhibited. The second point is that such a work reflects the author's independent thinking and carries unique emotions. One definition includes these two aspects: the chronological order of release and the concept of a personal item.

Returning to the perspective of originality in Web3 domain names, regarding .NFT, Web3 domain names are quite different from our usual .com or .cn internet domain names. They actually operate as hash interpreters within blockchain explorers. Domain extensions can be issued individually by any user, just like issuing tokens; everyone can fork another project's code. Whether it is recognized or if there is infringement depends on consensus and community recognition.

For example, the .eth domain resolution system is now greatly supported by the official Ethereum browser, community users, and Ethereum blocks for the ENS interpreter. If someone tries to create a Fork.eth suffix now, it is basically impossible to succeed. Because from another perspective, ENS has already occupied users' minds; when we mention .eth, we naturally think of ENS. If another .eth domain appears at this time, it has no meaning because users have already defaulted to ENS as their legitimate source, meaning ENS is the original creator of .eth.

The same goes for .bnb. Space ID previously existed with .bnb as a suffix, but those domains were not recognized by the community or Binance. It wasn't until Space ID emerged, chosen by Binance community users, that it naturally became the legitimate and original .bnb. If originality is determined by the order of release, the significance of domain names is relatively small. Compared to the order of release, I still believe the key is community recognition. What was the controversy surrounding TwitterScan? Because the .nft domain suffix has not yet formed a strong consensus, no single .nft domain interpreter has been able to occupy users' minds.

The competition for these suffix domains that have not occupied users' minds will likely continue for a long time. Ultimately, whoever the community recognizes will naturally become the legitimate one.

Additionally, from the economic perspective of public and private goods, NFT suffix terms actually belong to a general category and may not directly belong to anyone. I believe it does not involve ownership or copyright issues; these can be used freely by everyone as a general term for domain resolution systems. Whether it is recognized or not is not determined by the project party or creator; ultimately, it returns to whether the community and some ecosystems or on-chain browsers recognize the domain. This is my viewpoint.

Alex: I actually agree with that because I know that .nft or .xxx, even if you have .eth, many people can still apply for .eth domain names. The only difference is that when resolving, it may redirect to other domains. In fact, your domain resolution can be duplicated.

What Quankai just said makes a lot of sense. It’s not that being the earliest makes you the most authoritative; it may also relate to your background. What does Cat Teacher think about this? Taking TwitterScan as an example, do they have infringement?

Cat Teacher: I think the significance of infringement is not that great because, putting aside domain names, looking at some tokens or NFTs, claiming infringement doesn’t hold much meaning. Because in Web3, basically, whoever does it bigger is relatively the biggest, and there’s not much infringement.

Alex: I understand, so you personally think that whoever has more voice power, it’s not scary to have similar names; whoever looks worse feels awkward. The one who is the best is the most legitimate, and others are just imitations. Is that the logic?

Cat Teacher: Yes.

Alex: I think there is some truth to that. I wonder what West thinks? As the only project party with significant speaking power.

West: What you just said is very good and very right. The previous two guests also made interesting points. My viewpoint is half in agreement and half in supplement. One point I agree with is that I also recognize that in today’s Web3, everyone is competing for consensus. Many people are doing the same thing and using the same names; the core is ultimately about who can seize the most consensus. This is the current rule of the Web3 world.

One point I want to supplement is that it is very difficult to completely isolate today’s Web3 from Web2 or centralized platforms. Therefore, the reason TwitterScan was complained about and taken down is that UnstoppableDomain had previously applied for many suffixes and some corresponding trademarks. In simple terms, there is a certain argument in Web2 channels, and they have a complete legal team to promote these matters. I don’t know if some of you know, but last year there was a team in the industry called Flaw that wanted to create a .nft suffix. At that time, UnstoppableDomain also sent a lawyer's letter, and as a result, that team changed the suffix. This sounds funny, but it reflects the reality.

