The internet’s domain naming infrastructure has not fundamentally changed since the 1980s. ICANN administers a root zone. Registries operate under it. Registrars sell access down the chain. End users lease names annually, indefinitely, with the constant risk of losing them to non-renewal, price increases, or registrar insolvency.
The onchain naming movement proposes a different contract: names as owned assets, recorded on public ledgers, held by wallets rather than accounts in a registrar’s database. But “onchain” is not a single architecture. It describes a class of approaches — and the differences between them matter considerably, both technically and commercially.
Four projects represent the primary architectural models in this space today: ENS (Ethereum Name Service), Unstoppable Domains, Handshake, and Freename. Each takes a distinct position on what a domain is, where it lives, who controls it, and what it does. Understanding the differences is not merely a technical exercise. For any brand entity, industry or otherwise, the architectural choice determines what kind of ownership is actually on offer.
ENS — The Protocol-Native Naming Layer
The Ethereum Name Service is a distributed, open, and extensible naming system based on the Ethereum blockchain. ENS launched in May 2017, making it the oldest of the major onchain naming systems. Its core proposition is deceptively simple: ENS maps human-readable names like ‘alice.eth’ to machine-readable identifiers such as Ethereum addresses, other cryptocurrency addresses, content hashes, metadata, and more.
The architecture that enables this rests on two components. The ENS architecture is made up of two smart contracts: the registry and the resolver. The ENS registry consists of a single smart contract that maintains a list of all domains and subdomains available through the ENS service. Resolvers are the contracts that actually translate a name into an address, content hash, or other data. The separation is deliberate: the registry handles ownership and routing; the resolver handles what a name actually points to.
Top-Level Domains like .eth and .test are owned by smart contracts called registrars, which specify rules governing the allocation of their names. This means the TLD itself is governed by code, not by a company — a meaningful distinction when evaluating censorship resistance and long-term reliability.
The Renewal Question
ENS is notable for being the only major onchain naming system that still operates on an annual renewal model for .eth names. ENS is an open standard on Ethereum, resolved by many wallets and dapps via EIP-137 and related standards. It uses rent-style registrations for .eth, requiring annual renewal. This is an architectural choice rather than a technical constraint — the renewal model funds ongoing protocol development and creates economic signal around name demand. For brand entities, it means .eth names carry a recurring cost obligation that other onchain naming systems do not.
The trade-off is ecosystem depth. ENS domains integrate with traditional DNS through a bridge, allowing .eth names to function like regular websites in some contexts. The infrastructure supporting .eth is mature, with robust tooling, established marketplaces, and deep liquidity for premium names. ENS also supports reverse resolution — making it possible to associate metadata such as primary names or interface descriptions with Ethereum addresses.
For governance, ENS takes a DAO model. The ENS project created a DAO for its governance. ENS tokens serve as utility and governance tokens, giving the protocol a community ownership structure that distinguishes it from vendor-operated alternatives.
The primary architectural constraint is chain scope. The primary limitation is single-chain focus. While ENS has expanded to Layer 2 networks within the Ethereum ecosystem, .eth domains don’t natively work across non-EVM chains. ENS is, at its core, an Ethereum-native protocol — deeply integrated within that ecosystem, but bounded by it.
Unstoppable Domains — The Consumer-Oriented NFT Registry
Unstoppable Domains entered the space in 2018 with a different value proposition: permanent ownership, consumer-friendly UX, and a no-renewal-fee model. Unstoppable Domains popularized one-time purchase “Web3 domains” with no renewal fees for TLDs like .crypto, .nft, and others, with strong consumer UX, single-pane dashboards, app integrations, and off-chain and on-chain records depending on the TLD and version.
The technical underpinning reflects a pragmatic hybrid approach. The Unstoppable Name Service (UNS) is built on Ethereum and utilizes Polygon as a Layer 2 scaling solution. This allows them to provide NFT domains directly to individuals and businesses for a one-time purchase with no renewal fees, minting fees, or gas fees on the Polygon side. Domains are minted as ERC-721 tokens or NFTs, ensuring that ownership records are transparent and immutable.
The one-time purchase model is Unstoppable’s clearest architectural statement. When you buy a domain from Unstoppable, you own it forever, because what you’re actually buying is a non-fungible token that lives on the Ethereum or Polygon blockchain. By contrast, if you buy a .com domain, you’re leasing access to the name from an organization that manages lists of domain names and houses them on servers it controls — which is why you pay every year to renew. The NFT model converts a lease relationship into ownership.
Vendor-Managed vs. Protocol-Native
Unstoppable Domains is more vendor-managed than ENS and historically less “protocol first,” but it focuses on mainstream usability and partnerships. This is the core architectural trade-off: Unstoppable Domains operates as a company that manages its TLD extensions (.crypto, .nft, .wallet, and others) rather than as a open protocol where the TLD layer is itself decentralized. The domains are onchain; the namespace management is not fully permissionless in the way ENS’s is.
