Layer Zero Interoperability Universal Names Across All Chains

As the blockchain ecosystem continues to fragment into a multitude of Layer 1s and Layer 2s—each optimized for different purposes, communities, and economic models—the demand for a unified naming system capable of transcending chain boundaries has become one of the most pressing technical challenges. The idea of universal names—human-readable identifiers that resolve consistently and securely across any blockchain—is rapidly evolving from a theoretical goal into a real engineering imperative. This is the realm of Layer-Zero interoperability: building foundational, protocol-agnostic naming infrastructure that operates beneath the execution layers of individual chains and enables seamless identity, asset mapping, and data retrieval across the multichain world.

At the heart of this vision is the notion that names should not be tied to a single chain’s namespace. Today, Ethereum Name Service (ENS) names such as alice.eth are native to Ethereum Mainnet, with increasingly robust support across Layer 2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base. However, resolution and ownership verification on other networks—such as Solana, Avalanche, Cosmos zones, or Polkadot parachains—requires bridging logic, wrapped representations, or separate native naming protocols entirely. This fragmentation undermines the very purpose of human-readable identity and imposes friction for users, developers, and applications aiming for chain-agnostic experiences.

Layer-zero interoperability aims to solve this by abstracting the naming layer away from any single execution environment. Instead, names become root-level identifiers anchored in consensus-agnostic protocols that can resolve metadata, keys, and linked assets across multiple chains. To implement this, naming systems must integrate with omnichain messaging protocols such as LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole, and CCIP. These protocols enable cross-chain state reads and writes through lightweight messaging layers, allowing a domain name registered on Ethereum, for instance, to be resolved and interacted with from Solana, Aptos, or any EVM-compatible chain in real time.

This is already happening in experimental and semi-production environments. ENS, for example, has begun to explore integration with LayerZero and CCIP-Read to allow names like bob.eth to resolve on non-Ethereum chains without duplicating registry state or requiring wrapped representations. Instead of deploying an ENS registry contract to every new chain, ENS can deploy a lightweight resolver contract that queries Ethereum’s mainnet or L2 resolver through LayerZero’s messaging infrastructure. This resolver receives a signed message proving the canonical record’s validity, allowing any dApp or wallet on the destination chain to verify and use the name as if it were native.

Universal name resolution also depends heavily on off-chain infrastructure that can authenticate and cache on-chain data. Services like The Graph, Indexer networks, and CCIP off-chain data providers serve as intermediaries that feed current resolver states, metadata, and linked content hashes to endpoints in different ecosystems. For example, a user opening a wallet app on Solana could input charlie.eth and see the corresponding Solana address, avatar image, and linked IPFS website, all pulled through a trust-minimized cross-chain resolution system. For developers, SDKs and API gateways must abstract these complexities, exposing simple name resolution calls that work regardless of the underlying network.

Another aspect of universal naming is ownership synchronization. It’s not sufficient for a name to resolve cross-chain—it must also be provably controlled by the same entity across chains. This requires mapping the canonical owner of a domain name (typically an Ethereum address or ENS controller) to wallet addresses on other chains. Solutions like EIP-3668 (off-chain resolution) and ERC-5633 (linked accounts) allow for cryptographic proofs of control, where a user can prove that their Solana or Cosmos wallet is associated with an ENS name, enabling verifiable reputation, access control, and rights enforcement across networks. These proofs can be registered on-chain or issued as verifiable credentials under the W3C DID standard, making identity portable beyond even the crypto stack into enterprise and Web2 contexts.

The implications of universal naming are profound. DAOs can use a single domain as a root identity across multiple chains, anchoring their treasury on Ethereum, issuing governance tokens on Arbitrum, deploying gaming assets on Avalanche, and running microservices on Polygon—all linked through subdomains of a single universal namespace. Developers can write chain-agnostic login systems where users authenticate with one name that binds all their wallets, removing the need to manage multiple aliases or recreate profiles across ecosystems. Brands can ensure consistent identity and trust no matter where their customers interact, from NFT marketplaces on Solana to DeFi protocols on zkSync.

Security and governance are critical components of this vision. Universal names must be resistant to domain hijacking, name squatting, and resolution attacks across all supported chains. Governance structures like the ENS DAO must collaborate with multichain protocol providers and potentially form coalitions or inter-protocol working groups to enforce standards, coordinate resolver updates, and maintain naming integrity. Permissioned registrars, reputation-weighted minting, and zero-knowledge proofs may be used to prevent abuse in subdomain delegation or cross-chain mappings, especially for namespaces tied to real-world identities or regulatory requirements.

Economically, universal naming creates new monetization layers and utility models. Domain leasing, subdomain issuance, and naming auctions can now happen across chains, priced dynamically based on demand in each ecosystem. A highly coveted name like metaverse.eth could offer subdomains on Solana for gaming projects, on Polygon for retail wallets, and on Base for creator tools, each tied to specific branding strategies and revenue-sharing agreements. Name liquidity markets may emerge where rights to resolve or rent a domain on a particular chain are tokenized, traded, and arbitraged, transforming naming into a yield-generating asset class with multichain utility curves.

Crucially, universal naming aligns with the broader philosophy of modular blockchains and the app-chain thesis. As more chains become application-specific—optimized for gaming, DeFi, identity, or compute—the need for shared primitives increases. Names are perhaps the most essential of these primitives. They provide the foundation for human-readable interactions, enforceable rights, and portable reputation. Building them at the layer-zero level—beneath consensus, execution, and application layers—ensures that identity and usability remain coherent even as the technical stack diversifies.

In conclusion, layer-zero interoperability is not just a technical upgrade to existing naming systems—it is a fundamental redefinition of what it means to own and use a name in the blockchain age. Universal names across all chains will serve as the connective tissue of the decentralized internet, enabling seamless navigation, reputation, and value transfer in a multichain reality. Achieving this requires collaboration across protocols, rigorous standardization, and deep investment in cross-chain tooling, but the payoff is transformative: a world where your name is not confined to a chain, but is a passport to the entire digital frontier.

As the blockchain ecosystem continues to fragment into a multitude of Layer 1s and Layer 2s—each optimized for different purposes, communities, and economic models—the demand for a unified naming system capable of transcending chain boundaries has become one of the most pressing technical challenges. The idea of universal names—human-readable identifiers that resolve consistently and securely…