Holder Concentration

Who actually owns the .eth namespace, and does the premium tier filter for individual users or get hoarded by power holders?

Buckets every wallet holding ≥1 currently-active .eth 2LD into a tier by names-held (1, 2–5, 6–10, 11–50, 51–100, 100+). Cross-tabbed against length so you can see who controls each pricing tier.

What this tells you:

Concentration shape - the long tail. How many wallets hold >100 names, and what share of supply do they control?
Premium-tier hoarding - if 3-char names are dominated by 100+ wallets, the price didn't filter for individual utility users.
Per-tier commitment proxy - mean / median expiry-remaining months. Are power holders sitting on long renewals or rolling year-by-year?

Snapshot taken 2026-09-13T03:31:36.004Z

Active 2LDs

815,274

Distinct holders

381,345

Names per holder (avg)

2.14

Wallets by names-held tier

How many wallets sit in each "names held" tier, the share of supply they control, and how long their names have left on average.

Tier	Wallets	% of holders	Active names	% of supply	Mean expiry remaining (months)	Median expiry remaining (months)
1 name	306,904	80.48%	306,904	37.64%	42.6	16.3
2–5 names	59,827	15.69%	157,897	19.37%	49.5	20.5
6–10 names	7,544	1.98%	56,057	6.88%	40.9	15.2
11–50 names	5,869	1.54%	120,032	14.72%	31.3	11.2
51–100 names	710	0.19%	49,497	6.07%	23.6	9.7
100+ names	491	0.13%	124,887	15.32%	22.8	8.9
Total	381,345	100.00%	815,274	100.00%

% of holders + % of supply tell different stories. A handful of 100+ wallets controlling 17%+ of names is the canonical concentration signal - a tiny sliver of holders, a meaningful slice of supply.

Names by tier × char length

Of the names each tier holds, which length tiers do they own?

Tier	3 chars	4 chars	5 chars	6–9 chars	10+ chars	Total
1 name	647	2,195	38,814	158,949	106,299	306,904
2–5 names	793	2,324	16,750	73,934	64,095	157,896
6–10 names	311	1,001	6,056	25,371	23,318	56,057
11–50 names	648	2,013	14,679	54,719	47,973	120,032
51–100 names	190	949	6,742	22,657	18,959	49,497
100+ names	299	1,297	17,059	57,532	48,700	124,887
Total	2,888	9,779	100,100	393,162	309,344	815,274

Tier composition per char bucket

Of all active names in each length bucket, what fraction is held by each tier? The premium-tier hoarding question lives here.

3 chars

22%

27%

11%

22%

10%

2,888

4 chars

22%

24%

10%

21%

10%

13%

9,779

5 chars

39%

17%

15%

17%

100,100

6–9 chars

40%

19%

14%

15%

393,162

10+ chars

34%

21%

16%

309,344

1 name2–5 names6–10 names11–50 names51–100 names100+ names

Methodology

Population: every domain row at depth = 2 with parent_node_string = 'eth' whose expiry_timestamp is in the future. Excludes names in grace and dead names - only the actively-held set.
Owner identification: domains.effective_owner_address. NameWrapper-controlled names attribute to the wrapped owner; vanilla registrar names attribute to the controller-set owner. Both unify here.
Tier definition: each wallet's count of currently-active 2LDs places it in exactly one tier (1, 2–5, 6–10, 11–50, 51–100, 100+). 'Wallets' = distinct addresses; 'names' = the count of 2LDs they collectively hold.
Expiry-remaining stats: months from now until each name's current expiry. Doesn't account for renewals that may happen between now and then - purely a lower-bound on each name's locked-in time.
Same wallet may behave like 'one user with many names' or 'one custody vault for many people' - addresses don't tell you. Read concentration as a structural property of the dataset, not a per-person count.