Unstoppable Domains integrates with over 865 platforms, including wallets, crypto exchanges, and dApps — a partnership-driven distribution strategy that has driven significant mainstream adoption. The emphasis has always been on breadth of integration rather than depth of decentralization.
Unstoppable has also evolved significantly. The company obtained its ICANN registrar license in October 2024 and has since onboarded approximately 200 DNS TLDs, positioning itself as a bridge between the traditional domain market and onchain infrastructure. This evolution illustrates an important point: Unstoppable’s architecture has always been more pragmatic than ideological — designed to meet users where they are rather than enforce a maximalist onchain position.
Handshake — Decentralizing the Root Zone
Handshake occupies the most architecturally ambitious position of the four systems examined here. Where ENS and Unstoppable operate within the existing DNS root zone structure — they are simply alternative naming layers sitting parallel to ICANN — Handshake targets the root zone itself.
Handshake is a decentralized, peer-to-peer, permissionless naming protocol that aims to provide an alternative to centrally managed domain names like .COM and other generic and country-code domains. In practice, Handshake aims to become a DNS chain alternative to the current IANA root chain.
Handshake decentralizes the process of applying, creating, and managing TLDs on the blockchain. Anyone can buy or sell TLDs using the HNS coin native to the Handshake blockchain. By removing centralized bodies from making decisions on what or who can register and manage TLDs, Handshake allows for the root zone to be uncensorable and permissionless.
The underlying mechanism is a proof-of-work blockchain with an auction system for TLD acquisition. Handshake leverages a blockchain based on unspent transaction output and proof-of-work similar to Bitcoin for naming capabilities. The naming system features an on-chain smart contract-like functionality called covenants which restrict the future use of outputs of a transaction. Because covenants are built in at the blockchain layer via the consensus protocol, the Handshake system enables different types of smart contracts used to develop an auction system for individuals to bid on domain naming rights.
The Resolution Gap
The Handshake architecture has a structural limitation that is worth understanding clearly. The current DNS infrastructure relies on the root zone provided by ICANN — this means Handshake domains cannot be resolved by default without introducing a Handshake-aware resolver in the resolution chain. Standard browsers using the ICANN root zone have no awareness of the Handshake root zone. To resolve Handshake domains, users need a Handshake-aware DNS resolver, a browser extension, a local resolver, or a dedicated browser.
This resolution gap is not a bug in the design — it is a consequence of Handshake’s fundamental ambition. The project is attempting to replace root zone infrastructure, not merely to add a naming layer on top of it. That is a longer-horizon project than building wallet-linked naming on an existing smart contract platform. The initial adoption of Handshake has been slow due to several key challenges: the current DNS is entrenched with centralized authorities like ICANN and VeriSign, and transitioning to a decentralized alternative requires overcoming institutional inertia and vested interests.
Handshake’s architectural ambition is genuine and its technical design is rigorous. But for brand entities seeking practical naming infrastructure in the near term, the resolution dependency is a meaningful friction point that the other systems examined here do not impose to the same degree.
Freename — The Delegated TLD Registry Model
Freename takes yet another architectural approach: rather than operating a closed set of TLDs (like Unstoppable’s .crypto, .nft, and others) or a single canonical TLD (like ENS’s .eth), Freename enables anyone to register and own a TLD itself — and then issue second-level domains beneath it.
Freename is a blockchain-based domain registry enabling users to register and manage Web3 Top Level Domains and Second Level Domains across multiple blockchains including Polygon, Solana, Base, Chiliz, and BNB Chain. The key structural distinction is that where other providers offer identities within established namespaces, Freename enables users to mint, own, and trade Web3 top-level and second-level domains across multiple blockchains, including the creation and ownership of custom TLDs entirely. An individual or organisation on Freename does not just own a name — they can own the namespace itself.
Multichain Architecture
A defining technical feature of the Freename model is its multichain approach. One of the persistent challenges in blockchain infrastructure is fragmentation — assets and identities registered on one chain are not natively accessible on another. For domain namespaces, this fragmentation creates a risk of namespace lock-in: a TLD registered on a single blockchain is only as useful as that blockchain’s ecosystem reach. Freename addresses this through a multi-chain architecture that allows TLD registrations to be recognized across multiple networks.
Unlike traditional DNS, onchain TLDs on Freename offer permanent, censorship-resistant ownership recorded on a public ledger. Each top-level domain registered on Freename functions as a sovereign namespace — enabling the creation of second-level domains, decentralized websites, Web3 identities, wallet addresses, and smart contract integrations beneath it. TLD owners retain full control over their namespace, including the ability to issue second-level domains to third parties, build decentralized applications, and integrate their namespace into broader Web3 infrastructure.
The ownership model also includes an economic mechanism: owning a Freename Web3 TLD entitles users to a 50% passive income for every domain purchased on that TLD. This transforms TLD ownership into a structural position within a namespace economy — the owner of a TLD becomes, in effect, the registrar for that extension.
