[Referendum: 125] New Registrar proposal: Registrar #1

Why is it so hard to throw in a ballpark figure and instead say “similar to Polkadot/Kusama” forcing every reader to dig up chaindata :thinking:

While doing so => There seems something totally off with your registrar fee:

    account: Fom9M5W6Kck1hNAiE2mDcZ67auUCiNTzLBUdQy4QnxHSxdn
    fee: 4,350,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
    fields: []


    account: 1Reg2TYv9rGfrQKpPREmrHRxrNsUDBQKzkYwP1UstD97wpJ
    fee: 2,500,000,000,000,000,000,000
    fields: []

If prices will be like that I’m out :grin:

Thanks for the clarification, I support this (assuming the pricing issues @dev0_sik pointed out are an error). It will be great to get a market started for these services.

hey, sik. not sure where you’ve seen these registar fees, because based on the Polkadot / Kusama docs, there are completely different fees listed there:

Registrar 1:
URL: https://registrar.d11d.net/
Account: 1Reg2TYv9rGfrQKpPREmrHRxrNsUDBQKzkYwP1UstD97wpJ
Fee: 10 DOT

Registrar 1:
URL : https://registrar.d11d.net/
Account : Fom9M5W6Kck1hNAiE2mDcZ67auUCiNTzLBUdQy4QnxHSxdn
Fee : 0.65 KSM

Hey @turrizt - the docs are a horrible source for registrar fees as the registrar can change them at any time and won’t go refactor the polkadot documentation.
It’s just somebody did write these values down at some point in time, when token values might have been way higher.
For example the 0.65 KSM fee from the docs was set on 2021/06/22 and updated on 2021/09/05 (and many times afterwards to adjust for price fluctuation).

The data I posted is the current on-chain data and was obviously an unintended user error by @chevdor .

I was hoping for him to check back, state fees, fix KSM&DOT fees to change my votings to AYE - voting ends in 13h 50m.

1 Like

thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it! tbh, I believe that docs should always be updated and display accurate data. therefore, we will strive to ensure that Moonbeam docs are always updated and display accurate data. because this is the very first resource that the community refers to, and not everyone is an advanced user to track this on-chain data . also, I think changing fees should also be discussed in some way. judging by the screenshots you sent, it is obvious that this is a typo, but you noticed it very correctly, it probably needs to be fixed urgently. if it’s not a typo, then who will use it

I will try to keep it short while informative:

  • as @dev0_sik mentioned, any of the docs are bad and only show a price that was correct at a given point of time. I actually tried removing any prices everywhere, but it looks like there are remains. Only what is onchain matters. The fees are adjusted according to the price from time to time and updating all the docs is virtually impossible. Any of the docs should just say “check on chain”.
  • since the fee (potentially) keep changing, BUT looking onchain can be challenging for some users, the registrar #1 sends an email to users with the information in clear text as they apply. It may not be functional from day one on moonbeam but this is what is in place on Kusama/Polkadot
  • I would have to double check but by the look of it (I did not count the zeroes), the information fetched onchain by @dev0_sik looks correct for Kusama and Polkadot.
  • I mentioned that fees on moonbeam/moonriver would be similar, I did not say they would be 100% the same, as a matter of fact, the fees on Polkadot/Kuasama are a little high for my taste atm for reasons out of the scope of this topic. So those fees will go back down
  • if I would set the prices right now (based on price updates) it would be 165 GMLR and 10 MOVR. I did not want to mention those values because they are linked to the current prices… so as/if price move, those fees will change and may end up being higher or lower
  • I am not tracking adjusting the fees on a daily basis so the fees are usually set to allow price fluctuations
  • Once those fees are set, they will show up on chain in planks so with 18 trailing zeroes

I totally understand if people are against the proposal due to the fees and this is totally fine. I am just proposing a service that I think could be helpful and I have gathered by now enough experience to know what it takes to run such a service.

I surely could set a bait price to get in now and change it later at will but I have no intererst in doing that at all.

