Oh, I dabbled in ENS speculation, for sure. I never meant to imply otherwise. But there was a time when the fees didn't matter as much -- back when ENS was at its peak in the hype cycle. That said, asserting that the fees were "literally intended to dissuade people from squatting" is just one rather overly altruistic way to look at it. One could just as easily say the fees were "literally designed to capitalize on the tendency of crypto people to speculate." And, tbh, I wouldn't hold that against ENS if that were the case. I definitely do not recall anyone from the ENS team ever complaining about the level of hype they had reached at their peak. So, whatever plan they had to dissuade squatting and speculation never worked, as 90% of ENS continues to be exactly that. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle, though -- they didn't want people squatting, but they definitely enjoyed the revenues (and continue to). Whatever their intention, the reality is that, for anyone with 3-character names, they're paying $53/month basically. And, IMHO, it's just not worth it (outside of speculative holding for ultra-high-value names like LOL.eth or whatever). If it was truly ENS' intention to dissuade squatting and speculating, certainly there could have been other / additional strategies available. For example, wallet limits would have been an easy one. Sure, people could have used multiple wallets for speculating, but wallet limits would have made things a little more inconvenient, if such dissuasion were the true goal. Aside from all of this discussion here, there's much more to the story, as this whole thing has a ton of market dynamics involved that I've touched on but not fully explored herein. (And, for the record, I do like ENS in principle, and will continue to own my jimdee.eth name likely for decades to come at $5/year. I see value there, but not in the $160/$640 level ones.)