The trade-off implicit in this open model is namespace proliferation. Because any party can register any available TLD string, the namespace expands rapidly and without the editorial control that ICANN applies through its application process. This creates opportunity for niche, industry-specific TLDs — it also means the ecosystem must develop its own conventions around which TLDs carry signal and which are noise.
The Four Models — A Structural Comparison
These four architectures represent distinct positions along several axes that matter for any entity evaluating onchain domain infrastructure.
Ownership model: ENS operates on annual renewal; Unstoppable Domains, Handshake, and Freename all offer permanent, one-time-purchase ownership. The difference between leasing and owning a digital name is not semantic — it determines whether the name can lapse, be repriced, or be subject to policy changes over time.
TLD openness: Handshake and Freename allow any party to register TLDs in a permissionless fashion. ENS’s .eth TLD is managed by the ENS DAO. Unstoppable Domains manages its own TLD portfolio as a company. The degree of permissiveness affects how purpose-specific TLDs can emerge — niche, industry-aligned extensions require either a permissionless model or a curator willing to develop them.
Resolution: ENS has the deepest integration within the Ethereum ecosystem and wallet infrastructure. Unstoppable Domains has built broad integration through partnerships. Handshake requires resolver configuration that falls outside standard browser behavior. Freename’s multichain approach mitigates single-chain dependency but inherits the general challenge facing all non-ICANN naming systems — mainstream browser resolution remains the frontier.
Governance: ENS is governed by a DAO. Unstoppable Domains is a company making product decisions. Handshake is a permissionless protocol with no central governance. Freename operates as a platform with its own registry logic. Each governance model carries different implications for stability, evolvability, and alignment with user interests over long time horizons.
What Architecture Signals for Industry-Specific Namespaces
For any industry that has accumulated decades of brand identity — where company names, publication mastheads, event titles, and product names carry real market value — the architectural choice in onchain naming is not purely technical. It determines whether a namespace can be purpose-built for that industry’s conventions, whether ownership survives corporate transitions, and whether the naming infrastructure itself constitutes durable infrastructure or a service that can be withdrawn.
The renewal model, for instance, is not merely a cost question. An agency that has operated under the same brand for fifteen years, survived multiple ownership changes, and built client relationships around that identity cannot afford a domain infrastructure that requires annual decisions and carries expiration risk. The one-time ownership models — Handshake, Freename, and Unstoppable Domains — make a structurally different promise than ENS’s rental model, even if ENS’s ecosystem depth is currently unmatched.
The permissionless TLD model, as embodied by Handshake and Freename, creates the conditions for industry-specific namespaces to exist. When the process of creating a new TLD does not require ICANN’s application process — which historically costs upward of $185,000 and takes years — the barrier drops to a point where niche industry extensions become viable. A TLD that signals membership in a specific professional community, that carries semantic meaning to practitioners in that field, becomes something that can be built and operated rather than only dreamed about.
Blockchain domain extensions are Top-Level Domains that exist on blockchain networks rather than within the traditional DNS system managed by ICANN. That single architectural fact — existence outside ICANN’s root zone — is what makes industry-specific permanent naming possible. It does not guarantee resolution everywhere; that challenge remains real and ongoing across all four systems examined here. But it removes the structural gatekeeping that has historically made TLD creation the exclusive domain of large organizations with the capital and patience to navigate a multi-year regulatory process.
The .seo TLD is a direct expression of this architectural possibility. It exists as a permanent, onchain namespace specifically scoped to the SEO industry — agencies, tools, conferences, media outlets — precisely because the onchain TLD infrastructure described across these four systems made its existence structurally feasible. The naming architectures built by ENS, Unstoppable, Handshake, and Freename are not merely crypto-native curiosities. They are the enabling infrastructure for a category of permanent, industry-aligned brand identity that did not exist under the ICANN-managed regime.
Choosing an Architecture Is Choosing a Model of Ownership
The comparison above should not be read as a ranking. Each system serves different use cases and operates with different trade-offs. ENS is the deepest naming layer within the Ethereum ecosystem. Unstoppable Domains has the broadest consumer integration. Handshake holds the most architecturally ambitious position on root zone decentralization. Freename offers the most flexible model for custom, industry-specific TLD creation with multichain reach.
What all four share is a departure from the assumption that domain names must be leased from centralized registrars under rules set by ICANN. That shared departure is the significant event — the emergence of a credible alternative model for how names on the internet can be owned, governed, and transmitted. The architectural diversity within that category reflects a field that is still working through the implications of its own premise.
For brand entities in any mature industry, the question is not which architecture is objectively superior in the abstract. The question is which architecture best matches the kind of ownership claim the brand needs to make — and for how long. Industries with twenty-five-year track records and brand values that predate the existence of most current internet infrastructure require naming infrastructure that makes a correspondingly durable commitment. The onchain systems described here, each in their own way, are the first naming architectures in the internet’s history to make that commitment technically possible.