I would invite anyone against the proposal for “fee reasons” to propose the same service for lower fees and the voters then to go for the cheaper option if they think it is a better option for the chain, this is totally fine with me :slight_smile:


thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it! tbh, I believe that docs should always be updated and display accurate data

Ideally yes but this is super time consuming and no doc should be trusted anyway… we have chains to hold those data. The ideal option would be that whatever system is used by the doc could pull the data from the chain and to re-generate the doc daily for instance.

I hope that answers all the open questions, let me know if I missed one.


thank you very much for the clarification! I work a lot with the community, and 99% of users check the data in official docs, therefore, it seems to me that the user should be aware of the amount of fees and could easily find this information. even now, for example, it has led to confusion


Thanks for the further clarification, this helps a lot. I voted ‘yes’ and I think you’ve proven to be able to provide this service and that’s what I am voting on – the market should decide the price.

Personally, I hope you reconsider the pricing (and not as a bait), as there are full in-person government ID verification services that charge less (e.g. TSA Pre-Check for $79) and I don’t see why this Web3 service for verifying social accounts should be more expensive. However, people can decide whether or not they want to use the service and I would only advocate for more competition, certainly not to restrict access to the market from those providing a reliable service.


there are full in-person government ID verification services that charge less (e.g. TSA Pre-Check for $79)

The key point here in short is volume :slight_smile:

However, people can decide whether or not they want to use the service and I would only advocate for more competition

Exactly. Moreover, the fee may not be satifactory at a point of time for some and evolve into something acceptable (and vice-versa).

1 Like

I took the time to count the zeroes and your DOT fee is currently 250,000,000,000 DOT (Not Plancks) which is a lolzillion amount of USA Shitcoins and the same goes for Kusama.

By the screenshot above you can see where updating the fees went wrong.

1 Like

wuuut ???
Hmm I will have to look into that, it is def. NOT intended to be 250,000,000,000 DOT in case someone still doubts :slight_smile:

I see. The UI used to take values in DOTs, it has changed a while back to taking plancks (10 decimals on Polkadot), and it seems to be back to taking DOTs.
So when I set the fee last time on Polkadot, it got granted 10 extra zeros :astonished: making it the value you saw. You should now be reading 120_000_000_000 plancks = 12 DOTs on Polkadot.

It was the same story on Kusama. NOW I get why you complained about the price :grinning:
It should now look more realistic.

Hey @chevdor - the link in the description on Polkassembly for Moonriver back to the forum doesn’t seem to work.

Can you update it please?


Indeed, the forum post was relocated and the old link no longer worked, this is now fixed for moonriver and I will check moonbeam in a sec. Thanks for the ping.

As a heads up, the fee is set to a crazy high number on Moonriver right now.
This is no mistake this time and I set such a fee for now to “disable” the registrar until everything is setup and ready.


Maybe if this proposals gets first released on the moonriver…

the vote for the proposal on Moonriver was passed

and this is already being implemented on Moonriver, here is a recent update from the proposer:

the vote for this proposal on Moonbeam is still ongoing -

I am happy to confirm that the registrar is now operational on both chains.



I want to provide a little heads up related to the activity of Registrar #1.
I am taking a few days off, so does the registrar.

The registrar on both chain will not be doing verifications between the 14.3 and the 24.3.

Users are still very welcome to send some requests and ping me with an email, the requests/emails will however remain on hold (no timeout will hapen) until my return.
All requests will then be processed as usual.

A reminder of some issues I keep on seeing and that delay verifications:

  • twitter handles should start with @
  • website url should start with http(s)://
  • when using twitter, the twitter account must follow @chevdor so I can send the tokens, user can unfollow at will once the verif. is complete

I would also like to thank the many people who took the time to fill-up the survey I am providing at the end of the process. I DO read every single answer.

One feedback that came often and that is probably related to the topic above is “Why is the process not fully automated?”. The process is not fully automated because I always (it is the same on Polkadot and Kusama) wanted to keep an eye on the applications so avoid weird things. And it showed over time that it does help users to avoid some mistakes.

The process is partly automated (although not all the automation is in place yet for moon* but that should be no concern for the users) but I do need to “click APPROVE” on all verifications.

1 Like