Looking at it today, UnstoppableDomain only sent letters to OpenSea and not to other platforms because OpenSea is the largest. If we consider it from a logical perspective, it would also be sending a letter to X2Y2. How would everyone view that? An important consideration in the middle is that indeed, from a principle or ideological perspective, everyone believes that consensus is the most important, but centralized cooperation also requires learning to protect one’s rights, which is quite important.

Alex: I can add a bit. Regarding what West said, UnstoppableDomain sent a lawyer's letter to OpenSea, which is actually a U.S. company that pays great attention to this matter. Before that, there was a similar incident, not about domain names, but about BAYC. At that time, NFTs were very popular and even made it onto Ethereum as a market, basically identical. It was launched with a theme that was anti-BAYC.

Because it was so popular, everyone was using it, and BAYC, which is YogaLabs, sent lawyer's letters to OpenSea and X2Y2, using some strong measures. In the end, as you can see, this NFT was taken down, and through legal means, all three exchanges delisted it.

Sometimes in the Web3 world, it is also necessary to do so, or in the development path, we cannot only focus on Web3 rules but also need to consider Web2 legal regulations. Because most Web3 companies so far still exist in the form of companies, not in the form of DAOs, which leads to the necessity of complying with certain local laws and regulations. Otherwise, they may face corresponding transaction penalties and must legalize.

I think the example West mentioned is quite amusing; Unstoppable went a bit too far. I previously knew a friend who also worked with domain names, and he said that all these domain names can be applied for as long as someone wants to apply. There is no so-called restriction that once .eth comes out, no one else can do it. That’s completely not true; technically, domain names can be created. It’s just that the one who becomes the pirate may involve a series of various issues, but who has the speaking power is quite subjective. Let’s discuss the next question. This question follows up on what Echo just mentioned: do you think domain infringement is based on the name or is it a legal infringement? Or do you think having the same name is infringement? Many NFTs look quite similar, especially AI-generated ones. Some people think it’s a form of infringement, while others think it’s artistic recreation. This distinction is quite vague. I’ll continue to direct this question to West. Do you think infringement should be judged based on the name or from a legal standpoint?

If there is indeed infringement, for example, if I have a .bit domain name, do you think I have infringed? Is there any way to stop such infringement?

West: This is a good question. Before directly answering, I feel there is a phenomenon. Today, we see many domain projects taking similar suffixes, indeed competing for consensus. To put it bluntly, when everyone is not in direct conflict, it’s not a problem. Where might issues arise?

We all know that the most common application scenario is in wallets. If a user wants to transfer money using this account name, and the wallet resolves incorrectly during the transfer, the money could be sent directly to someone else. This is very likely to happen because of the same suffix, and there will definitely be such potential issues. At that time, users will have to figure out whether to find trouble with the wallet or with the project party of the address they intended to input, or with the wrong one that was resolved. This is the most likely issue that could lead to what we just discussed as infringement.

In fact, this kind of infringement is more related to the rights themselves. Ultimately, it’s about pursuing responsibility through certain losses at the asset level. Who is responsible? The other scenario people refer to as infringement is the brand asset represented by the account itself, not just on-chain, because we all know it will bind on-chain asset information. When parsing brand assets, is this related to social infringement? For example, if they are all .nft, and I am a celebrity, like Jay Chou or Yu Wenle, and I use it well, while another person also uses it well and has a complete commercial chain.

Today, we are also discussing a very interesting point, which is quite vague: legally, it has not yet happened. There hasn’t been a lawsuit or a large-scale discussion about this issue. Many are resolved with a simple legal letter. Today, this still seems quite vague.

If we focus on this matter, I personally feel that a significant basis for judgment may ultimately depend on the level of damage. I believe this is definitely relevant. Then, returning to the most important aspect of the legal level, it may ultimately be directly related to the degree of damage. Therefore, there are still many aspects to explore in the future regarding the basis for judgment, or there are many vague and boundary areas.

