bqv: My understanding of that issue that prompted that proposal is someone wishing they could pay a decentralized system to keep their mutable link alive instead of relying on other people to nicely pin the content (there's a separate problem whereby go-ipfs does not currently expose an easy way for third parties to keep IPNS records alive, but it's a bit tangential). This desire is somewhat reasonable and analogous to wanting to pay some decentralized system to keep immutable data alive.

However,  everyone else that I know of that's tried to use blockchains for mutable links has coupled them with a unique and human-readable/choosable naming system (e.g. ENS, Unstoppable Domains, etc.) since if you're stuck using some consensus based system (as opposed to IPNS which is not consensus based) then you might as well get unique and choosable names out of it (e.g. myname.eth or myname.crypto). This seems like it uses a blockchain, but doesn't get as much out of it as it could.

Note: You can already do DNSLink -> ENS -> IPNS -> IPFS if you want to since ENS can present as DNSLink. To me it seems like the basis of this proposal already exists. As long as you're willing to create some bridge that presents your blockchain naming system as DNS then go-ipfs as it is is already good to go.