ENSv2 shifts to Ethereum mainnet after 99% fee drop

ENSv2 Ethereum mainnet-only shift: unconfirmed; Namechain L2 cancellation unverified

Reports are circulating that ENS Labs has scrapped its proposed Namechain Layer 2 and will deploy ENSv2 solely on Ethereum mainnet. As reported by CryptoTimes, some coverage attributes the alleged pivot to a roughly 99% decline in gas costs for relevant operations (https://www.cryptotimes.io/2026/02/07/ens-abandons-namechain-returns-to-ethereum-as-gas-fees-drop-99/).

At the time of writing, there is no verified, on-record statement from ENS Labs or a recorded ENS DAO governance action that conclusively confirms a mainnet-only shift or a formal cancellation of Namechain. Until an official communication appears on recognized ENS channels, the claims should be treated as unverified.

What reports claim about ENS Labs’ ENSv2 and why it matters

Coverage asserting a mainnet-only ENSv2 generally cites lower fees and reduced cross-chain complexity as the rationale, with Ethereum’s security model preserved by staying on L1. If accurate, this would simplify architecture for registrars, resolvers, and integrators that currently depend on Ethereum as the canonical source of name records.

For context, the upgrade path historically included a dedicated rollup. As reported by CoinDesk, “ENS Labs Ltd. today announced plans to launch its own layer 2 scaling network for its blockchain-based name service,” describing the initiative that became known as Namechain under the ENSv2 roadmap (https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/11/11/ethereums-ens-identity-system-set-to-launch-own-layer-2-blockchain/). That history underscores why today’s unverified reports, if later confirmed, would represent a material shift in strategy.

What changes now: nothing until official confirmation; monitor ENS DAO

Operationally, nothing changes for users or integrators unless and until the project’s stewards confirm a new deployment plan. According to the ENS DAO forum, substantive roadmap changes are typically surfaced through public posts and governance processes, so participants should expect any definitive pivot to appear in that venue if adopted (https://discuss.ens.domains/).

If a mainnet-only ENSv2 were ultimately confirmed, implications would likely center on fee dynamics for registrations and renewals, security assumptions anchored to Ethereum, and implementation timelines for ENSv2 features originally scoped with L2 in mind. Absent that confirmation, existing ENS processes on Ethereum continue as normal.

At the time of this writing, based on data from CoinMarketCap, ENS traded near $6.13 with very high short-term volatility and bearish momentum; these figures provide context and do not imply any view on future performance. Market conditions are separate from protocol-governance decisions and may evolve independently.

L1 vs L2 trade-offs for ENSv2: cost, security, complexity

Layer 1 simplifies trust assumptions by inheriting Ethereum’s base-layer security directly and eliminating cross-domain messaging for core state, but it exposes users to gas-price variability and blockspace constraints. A dedicated L2 can compress costs and accelerate throughput while introducing bridging, data-availability, and operational complexity that must be mitigated with sound design and governance.

For ENSv2, a mainnet-only approach could reduce architectural moving parts and dependency risk at the cost of fewer levers to optimize transaction pricing during periods of network congestion. An L2-centric path would offer more granular cost control and feature velocity but require careful handling of finality, proofs, and interoperability so name resolution remains reliable across the wider Ethereum ecosystem.