Alex: Thank you very much. I wonder what Cat Teacher thinks about this question? Is the determination of infringement purely based on the name? Or is it more like Unstoppable based on legal prosecution? Do you think there are ways to stop infringement or make some calls?

Cat Teacher: I think it’s likely to start from the legal level because, to put it bluntly, Web3 domain names are essentially NFTs. Regarding some NFTs that imitate or directly copy, many times it’s just as West said: before interests collide, everyone is fine. Once interests collide, everyone has conflicts, and it’s likely that legal means will be used to protect their interests.

Alex: You think it’s still driven by interests. As long as your domain infringes on my interests, I may use legal weapons to defend myself. Do you think using legal weapons to defend your so-called rights contradicts decentralization? This is actually a very contradictory point.

Cat Teacher: So sometimes the entire blockchain is quite conflicting. On one hand, it wants to be unregulated and decentralized; on the other hand, when interests are infringed, it also needs to use some centralized means to protect itself. So I feel it’s quite conflicting.

Alex: This question reminds me of the Storm project, which was often criticized as a money laundering project. Later, people said, isn’t this decentralization? One of their founders was arrested, causing a huge uproar. People said that when the law comes in, it’s to protect their interests. When they infringe on your interests, you say you want to use legal weapons to protect yourself. If that person isn’t you, and you are the hacker, you should say it can’t be so centralized; it has to be decentralized, it has to protect me. This is actually a timeless topic for humanity.

Earlier, we talked about how to stop or punish domain infringement from a legal or naming perspective. Quankai, do you think there will be a continuous internal competition for Web3 domain names in the future? Today you released a .eth, tomorrow I release a BNB or NFT. How many domain names will experience such internal competition in the future? They will constantly emphasize their legitimacy and usability with different names. For example, ordinary .com, .cn, .io domains, will there be continuous internal competition for Web3 domain names?

Quankai: I believe this issue will inevitably continue to have internal competition. Let’s not discuss the suffixes of domain names; just look at the prefixes. Previously, ENS three-digit and four-digit names were very popular, and the prices soared. When other domain names were created, they also rushed to register three-digit and four-digit names. Returning to suffixes, I think it’s quite similar. For example, proprietary terms, supply chain tokens, Ethereum, BNB, in the future, if domain service creators create a domain system on other chains, they may also create a domain system with supply chain tokens as suffixes.

DeFi, DAO, NFT, and other hot conceptual terms in the crypto circle will also be the next wave of domain services. There will definitely be many repetitions and struggles, which is quite normal. Domain names in the crypto circle are the most profitable applications that are non-financialized. The technical principles are not particularly complex; the key is how to capture community recognition. These domain names will definitely still be objects of competition.

Alex: So you think they might continue to have internal competition. If you were to engage in internal competition yourself, what direction would you take? Are there any points of optimization for domain names now?

Quankai: I think it can be aligned with the metaverse. For example, the Monkey Community wanted to do one thing: to combine BAYC with industry domain names, similar to a PFP + domain + LAN combination, showcasing it from the perspective of DID personal identity.

In the future, it might create a domain system belonging to the BAYC APE metaverse, then bind it with BAYC to form a BAYC + .ape domain + LAN combination, creating such an alliance. Through this combination, I can strengthen my identity as a BAYC holder. I might have such an idea.

Alex: I think this idea is quite good; everyone can take note of it to prevent Quankai from suing you for plagiarism. The next question is for West. When creating your own domain, would you choose to engage in internal competition? Do you feel there are aspects that are not done well and want to innovate?

West: Actually, from the first day we started .bit, we have been emphasizing that we are not just creating domain names; we are creating DID. The previous name was Decentralized Account System, and now it’s DID.ip. We believe that domain names in Web3, as everyone just mentioned, will indeed be particularly competitive because their scope is quite narrow.

Today, if everyone views this as a domain name, it will be underestimated. It’s not just about today’s ENS or any others. The ecological impact of today’s ecosystem compared to the long-term ecological development of Web3 in five to ten years is just a drop in the bucket. But what is more significant? It’s DID. Why look at it from the perspective of the DID track?

