Is it disingenuous for companies to market .COM domain as "onchain", when they are not onchain at the registry level?

[dncafe]

I find it misleading for companies to sell traditional (eg .com .net .org) domains as onchain (on a blockchain) when there is nothing at the registry level to tie them to a blockchain.

There are companies who provide blockchain domains, or "web3" names that are on a blockchain, but these companies are also a traditional domain registrar, and market .COM domains they sell as onchain, when they are not actually tied to a blockchain at the registry level, because Verisgn, the registry does not offer this

 

[MKA]

I find it misleading for companies to sell traditional (eg .com .net .org) domains as onchain (on a blockchain) when there is nothing at the registry level to tie them to a blockchain.

There are companies who provide blockchain domains, or "web3" names that are on a blockchain, but these companies are also a traditional domain registrar,

I see no issue with this. If a domain registrar markets itself as a ".ee registrar" they shouldn't have to limit themselves to just .ee domains.

and market .COM domains they sell as onchain,

What registrar does this, what's the context, and what does the fine-print say?

 

[DediRock]

For the .COM domain question, marketing traditional domains as "onchain" is misleading since they aren't tied to a blockchain at the registry level. True blockchain domains should be directly integrated with blockchain technology.

 

[DomainNature]

Liars by design, everywhere.
They will do anything for money.

 

[URL Expo]

At UNSTOPPABLE DOMAINS traditional/legacy domains as .COM etc... are minted on the blockchain when you register or transfer them, so they co-exist OnChain and OffChain. They are also connected to a web3 wallet so ownership can be exchanged similar to NFTs.

 

[bmugford]

At UNSTOPPABLE DOMAINS traditional/legacy domains as .COM etc... are minted on the blockchain when you register or transfer them, so they co-exist OnChain and OffChain. They are also connected to a web3 wallet so ownership can be exchanged similar to NFTs.

What are you actually exchanging, an entry on the blockchain?

I agree that pretending these legacy extensions are web3 domains is misleading.

ICANN has rules, regulations, and policies regarding ownership. What some blockchain says is irrelevant to that process.

Brad

 

[URL Expo]

What are you actually exchanging, an entry on the blockchain?

I agree that pretending these legacy extensions are web3 domains is misleading.

ICANN has rules, regulations, and policies regarding ownership. What some blockchain says is irrelevant to that process.

Brad

I'm not sure they pretend this where web3 domains, however almost everything can be tokenized on the blockchain. In practice is like having a copy/clone of your .COM onchain. Obviously they wont let you sell it separatelly because they follow ICANNs rules, but technically is possible.

 

[MKA]

At UNSTOPPABLE DOMAINS traditional/legacy domains as .COM etc... are minted on the blockchain when you register or transfer them, so they co-exist OnChain and OffChain. They are also connected to a web3 wallet so ownership can be exchanged similar to NFTs.

Seems like a massive scam to trick crypto enthusiasts into thinking that a minted token of a .com domain somehow infers ownership of the .com. But it certainly means that they can add "onchain" as a descriptor to .com domains, to then have it clarified in the fine print that the domain itself isn't "onchain."

This is one of the reasons I stay away from all this crypto-crap. It's all scams, rug-pulls, and gaslighting to perpetuate the cycle.