The web3 domain experiment was a failure.
This week, Unstoppable Domains CEO Matthew Gould posted on X about the company’s transition to traditional domain names. He explained that the company’s website is focusing more on “web2 domains” because web3 names aren’t panning out how the company had initially hoped:
…Web3 only domains were part of the crypto craze in 2021 but did not cross the chasm into mainstream usage. And for a while now we have believed they will remain a niche market now and into the future.
They were a great place to start our journey into domains, but going forward our focus will be even more on the traditional market as it’s the market that has crossed the chasm and is seeing mainstream usage.
The response from people who registered web3 names with the company was, unsurprisingly, negative.
The reality is that Matt has been saying this for over a year. But even when crypto stalwarts actually listened to his recent podcasts on Domain Name Wire, their comments on X seemed to focus on how this was a good thing for their web3 domain investments.
I suppose this is a pattern for people who have invested in something and continue to try to “pump their bags”.
It’s not just Unstoppable Domains that has essentially thrown in the towel. Namecheap sold its Handshake exchange, and the few registrars who ever sold these domains have relegated them to the back of their websites.
Recently, I received a message from someone who said I could now tell him, “I told you so” about web3 domains.
Sure, I’ve been skeptical from the get-go. I’m old enough to remember other alternative alt-root domain name initiatives. They all failed because of distribution. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem: if people can’t actually visit your website, you aren’t going to build on the alt-root domain. If people don’t build on the alt-root, browsers won’t resolve them.
But this time was different, they said. Because, blockchain.
To a point, this is correct. There is additional functionality in these domains: they can serve as easy-to-remember monikers for wallet addresses. But that’s a niche use, and doesn’t require a web3 domain.
Ethereum Name Service, which sells .eth domains that can be connected to wallets, now works with just about any web2 domain name.
At a NamesCon conference several years ago, competing web3 naming initiatives battled each other on stage. They brought up flaws in each other’s models.
And you know what…they were all correct. About the flaws.
What they got wrong was the benefits. They simply don’t outweigh the drawbacks.
Here’s the thing about naming and address systems: people want consistency. They want regulations. They want centralization, not decentralization.
In response to Matt’s X post, some people argued it was a rug pull. While they can take issue with how Unstoppable pitched these names, it seems to me that it’s an excuse for not wanting to admit you made a bad investment (or bet).
As Matt noted, these names failed to cross the chasm. I never thought they’d cross the chasm, so my bet was not to participate. It would have been my loss had they gone mainstream. People who bet they would go mainstream simply made a bad bet, and they should own it rather than blaming others. I’ve made plenty of bad bets, and I don’t blame others for them.
The added functionality that web3 names offered is still available. Just in real domain names.
No surprise there
reminds me of this: https://bitcoindeaths.com/
Indeed; and this is valid especially for Web3 domains.
Web3 domains isn’t limited to blockchain.
There is another use case which is so obvious that some people will be very surprised that they didn’t realize it earlier.
I wait with bated breath
I get your irony.
I’ll just say this: Spring 2026
I expect we’ll read it here on this website as well.
C’mon, Mike, you’ve been watching this a long time. What positive momentum have these names gotten at all?
What would positive momentum look to you? The problem in this space is the “winner takes all” mechanic, which means that “positive momentum” is utterly irrelevant, because it has 0 chance of competing until there is new tech that makes visiting alt roots possible with ZERO CONFIG(!!!!). Anybody who doesnt understand this key fact, has no business talking about dns or alt-roots at all.
There’s a mistake here and this article was written without knowledge about an important development.
The headline should correctly read: Unstoppable Domains are dead.
Watch closely and be surprised what will happen in just a few weeks.
I don’t need to write more at this point; soon everyone will know.
ENS sold $100m worth of .eth names. It has about 2 million names registered. There is a real need for decentralized naming, not all of us want to be forced to use 3rd party certificate authorities to encrypt internet traffic or rely on squarespace for securing our domain names. Just like with Bitcoin – some people are fine with banks and USD – others are not.
I think ENS has the best model of them all. But that’s kind of like saying a NFT project sold a bunch of $$ worth a few years ago. Most of that was people trying to make a quick buck. .Eth will never have a website use case.
What makes ENS the “best” model? There are dozens of identical models on other blockchains, why didn’t they similarly “succeed”? The reality is that there is absolutely nothing special about ENS at all, its model is utterly irrelevant. What made it “successful” from a purely profit POV, is that it was early and was hosted on a blockchain that became the second most popular, that’s it.
Blockchain = virtual nothingness. An elaborate, well marketed construct with questionable benefits.
Web or fake currency it does not matter.
Great for people who invented/control/sell it, no for those who buy into it.
Don’t confuse blockchain with Web3 names. Blockchain will be the backbone of trillions of dollars of payments (See Visa and MC) and tokenized stocks (NASDAQ just announced 24 hr trading on blockchain). Blockchain is here to stay. IDs and fake domains are not. We had the asset we needed and it was already here 30 years on DNS
The irony is palpable. It is worth noting that, yes, a distributed ledger system can be useful for tracking exchanges made in “trillions of dollars” – i.e. actual currency – or for exchanges of actual NASDAQ-listed securities – not hyperlinks to monkey .jpg’s. Neither of these applications of blockchain technology is relevant to the snake oil markets in other applications of blockchain technology.
Certainly, any useful technology finds relevant applications. Despite the fact that vacuum tubes are still used in various specialized high-power/high-frequency electronic applications, there is no substantial consumer market in them as there was when vacuum tube tester and vending units were ubiquitous in consumer retail venues. So, sure, vacuum tubes are not “dead” in some absolute sense – they are still around. But it is nonetheless accurate from a consumer standpoint. Likewise, sure, if you are running a real security exchange or a real currency transaction system, then you might find blockchain technology useful – but which has utterly nothing to do with crypto tokens themselves as objects of exchange. Saying “NASDAQ is looking at using blockchain” doesn’t make anyone’s web3 domains or monkey .jpg’s any more valuable. As noted on the label, this is “Domain Name Wire” at which the primary topic of relevance is domain names.
Pretty much every blockchain-based naming system is full of squatters hoping their bags will be worth millions someday. It’s the equivalent of people in the 90s who thought their premium pogs and Beanie Babies would be generational wealth.
A bunch of names with no resolution system is doomed to fail. Lots of money flying around, no one building ACTUAL experiences on these names. It’s a shame.
The blockchain naming system that gets usage is one that people design, build, create, and use meaningfully; it really is that simple.
Just to clarify, the only dead thing is the overpriced sh*t Unstoppable Domains and similar are selling. You can still buy a .bit or .coin for $0.01 a year 🙂 Directly from the blockchain and actually decentralized.
You can read a brief history of decentralized domains at https://unstartabledomains.com along with the story of how UD banned a whole country and is now in FAFO territory.
Andrew – how long have I been saying this????