Because the service target of DID has always been the entire Web3 user base. Web3 is not just about crypto; it’s not just about the crypto event circle. EVM compatibility is not just about Ethereum. From a definitional perspective, when people engage with Web3 and crypto, the first entry point is often not today’s applications because today’s applications are very poor. There aren’t many good applications; everyone is just trading coins. Trading coins itself is centralized. If it were decentralized, the user experience of today’s applications is actually very poor, lacking good, high-quality experience products, unlike traditional mobile internet, where there are products with hundreds of millions or billions of users.

If we look three to five years ahead, when any user starts to engage with Web3 and truly experiences on-chain applications, it may lower the complex threshold of using on-chain private keys. Behind this, there will definitely be a decentralized architecture and logic hidden.

Here, we must mention that user scenarios are diverse, and user experience businesses are also diverse. Today I might be playing DeFi, tomorrow GameFi, and the day after that something else like SocialFi. Users in the future may not care what system they are using behind the scenes; what I care about is the application scenario.

From this perspective, users interacting will definitely hope for more secure, convenient, and easy-to-use applications, just like today when we go online in the real world. Whether logging into any internet website, using QQ or WeChat, logging into foreign websites, or using Google email, these are universal capabilities. This ability is what DID is most likely to break through today’s basic capabilities of Web3 viewed purely as a server.

From this definitional perspective, we believe that the so-called DID service in Web3 has a very low threshold for internal competition because today, apart from us doing cross-chain DID, 99% of other project parties are just forking ENS, not doing any product development, but directly doing marketing. Just like Cat Teacher mentioned, it’s easy to make money; they come in wanting to make money. If we look at the next three to five years, the money made today is too small, and the construction of today’s ecosystem is particularly important, especially in a bear market.

In the future, low-end internal competition will definitely become increasingly impoverished. This is very realistic. Any project party wants to launch because, as a brand and a typical identity recognition, especially for DAOs, efficient operation will definitely lead to more and more people launching. However, the applications will definitely involve mid-to-high-level DID products, greatly expanding the ecosystem and corresponding rights, which will create a gap.

How deeply are you bound to certain ecosystems? How comprehensive is your ecosystem construction capability? In our own deep cooperation partner interest chain, how can you better strengthen this relationship? Just like today, everyone is talking about domain names. Taking the logic of domain names, .late was the first domain name on the internet. Why do hundreds of domain names worldwide only have .com at the top? Because of commercial demands, people not only treat it as a tradable domain asset but also as a brand, as the business facade and traffic entrance of your company. This is the strongest attraction. Today, Web3’s DID and domain names are still in a very early stage. Just as people say, what is being competed for? It’s that in this small room, everyone wants to take a slice. What is not competitive? It’s the determination to build ecological applications and long-term infrastructure, as well as product development. That is fundamentally not competitive. So, there are many things worth looking forward to in the long-term iteration of the entire DID track.

Alex: I understand. I think you articulated it well, and it’s quite comprehensive. From not competing to being competed against to innovating, West’s thought process is quite clear. The next question is for Quankai. What future application scenarios do you see for these domain names? Because we have many domain names, the most famous being ENS, ETH, then some others like BNB or .bit, and recently the controversial .nft, or some others we may not know yet but are on the way. Where will the future application scenarios of these domain names be? Most importantly, what changes will these application scenarios bring to our lives?

Quankai: I’ll mention a very simple transfer. Currently, many suffix domain names cannot be resolved because they are not random. It’s just the simplest and most convenient for daily use. Therefore, the first step for domain names is to gain acceptance from mainstream wallets, including official commonly used browsers, or even direct resolution from platforms. When users input suffix domain names, they should be able to resolve the entire address directly and then perform queries and transfers, etc. If this most basic need cannot be met, it’s not very meaningful to continue exploring. Now we can talk about expanding around this domain when it can be resolved in different applications.

