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 2026-05-01T11:22:45.069Z

Active 2LDs

948,357

Distinct holders

432,884

Names per holder (avg)

2.19

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	350,474	80.96%	350,474	36.96%	40.4	14.8
2–5 names	65,486	15.13%	173,257	18.27%	48.8	19.2
6–10 names	8,644	2.00%	64,319	6.78%	39.7	15.2
11–50 names	6,823	1.58%	141,150	14.88%	29.7	12.2
51–100 names	835	0.19%	58,023	6.12%	22.2	10.8
100+ names	622	0.14%	161,134	16.99%	20.3	8.8
Total	432,884	100.00%	948,357	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	738	2,488	44,852	181,884	120,512	350,474
2–5 names	911	2,781	18,573	81,017	69,974	173,256
6–10 names	361	1,103	7,231	28,813	26,811	64,319
11–50 names	743	2,603	17,920	63,909	55,976	141,151
51–100 names	239	1,089	8,409	26,319	21,967	58,023
100+ names	438	1,739	22,105	76,468	60,385	161,135
Total	3,430	11,803	119,090	458,410	355,625	948,357

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%

13%

3,430

4 chars

21%

24%

22%

15%

11,803

5 chars

38%

16%

15%

19%

119,090

6–9 chars

40%

18%

14%

17%

458,410

10+ chars

34%

20%

16%

17%

355,625

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.