The blockchain ecosystem continues to evolve, with innovations aimed at improving user experience and accessibility. One such advancement is the introduction of .base.eth names—human-readable identifiers that simplify interactions on the blockchain. Built on the Ethereum Name Service (ENS) protocol, these names allow users to replace complex wallet addresses like 0x849151d…8CC2308bf1 with easy-to-remember formats such as jesse.base.eth.
This article explores how .base.eth names function under the hood, their technical architecture, key differences from traditional .eth names, and the implications for decentralization and user control.
Understanding .base.eth Names
Last week, Base launched .base.eth names as part of its effort to enhance onboarding and usability within its Layer 2 ecosystem. These names operate similarly to standard ENS domains but are specifically tailored for Base users.
To prevent bot-driven name squatting, Base used a Dutch auction model for initial registration. Prices started at 100 ETH and gradually decreased over 36 hours until settling between 0.1 ETH and 0.0001 ETH, depending on demand. This mechanism helped ensure fair access while discouraging speculative hoarding.
👉 Discover how easy it is to interact with blockchain identities today.
How .base.eth Names Work
To fully grasp the mechanics of .base.eth names, it's essential to first understand how standard .eth names work through the ENS system.
How .eth Names Work
At its core, the Ethereum Name Service (ENS) maps human-readable names to blockchain addresses. Each .eth name stores three primary pieces of data in the ENS registry on Ethereum:
- Owner address: Who controls the name
- Resolver address: Where additional info (like wallet address or content hash) is stored
- TTL (Time to Live): Cache duration (less relevant here)
For example, ens.eth has:
- Owner:
0xb6E040C9ECAaE172a89bD561c5F73e1C48d28cd9 - Resolved address:
0xFe89cc7aBB2C4183683ab71653C4cdc9B02D44b7
The owner can transfer ownership or create subdomains (e.g., nick.ens.eth) and assign them freely.
Resolution of .base.eth Names
When you query a name like jesse.base.eth, it appears to resolve correctly—yet a check of the ENS registry on Ethereum shows no record for this subdomain. There’s no owner, resolver, or TTL entry. So how does it work?
This paradox is resolved through two key Ethereum Improvement Proposals: ENSIP-10 and EIP-3668.
ENSIP-10: Wildcard Resolution
ENSIP-10 enables wildcard resolution for subdomains. Here's how it works:
- A client queries the ENS registry for
jesse.base.eth. - The name doesn’t exist on Ethereum.
- The system checks the parent domain:
base.eth. - It uses the resolver of
base.ethto fetch resolution data—even if the subdomain isn’t registered on-chain.
This allows dynamic resolution without storing every single subdomain on Ethereum.
EIP-3668: Offchain Resolvers
Even more crucial is EIP-3668, which allows resolvers to point to off-chain endpoints via URLs. The resolver for base.eth directs queries to an external gateway that returns data sourced from Base’s Layer 2 network.
In essence:
- The actual
.base.ethname is registered and owned on Base’s on-chain registry. - The resolver on Base holds mapping data (wallet address, content hash, etc.).
- When queried from Ethereum, the off-chain gateway pulls this data from Base and serves it dynamically.
Architecture Summary
Here’s a step-by-step flow:
- User registers
jesse.base.ethon Base. - Record is stored in Base’s on-chain registry (
BaseRegistry) with a linked resolver (L2Resolver). - Someone sends funds to
jesse.base.eth. - Client queries ENS on Ethereum.
- Name not found → triggers wildcard lookup via
base.eth’s resolver. - Resolver returns an off-chain URL.
- Gateway fetches real-time data from Base’s L2Resolver and returns the correct address.
This hybrid model balances cost-efficiency with usability.
Key Differences Between .base.eth and .eth Names
| Aspect | .eth Names | .base.eth Names |
|---|---|---|
| Registration Chain | Ethereum (L1) | Base (L2) |
| Ownership Control | Fully decentralized via smart contracts | On-chain ownership on Base |
| Resolution Process | Directly on Ethereum | Off-chain via gateway |
| Subdomain Management | Owner-controlled via ENS rules | Controlled by Base team via multisig |
| Decentralization Level | High | Partial (gateway dependency) |
While users own their .base.eth name on Base, resolution happens on Ethereum, controlled by a URL managed by the Base team.