Alex: Quankai just mentioned the application of transfers. I think transfers are quite conventional. I wonder if Cat Teacher has more creative applications in mind?

Cat Teacher: The entire domain DID industry is currently in an exploratory phase, and many things still have uncertainties. The future direction of development is not very certain. From a traffic perspective, it can promote brand building, create brand benefits, or expand the entire traffic output and financing channels. This is what we can currently see.

Alex: I understand. More from a branding perspective, in the future, if someone has a very impressive domain name, everyone thinks this person is wealthy. Many impressive domain names are somewhat like expensive license plates; a license plate can sell for a lot of money, and everyone thinks that car must be very expensive and the identity is very noble. What does West think? What interesting application scenarios can domains have in the future? What outstanding aspects should we pay attention to?

West: As a project party, we certainly have the most speaking power. Whether for ourselves, users, or investors, there are many things that can be done, and the scenarios are very broad. Just this afternoon, I had a long chat with a very impressive investor. Looking at the current application scenarios of DID in today’s Web3, the basic capabilities indeed meet transfers, displaying your information, etc. These functional attributes exist, but the demand is not strong.

To put it bluntly, today people’s first demand for the so-called services of Web3, DID, and domain names is the wealth effect. What is profitable? It’s treated as an NFT asset for speculation. Secondly, as Cat Teacher said, it’s treated as a brand or as a status symbol or an extension of capability. This is the most affirmable aspect of human nature and the most basic demand of today’s users.

From the perspective of applications, we believe there are three levels of future scenarios worth looking forward to in Web3 applications. The first thing we need to think about is what the first demand scenario, application scenario, and application entry point will be as more and more users enter Web3 in the future.

We believe the most likely scenario is DID. It’s very simple. Just like in the past internet era, just like now, everyone goes online to get an email or a phone number. This is very simple and universal. You will find that when you log into any website to register an account, you need to receive a verification code. This is a very perverse passive demand. But today, the demand in Web3 has become what? It has become a must to have an on-chain wallet address. However, today’s wallet addresses are quite cumbersome and have a high threshold.

As mentioned earlier, if simplified, the application of Web3’s DID and domain services to more ecosystems, more wallets, and DApps means that in the future, people will only need to bind their wallet addresses, and they won’t need to remember wallet addresses anymore. All services can be completed by binding with DID accounts. Therefore, we believe that the expansion of application scenarios is linked to the current range of Web3 applications, and DID products can form interactions with them, replacing the original basic capability of wallet address mapping.

Today, everyone in the circle is talking about GameFi and various Fi things. Looking back, we believe the second level is the applications that can be expanded around DID products themselves. For example, we are all from Tencent. Tencent initially did QQ, including QQ numbers and QQ social. I have QQ casual games, QQ shows, QQ memberships, and then QQ music and various products. If we treat this QQ number as a DID product, it is actually the most powerful and successful DID product.

Why? Because all subsequent ecological application services are seamlessly integrated with this, because it is centralized, all done by Tencent, so it can link resource capabilities very consistently. Moreover, there’s Q coin; if Q coin is a token, isn’t the governance capability very powerful? If we think from this perspective, the second application expansion scenario of DID is the ability to truly gather and amplify characteristics. What do we define as the core of DID?

It is a data container. How to understand this? It’s like a transparent box; we can all see what’s written inside, whether users can see it, developers can see it, or other third parties can see it. But a box is what?

Only users with their management rights can write into it. So it gives everyone a lot of imagination space. The data stored can include both on-chain and off-chain data. The third level and the second level, today’s Web3 DID and domain service capabilities begin to link with Web2 and Web2.5 scenarios, creating a natural increase in application scenarios.

What do I discuss most with the investment department? For example, Starbucks starts to promote its NFT solution. The project party has raised a lot of money, starting to empower physical businesses to solve the new brand asset and fan economy issues offline. The most likely to do well in this process is DID.

