Proposal - ENS Domain Privacy Preservation

After speaking directly with the EF and slobo.eth, ChainSafe Systems would like to formally propose the research, specification and prototype development of an ENS address privacy preservation solution.

We believe we have partially identified a solution that presents a high likelihood that it will be possible to allow ENS addresses to emit on-chain transactions, without openly publicising the ENS name itself. We will need to complete the proposed research, specification and prototype development to be sure.

For this reason, ChainSafe systems is seeking grant funding to complete and implement this important work in the public good domain and as such is posting the formalized proposal publicly for the community to consider and decide on the outcome.

Please note:
The proposed pricing structure is significantly below our standard rates. This is to ensure that this work is considered a ‘public good.’

Please feel free to reach out to myself on for any questions or clarification relating to this proposal. On behalf of the ChainSafe team, I sincerely hope that the community can appreciate this proposal.

Kind regards,
Bryant Soorkia

Link to Proposal


As a Huge privacy advocate, I believe this is something worth exploring further!
However, given the recent events in the privacy space (Tornado specifically) I’d approach the topic cautiously and with extra thought.
Just my 2 cents.
Can’t wait to see what everybody else thinks.


Most of the ENS folks are in devcon right now, so will take a little bit of time to comment on this.


No worries. We actually have quite a few people in Bogota right now if anybody would like to speak to us in person about this proposal. Flick me an email if you do!! :slight_smile:

1 Like

One reservation I have with this is that the current attitude towards mixers is to treat them as intrinsically sanction violating, and thus illegal. Have you considered the practicalities of deploying a solution like this at the present time?

Whilst we cannot predict with absolute certainty what future regulation will decide, we can say that we are not, and will not, be proposing anything illegal.
Our research document (deliverable #1) would outline the implementation possibilities (such as: the possibility of a mixer, as well as other alternatives) in more depth.
That said, and for the reason you highlighted, it does makes sense for us to strongly consider solutions that are not mixers, and build on something existing. Thus far, it seems likely that we will be focusing our attention on using Aztec technology for a final solution as we consider this less risk and because it would likely provide better privacy preserving properties more generally for the solution itself and in this case, it would not involve mixer technology. @nick.eth