Ethereum Name Serviceの‌価格

$YGG CEX Flow Check: What the 24-Hour Lists Show Over the past 24 hours, reported CEX net inflows were led by MDT at $103,786,729. On the outflow side, LINK, AXS and FET led a much smaller list. 👀 Inflow list to watch - MDT: $103,786,729 - AAVE: $823,648 - WLD: $649,816 - UNI: $608,157 - CRV: $512,632 - 1INCH: $263,405 - PAXG: $212,517 - TLM: $101,081 - ENS: $96,181 - GTC: $90,660 MDT is about 97% of the $107.1 million listed inflow total. If you are screening for exchange arrivals, that single print outweighs AAVE, WLD, UNI, CRV, 1INCH, PAXG, TLM, ENS and GTC combined. 📤 Outflow list to watch - LINK: $1,346,822 - AXS: $1,121,517 - FET: $802,036 - PEPE: $640,442 - SHIB: $281,362 - TRB: $277,171 - JASMY: $232,992 - STG: $216,919 - ALICE: $190,315 - AUDIO: $152,953 Listed outflows add up to about $5.3 million. LINK, AXS, FET and PEPE are the clearest names if you are tracking tokens leaving exchanges in this window. SHIB, TRB, JASMY, STG, ALICE and AUDIO sit lower, each under $300,000. 🧭 Practical takeaway Use this as a flow screen, not a trade signal. Net inflow means more of the token moved onto exchanges. Net outflow means more moved off. Coverage is the reported top 10 in each direction only, so a missing name is not a zero-flow reading. Which side of the flow list are you tracking more closely right now? 👇 Share the token and whether you care more about the inflow or the outflow print. Not investment advice - research on your own! 🚀 $rMDT

$GRVT TL;DR: ENS Labs and GLEIF are exploring linking ENS names with verifiable legal entity identifiers (vLEI) to authenticate institutions onchain. The proposal includes an ENS Improvement Proposal (ENSIP) that would standardize the connection between onchain names and corporate legal identity. Both organizations will participate in Sibos 2026 to advance the implementation of this institutional identity infrastructure. ENS Labs and the Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) announced that they are exploring an integration that would allow ENS names to be linked with verifiable legal entity identifiers, known as vLEI, so that applications and counterparties can confirm the identity of the organization behind an onchain name. The ENS Labs project is currently in development stage and aims to resolve one of the most pressing questions raised by institutional adoption of blockchain infrastructure: is the counterparty really who they claim to be? The LEI —Legal Entity Identifier— is a globally standardized unique code that identifies a legal entity independently of the account or financial infrastructure it uses. Its verifiable version, the vLEI, extends that capability to the digital ecosystem, allowing organizational identity to be confirmed in a computational manner, including the authority of individuals acting on behalf of an organization. ENS Labs: Verifiable Institutional Identity Layer An ENS name can point to addresses and information used by wallets and applications across multiple networks, functioning as a persistent reference for an organization. By linking that name to a vLEI, counterparties obtain a mechanism to independently verify the organizational identity behind it. The next technical step involves formalizing an ENS Improvement Proposal, or ENSIP, which would define the implementation standard for the ENS ecosystem. These public technical documents establish common specifications so that different integrations operate under the same logic, preventing each project from defining its own approach. The governance and verification of vLEI credentials would remain within GLEIF’s framework. The practical applications of this scheme encompass counterparty risk management, asset tokenization —where each issuance requires a clear link to the responsible entity— and the authenticity of onchain accounts, where today anyone can deploy a contract and claim to represent an organization with no real possibility of verification. ENS Labs and GLEIF will continue refining the specifications alongside interested institutions and will participate in Sibos 2026 to advance the conversation on how to integrate organizations into the onchain world in a verifiable and trustworthy manner.

$ENS The plan is simple, BUY and HODL for max return in the coming weeks. Probably the best alpha for next month 🤝

Ethereum Name Service has opened discussion around an ENSv2 migration proposal that would move domain registration and renewal resolution toward a Layer-2 registry model. The idea is pretty straightforward: ENS works, but Ethereum mainnet fees can make everyday domain actions expensive. Moving more of that activity to Layer 2 could reduce costs while keeping links back to Ethereum’s security model. This is still an early governance stage. The proposal is a temp check, not a completed migration. It has not passed a full executable DAO vote, and users should not treat it as already implemented. But it is a meaningful direction for one of Ethereum’s most recognizable identity systems. For more details, visit the official Discuss platform. TL;DR ENS is discussing an ENSv2 migration toward a Layer-2 registry. The proposal aims to reduce registration and renewal costs. It is an early governance discussion, not an implemented migration. Why ENS Needs Lower Costs ENS is one of Ethereum’s simplest consumer products. Instead of using long wallet addresses, users can register readable names. That makes wallets easier to share, payments easier to understand, and identity easier to build across apps. The problem is cost. When Ethereum mainnet fees rise, simple actions like registering, renewing, or managing names can become annoying or expensive. That limits how broadly ENS can be used, especially for smaller users. A Layer-2 registry model could help by moving more routine activity onto cheaper infrastructure. Keeping Ethereum Security In The Picture The challenge is not just moving to L2. ENS has to preserve the trust assumptions that made it valuable in the first place. Users want lower fees, but they also want confidence that names remain secure, durable, and connected to Ethereum’s settlement layer. That is why the proposal matters. It is trying to find a balance between cheaper user actions and strong security proofs. If that balance works, ENS could become easier to use without losing the trust that comes from being rooted in Ethereum. Governance Comes First ENS is governed by a DAO, so major changes need community discussion and approval. The current proposal is still in the early discussion phase. That means delegates, users, developers, and service providers can debate trade-offs before anything becomes final. That process may feel slow, but it is important. Name infrastructure is sensitive. If ENS changes how registration and resolution work, the ecosystem needs time to understand the implications. Cost Savings Need Careful Wording The proposal aims to reduce gas costs sharply, but cost-saving claims need to be tied to the final design. Layer 2s can make transactions much cheaper, but actual savings depend on implementation, network fees, bridging assumptions, proof systems, and how users interact with the new registry. So the right view is that ENSv2 could significantly reduce costs if adopted and implemented successfully. It is not a guarantee today. The Bigger Ethereum Identity Story ENS has remained one of Ethereum’s most recognizable non-financial protocols. It is not just about speculation. It is about identity, payments, wallets, websites, and user experience. If ENS can make names cheaper and easier to manage, it could become more useful across the Ethereum ecosystem. That is why the L2 migration proposal matters. It shows ENS trying to adapt to where Ethereum is going: a world where mainnet anchors security, while more user activity happens on Layer 2. The proposal is early, but the direction makes sense. This article draws on ENS governance materials relating to the ENSv2 Layer-2 registry migration proposal. This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae. $BTC $ETH $IOST