For example, .bit has a sub-account function. If you are a celebrity fan, there are many social relationships that can use sub-accounts for association. After making the association, you can also create equivalent on-chain rights. Because everyone’s name is closely related to everyone else, and at the same time, links are generated in different communities. In the future, your name and application services will not only generate relationships on-chain but also have relationships with daily life, such as eating, drinking, and entertainment. The data behind these relationships will be linked on-chain and off-chain. These are the new and most exciting application spaces in Web3, so the changes to our lives could be truly disruptive and could genuinely attract hundreds of millions of users. This is the most anticipated aspect of this industry and this track in the future.

Alex: You articulated it very comprehensively and in detail. Essentially, .bit's positioning is very much focused on DID, not just viewing itself as domain speculation, but more as a real object based on DID that requires a domain name to facilitate this. Therefore, you created the domain name not to chase trends. I think this might be a difference in logical thinking.

West: ENS came out in 2017. When it first came out, our team wanted to pursue this direction. At that time, we even wrote code but eventually closed it down because we found that we couldn’t create differentiation. We couldn’t tell a different story or surpass and innovate. Why follow behind?

So today, there are too many points for innovation in Web3 that we haven’t thought of. After so many years, ENS issued tokens, and today, as we see the bear market coming, everyone is seizing this opportunity to make money. A swarm of project parties and peers are coming in. You will find that everyone is getting on board because of this heat. This is the very point you just mentioned.

We initially thought this through well. We did foundational infrastructure research in 2019, technical iterations in 2020, and launched from early last year to the end of July last year, a full year of sorting out technical logic and development. This is because the development capacity of Web3 is expanding and gathering. The more basic products need a solid foundation. Although we are not as complex as public chains, we still need more technical support, including how to better prevent security issues and how to better expand. I think the most valuable point is that we can persist in doing DID, and this has never changed, regardless of how the external environment is today. We have always been promoting the continuous growth of this industry and this track.

We are very happy that we can make this market very hot. We are also very willing and happy, but after the hype, what remains is what is increasingly worth thinking about.

We hope and welcome everyone present, whether guests or listeners, to truly participate in the construction of the DID ecosystem, not just to hold and speculate, but more to spread the word, to share, to imagine what future scenarios have strong application points for DID and some development ideas. Therefore, we will promote hackathons. We are already working on expanding the ecosystem, including incubation methods, to truly build the industry ecosystem well. This is something we need many like-minded partners to participate in. I call on anyone interested to help promote this.

Alex: I understand. I think it makes a lot of sense. Thank you, West, for the wonderful speech. We have discussed a lot today. Everyone has their thoughts and views on domain names and infringement, and how domain names should develop. I wonder if any of the guests have anything to add. If there are any questions from the audience at this time, feel free to ask.

Paul: There is a blockchain project with a browser. Of course, there are those browsers that browse websites and give you ad layers. Later, there was a project that turned this into a plugin, which browses websites and submits data, giving you a token reward. One of the issues is that users are concerned about browsing some websites they don’t want others to know about or sensitive information. I might enter a password on the website and worry that it will be recorded. What do you think about the boundaries of user privacy and security?

Alex: You mean the browser? I didn’t quite understand. Are you saying how to protect privacy data involved in domain names, or are you just asking about the project mentioned earlier?

Paul: No, in the future, if we do DID, for example, extending to Web2, isn’t it about going online now? URLs are recorded, but it may involve some sensitive data. Because it’s not DID now, the functions may not be so complete. In the future, as this function becomes stronger, for example, when users interact with contracts, many interactions are recorded. In the future, every website visited will have a data record. How do we protect these users' privacy? Can users selectively submit data to the blockchain? Do users have this autonomy?

Alex: I roughly understand. It’s about whether users have the right to choose regarding data, protecting their data, and hiding data they may not want others to see.

