Cross Chain Bridging Standards for Names ERC 7265 and Beyond

As blockchain ecosystems continue to proliferate, the fragmentation of user identity and naming conventions across chains has become one of the most urgent challenges in Web3. With dozens of Layer 1 and Layer 2 networks now supporting their own variants of human-readable naming services—such as .eth on Ethereum, .bnb on BNB Chain, .sol on Solana, and .arb on Arbitrum—the need for cross-chain interoperability has shifted from a conceptual goal to a technical necessity. Users increasingly demand seamless, universal identity representation across decentralized applications, regardless of which network they interact with. To meet this demand, developers and standards bodies are proposing mechanisms to bridge naming assets across chains securely, efficiently, and verifiably. At the forefront of this effort is ERC-7265, a proposed standard for cross-chain name bridging that seeks to establish a unified protocol for transferring naming rights between domains governed by different chains.

ERC-7265 introduces a modular architecture for creating, managing, and verifying bridged name records using a standardized set of interfaces and trust assumptions. The core idea is to treat names as transferable claims that can be represented by wrapped tokens on target chains while preserving canonical ownership on the source chain. Under this model, a name like alice.eth, originally registered and resolved via the ENS system on Ethereum mainnet, can be mirrored as alice.eth on an L2 such as Optimism or a parallel execution environment like zkSync. The mirrored instance is not an independent asset but a wrapped derivative that derives its validity from a cryptographic attestation tied to the original ENS record. This maintains global uniqueness and prevents namespace collisions, while enabling localized use of names in chain-specific contexts.

The ERC-7265 standard builds upon prior work in token bridging protocols and cross-domain messaging. It incorporates familiar components like lock-and-mint, burn-and-release, and relayer-authenticated state proofs. When a user initiates a bridge request for a name, the name is locked or escrowed in a smart contract on the source chain—often the canonical registry itself or a dedicated bridge controller. A message is then passed to the target chain via a secure relayer or oracle network, often relying on mechanisms like Chainlink CCIP or LayerZero. Once verified, a synthetic name token is minted on the destination chain, representing the bridged identity. This token adheres to the same ERC-721 or ERC-1155 interfaces used on the source chain, allowing dApps on the destination chain to recognize and integrate the name using standard interfaces.

One of the central innovations of ERC-7265 is the introduction of proof-of-origin metadata that travels with the bridged token. This metadata encodes the chain ID, registry address, name hash, and block number of the original record, allowing any smart contract or interface to trace the name’s provenance. This is critical for preventing spoofing and ensuring that a bridged name like alice.eth on Polygon is indeed derived from the original ENS record on Ethereum. Without such verifiability, the risk of duplication, fraud, or namespace dilution becomes significant—especially in a multi-chain world where malicious actors can register identical-looking names on isolated registries and pass them off as legitimate.

Beyond the technical foundations, ERC-7265 also introduces governance considerations for managing cross-chain naming standards. In particular, the protocol allows for registry-specific policies on bridgeability. A naming system may choose to whitelist or blacklist destination chains, enforce bridging fees, or require DAO approval for outbound transfers. This flexibility respects the autonomy of each naming community while providing the tools to enforce consistency. For instance, ENS might allow bridging only to EVM-compatible chains that implement certain security measures, while other naming systems might opt for more permissive policies. The standard is designed to accommodate both approaches by making bridge adapters modular and upgradable.

In addition to one-way bridges, ERC-7265 supports bi-directional sync, enabling users to update metadata on a bridged name and have those changes reflected—or optionally propagated—back to the canonical record. This is implemented through periodic signature verification or oracle-driven callbacks, ensuring that updates to text records, content hashes, or ownership delegates are not lost in translation. A DAO using a bridged name like treasury.eth on an L2 can therefore update its resolver, IPFS hash, or governance link without needing to manually re-register or re-verify on multiple chains. This bi-directional capability is crucial for maintaining consistency and functionality across composable protocols.

Looking beyond ERC-7265, developers are exploring more advanced concepts to further unify Web3 naming. One proposal involves creating a universal name registry as a Layer 0 protocol—a substrate that issues globally unique name identifiers and provides APIs for chain-specific resolution layers. Another path involves integrating zero-knowledge proofs to enable trustless verification of name ownership across incompatible execution environments. This would allow a user to prove they own alice.eth on Ethereum without requiring a trusted bridge or external oracle, instead generating a zk-SNARK attestation verifiable on Solana or Cosmos.

These developments reflect a broader realization within the Web3 ecosystem: that names are more than cosmetic labels or wallet aliases. They are cryptographic access points to identity, messaging, reputation, and content. As such, their utility depends on portability and consistency. A fragmented naming landscape inhibits user experience, complicates authentication, and dilutes the network effects that make name-based identity powerful. Bridging standards like ERC-7265 are not merely technical tools—they are critical infrastructure for the decentralized web’s coherence and scalability.

Adoption of ERC-7265 will require coordinated effort across ecosystem participants, including naming protocols, L2 operators, bridge providers, and application developers. Wallets must integrate support for verifying bridged names and displaying provenance. Explorers and indexing services must expand their schemas to handle multi-chain name records and interpret cross-chain metadata. Governance bodies of registries must determine policies for bridging, including rights retention, revocation mechanisms, and dispute resolution. Only through such alignment can cross-chain naming achieve the trust guarantees and UX parity that users expect from Web3-native identity systems.

In the years ahead, cross-chain naming standards will determine whether Web3 identities become cohesive and durable or siloed and fragmented. ERC-7265 represents a crucial milestone in this evolution, offering a secure, flexible, and interoperable framework for extending names across the many blockchains that define the modern decentralized landscape. As usage grows and infrastructure matures, the vision of a single, portable identity layer—accessible from any chain, verifiable anywhere, and interoperable with everything—moves closer to reality.

As blockchain ecosystems continue to proliferate, the fragmentation of user identity and naming conventions across chains has become one of the most urgent challenges in Web3. With dozens of Layer 1 and Layer 2 networks now supporting their own variants of human-readable naming services—such as .eth on Ethereum, .bnb on BNB Chain, .sol on Solana,…