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 2026-11-01T03:26:16.268Z

Active 2LDs

779,638

Distinct holders

366,409

Names per holder (avg)

2.13

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	294,588	80.40%	294,588	37.79%	43.3	17.4
2–5 names	57,879	15.80%	152,584	19.57%	50.0	21.6
6–10 names	7,250	1.98%	53,811	6.90%	41.2	15.7
11–50 names	5,565	1.52%	113,673	14.58%	31.7	10.8
51–100 names	655	0.18%	45,673	5.86%	24.2	9.9
100+ names	472	0.13%	119,309	15.30%	23.3	9.0
Total	366,409	100.00%	779,638	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	641	2,053	37,054	152,552	102,287	294,587
2–5 names	737	2,152	16,232	71,622	61,841	152,584
6–10 names	318	960	5,813	24,413	22,307	53,811
11–50 names	576	1,821	14,062	51,978	45,236	113,673
51–100 names	168	672	6,190	21,111	17,532	45,673
100+ names	247	1,028	15,696	55,348	46,990	119,309
Total	2,687	8,686	95,047	377,024	296,193	779,638

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

24%

27%

12%

21%

2,687

4 chars

24%

25%

11%

21%

12%

8,686

5 chars

39%

17%

15%

17%

95,047

6–9 chars

40%

19%

14%

15%

377,024

10+ chars

35%

21%

15%

16%

296,193

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.