Potential Risks and Implications
Despite their benefits, .base.eth names introduce several trust dependencies.
Ownership of base.eth
The root domain base.eth is owned by a Gnosis Safe with an 11-signer multi-sig requiring 3 confirmations. This means the Base team can assign or modify any subdomain at will.
Moreover, if a subdomain like mint.base.eth exists directly on Ethereum, it bypasses wildcard resolution entirely—meaning Base’s records won’t be used.
Off-Chain Gateway Control
The resolver uses a URL defined in the smart contract—a mutable endpoint. If changed, it could redirect all .base.eth queries to a private database controlled off-chain.
Even without changing the URL, backend logic could be altered:
- All names could resolve to one address.
- Specific names could be censored or redirected.
- No on-chain transaction would reveal these changes.
Additionally, downtime or censorship by the gateway would disrupt resolution globally.
Mitigation Challenges
There are currently no effective mitigations:
- Even if
base.ethownership were locked, the off-chain URL remains changeable. - Users cannot verify whether resolution reflects true state on Base unless they independently audit the gateway.
👉 Learn more about secure digital identity solutions in decentralized ecosystems.
Similar Case: Uniswap’s .uni.eth Names
Uniswap previously implemented a similar system with .uni.eth names:
- Free to claim via Uniswap’s app
- Stored in an off-chain database
- Resolved via CCIP-read using URL:
https://gateway.uniswap.org/v2/unitags/ccip-read/{sender}/{data}.json
Like .base.eth, these names offer convenience but lack full decentralization.
Are .base.eth and .uni.eth Names Beneficial?
The value of these naming systems depends on perspective:
✅ Pros:
- Greatly improves UX and lowers entry barriers
- Enables mass adoption by simplifying crypto interactions
- Cost-effective and scalable via L2 registration
❌ Cons:
- Reduced decentralization
- Trust required in gateway operators
- Risk of silent manipulation or downtime
While users technically own their name on Base, they do not control how it resolves globally, especially when used outside the Base ecosystem.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Do I own my .base.eth name?
Yes—you own it on Base’s on-chain registry and can manage records like wallet address or profile data just like with .eth names.
Can someone take my .base.eth name?
Not directly through Base’s system. Your ownership on Base is secure and cannot be seized by third parties or the Base team.
Who controls how my .base.eth name resolves?
The resolution depends on a gateway controlled by the Base team. While your ownership is safe, they control the mapping process via the off-chain resolver URL.
Could my .base.eth name be redirected without my knowledge?
Yes—if the gateway URL is changed or backend logic altered, your name could silently resolve to a different address without any blockchain transaction indicating this change.
Is this more centralized than traditional ENS?
Yes. Traditional .eth names are fully decentralized—no single entity can override resolution. In contrast, .base.eth relies on trusted infrastructure for global resolution.
Should I use .base.eth names?
If you prioritize ease of use and are active within the Base ecosystem, yes. But if you require full decentralization and censorship resistance, stick with .eth names.
👉 Explore tools that support decentralized identity and secure transactions now.
Final Thoughts
.base.eth names represent a pragmatic trade-off: enhanced usability at the expense of full decentralization. They empower new users with simple, memorable identifiers while leveraging existing ENS infrastructure.
However, true ownership requires both control over registration and resolution—and in this case, resolution remains centralized.
As blockchain adoption grows, such hybrid models may become common. The challenge lies in balancing accessibility with transparency, trustlessness, and long-term security.
Users must ask themselves: Am I comfortable trusting an intermediary for critical identity functions?
For now, .base.eth names are a step forward in user experience—but not a replacement for truly decentralized identities.
Core Keywords: .base.eth names, ENS protocol, wildcard resolution, offchain resolvers, decentralized identity, blockchain naming system, Base Layer 2