Wonder if Base should have given the holder of the .eth name first right of refusal on the .base.eth name?

BDFL of Quilibrium, Eng @ Farcaster, ex-Coinbase, always opinionated, never hydrated

/quilibrium

I get it, they are a for-profit entity and their primary goal is share-holder value. But the identity layer of the Internet -- whether online or onchain -- is horribly broken. The value of ENS will be undermined if it is easy to phish. 🎣

They'd miss out on that sweet squatter revenue that way

Ethereum is the world computer. The universal platform for cryptocurrencies, blockchain apps, stablecoins, and decentralized technologies.

Your web3 username | Join the chat in /ens

Learn more: ens.domains | Register: app.ens.domains

sim.io | explorer.sim.io | smlxl.io | evm.codes | Trying to solve more problems than I create

interesting. hard to know if those 17,780 are were squatted or just different addrs. Wonder how many of the 17,780 are also Warpcast usernames

On this topic, we checked how many of the 104,640 primary names registered on @base are also registered (without the .base) on mainnet @ensdomains. The answer: 34,963. Of those, 17,183 are registered to the same account address on both @ethereum and @base.

Ethereum builder & people connector. Juicebox, Revnet, Defifa & Footy App

https://warpcast.com/boscolo.eth/0xcdc36bc9

such mixed emotions about that
what's your take?

I was fortunate to get kmac.base.eth 
cheaper but longer than kmacb.eth
a call option for now

I think you're right. The initial name was pre-registered to an address and basenames should have rectified it if it was minted on BNS

Yes. But this is Base names, should have used the 36 hrs to claim first. We share names sometimes.