West: I think this question is particularly good. Those who do Space are often asked this. To be honest, this issue is not just a matter of the security boundaries of a single application; it’s about the security of an entire ecosystem or multiple project parties. For example, how to ensure browser security? Accessing the browser will involve the corresponding project party’s services, and how is its security guaranteed? This service also calls DID services; how is security ensured? In fact, it’s a chain. If we say that the most related to DID is treated as a data container and a transparent box, what security points can we achieve? When combined with privacy, it is necessary to ensure that all these operations, especially those controlled by one’s own private key, are decentralized and that ownership is fully controlled.

The core point of all privacy choices is how aware you are of your privacy security. Will you choose to bring your unsafe data and behaviors into your operations? Web2 website access may be infected, accounts may be stolen, and today’s Web3 hackers are rampant. Besides vulnerabilities at the contract or mechanism level, many times, users accidentally get phished or authorize something without realizing it. The security and privacy related to this are whether we have made some isolations. Should we let a lot of unsafe information and data be released unconsciously? I think this requires a strong enhancement of personal security awareness and the overall security of the industry. Just like during the 3Q war, how hot security was in Web2, today people’s sensitivity to security is not as strong because it has become a universal security awareness. Software and antivirus companies are not as rampant as before, and the overall security attributes have been improved. So there will be an enhancement of awareness, technical capabilities, and overall industry security consensus.

If we are all newcomers, I recommend everyone to read the Dark Forest Manual produced by Manwu. There are many security incidents that can be shared as case studies, and I think it’s worth a look.

Yu Bo: I think West spoke particularly well. Domain names are certainly viewed favorably in commercial applications and have great prospects. Now there are NFT tickets. With domain names, they can flow seamlessly, meaning sending from one address to another. It’s not sending tokens but rather something equivalent to tickets, with stable pricing written on them. Temporarily treating tickets as flow, so from Web3 to Web2, if something bought on-chain is sent, a query on the phone will show which address minted it. If it’s minted by Binance, it’s naturally reassuring and acceptable.

The opportunity for Web3 to penetrate Web2, especially in this hackathon manner, can quickly develop these. This is a good idea, including whether these subdomains can generate local network functions like Web2. Subdomains can package each other for free on-chain, forming a local network function. These are all expandable, including the unique cross-chain functionality of .bit. Is it easy to be attacked by hackers? I think this idea and direction should be many, and everyone can brainstorm and expand commercial applications through hackathons.

Alex: I understand. Thank you very much for Yu Bo’s echo.

Audience: I want to ask West about .bit. If .bit wants to create a DID Web3 Profile narrative, I have a question. If providing domain infrastructure services is to offer a username for users wanting to enter Web3, is it reasonable to charge for this? If there is a username in Web3, and when it expires, if it’s not renewed, this thing will be reclaimed by the contract, and my username in Web3 will disappear. Is it reasonable to have a charging operation?

West: This is a very interesting question, and I can answer it from several aspects. Today’s Web3 DID and domain services mostly refer to traditional domain services because ENS is actually an open track, directly using the original domain service strategy, which requires providing paid services.

Initially, no one thought about whether it could be free. Today, it can be free, but it may have been the first to do so. Later, whether we or others continued to use it, it seems to have become the standard for the industry, defining the industry standard from the beginning is very relevant.

As for whether it should be charged, I feel it should be charged. The higher the value of the name, the more controversial or challenging the charge should be. There are several reasons: as an asset of DID, as a username itself, today’s DID services far exceed the original domain services. But we all know that the original domain ecosystem, with .com and .cn combined, has about 300 to 400 million accounts. The future scenarios of all Web3 users combined with B2B and B2C will definitely be larger than the original domain services. The original domain service ecosystem has formed a very commercialized and complete commercial chain after twenty years of development. The most important link is that everyone’s future view of DID and domain services as usernames or brand names will only become stronger and stronger. This makes it very necessary to have conditions and costs to hold them as a filtering and threshold.

Today, as project developers, we need to promote the development of today’s projects well. We believe that DID domain services are also infrastructure. In the process, we need to persist for a long time to promote business services, and it’s more necessary to have a healthy business model. We don’t want to interfere by issuing tokens; charging is actually a positive way to promote developers to gain certain income in this process, which can be used to build teams and promote ecosystem development.

As a decentralized service, today the .bit team is all gone, but .bit can still operate normally because it is open-source and decentralized. All ecosystem charging mechanisms are written into contracts. When subsequent developers come in, there will be renewal fees for the second year, and later developers can also earn their due income from that charging business. What’s worth imagining here? It’s already happening today. Just look at your name; you are also a user of ENS. The shorter the name, the scarcer it is. As an asset, it will definitely be held and enhanced at a high price in the future. If some accounts were held by some users early on but were not held by the most deserving brand owners or project parties, if they do not have the ability to renew, this asset may be wasted, which is a pity.

We, including ENS, have so-called reserved accounts. In the end, these reserved accounts will be auctioned or released in other forms. We let these brand parties hold them for free.

Because today’s track should be used, held, and promoted by more positively driven, influential KOLs, good project parties, and more impressive brand companies. Only then can this industry develop more positively. Therefore, in this process, I think the charging gradient and charging model are very positive and can effectively push the track to better development. This is a very necessary link. If it’s a very lightweight business model with a simple method, it can bring more new developers into the track and create more imaginative space. I have answered this question from several aspects.

Audience: I just experienced the .bit product. After registering, I saw a personal profile interface in the management page, where I can store some data I want. Regarding the privacy data issue mentioned earlier, if I write all this data into the profile, will this data be stored on-chain? Is it the consideration of the .bit product that the chain is used for storage? Will putting this data into the resolution data raise privacy issues? Do I have the right to manage this data? After I put this data in, does the chain serve as a storage container, like a server now?

West: The writing of this data must involve user operation. As we explained earlier, it’s like a transparent box; only through private key management. There is a logic to consider here: DID products and domain service products are the same; they are assets. We know that wallets manage users’ private keys, and private keys manage users’ assets.

.bit and .ETH are both user assets. In this process, they must be managed by users’ private keys. The corresponding private key management is crucial because any operation inside requires authorization. Therefore, ownership is completely controlled, which is the true embodiment of decentralization.

Several partners have also mentioned privacy issues. We believe the most important aspect of privacy is whether we, as users, are aware or unaware of this point. We need to know whether we can truly separate privacy from the information we put on-chain. This is very important because once this information is stored on-chain, there will be no privacy; everyone can see it. But is the storage on-chain completely linked to personal identity information?

This choice is given to you. Is it written in your ETH that you have other social information that can be extracted, related to your actual life’s private data? This choice is premised on your side. Today, many people consider using DID for lending and cross-domain deep authorization. These developers will definitely do one thing: they will base it on your account, including social, and extract all data across the chain. This data may not even be noticed by you.

Just like today’s Web2 authorization credibility, as long as some traces are left unconsciously, they may become analyzed data. Therefore, in this process, our third-party developers need to consciously create friendly and boundary-separated isolation for Web3 information. I think this is something the industry needs to continuously observe and promote. We all know why applications and public chains that focus on privacy are so popular today, but why is it difficult for them to land? The biggest reason is that ordinary users’ security awareness and so-called privacy awareness capabilities have not yet reached.

For example, who protects your security when you use an Apple phone? It’s protected by Apple from both hardware and software levels. When you use WeChat, it’s protected by the large ecosystem of WeChat and Tencent. So it’s a long process. We just don’t know how quickly it can develop well. We will wait and see. More importantly, everyone needs to enhance their awareness of privacy and security.

Audience: Due to time constraints, I can only temporarily interrupt. The audience can message West privately. Thank you very much to the three guests and the audience for their insightful and in-depth questions. I believe this will provide learning opportunities for other listeners. Thank you all for coming to listen to our Space so late tonight. Today we discussed a lot about Web3 domain names, not just domain names, but also expanded into DID, future applications, and potential issues. I believe this has provided some good insights. Once again, thank you to the three guests for joining us tonight!