The DNS registrar guide seems wrong or incomplete. Or am I missing something?

I found this blogpost from Namecheap , which points to DNS Registrar guide

My domain is with Namecheap. However, the guide starts with a Namecheap screenshot, which shows “keytag” just bellow DNSSEC, something which is completely missing when I go to “Advanced DNS”. Then it switches to a Google Cloud DNS screenshot. Does that mean apart from owning the domain I also have to get either EasyDNS or Google Cloud DNS or it can all be done only with Namecheap?

The domain/s I tried to enable as ETH address are .com and .org. I also checked with Namecheap to make sure the domains I have are able to be used as a crypto address.

I took screenshots of Namecheap if it helps.

In your first screenshot, you have added the ‘v=spf1’ TXT Record to the MAIL SETTINGS. You have to move it to the HOST RECORDS just like in the second screenshot along with other TXT Records. Then it should work.

Having said that, the cost to claim DNS is 0.3-0.5 ETH at the moment but this will become FREE soon with the new upgrade. Might as well wait it out, unless you have lots of ETH of course

‘v=spf1’ said “Locked by Domain Redirect” so it’s impossible to remove it. Regardless of the amount, I wanted to see how it works and if it works without any issues and eventually use it later.

I am sorry, my bad. I did not see the full content of the TXT Record. It makes sense why it is locked; you are lucky it is locked. It was highly irresponsible of me to ask you to move it. It could break private email server if you had one. Anyway, it has nothing to do with DNSSEC. :cold_face:

It is possible to do it only with NameCheap since I myself did it with NameCheap as well right until the last step where it asked me for 0.5 ETH in gas. Here is my screenshot from back in the day

You know what to do next

1 Like

Thanks. I just did it the way you suggested and will keep refreshing the page occasionally to if I get through. For now getting “DNS server responded with NXDOMAIN”. Will see if it gets fixed later.

1 Like

It will. Takes time. Anything from 20 mins to a day

1 Like

Ok, just got updated thanks to your screenshot :slight_smile: Thanks a lot! the fee is 0.095 - 0.11 Still high but acceptable. I’ll take a peek occasionally to see if I can register it a but cheaper. Thanks again!

1 Like

That’s cheap. I am tempted :skull::cold_face:

I know, wright :smile:

I’m surprised the guys haven’t added something similar to what OpenSea did, Polygon or a chain with lower fees just for those transactions. Last time I registered .eth name, the fee was $0.12. Yesterday it was $5 for the name and $52 fees.

Btw, do you know if only ETH address can be used with TLDs or the crypto addresses can be added - BTC, XMR etc.?

There are plans to introduce rollups for exactly what you mentioned which will make DNS and a lot of other stuff cheaper.

Yes, you can add any address you want in the Text Records of the domain. You have to go to ‘Manage Domains’ on the app to do it. But that doesn’t mean the name will resolve to those addresses by default. Few apps support the functionality of pulling addresses other than ETH from the domain name metadata


That’s good. Saving on fees, especially with the current ETH fees would be a life saver.

I couldn’t find any list with wallets/apps that can resolve .com, let’s say. OpenAlias have similar function, where you can add BTC, XMR, and LTC addresses. The process is much simpler, but very few wallets support TLD to the actual address.

It’s even better than that; with EIP 3668, we can replace the DNSSEC oracle with something that fetches ENS records from DNS and avoids gas fees entirely.


Thanks, Nick! Do you mind posting a link of a list of wallets that support TLDs. I know the ones that support .eth names but couldn’t fond nothing about the TLDs support.

All wallets that support ENS should support any TLD. If they don’t, that’s a problem with their integration; please let us and them know.


So that’s pretty much all major wallets. Thanks

EIP 3688 looks great man.

Allowing contracts to proactively request external data to complete a call, without requiring the caller to be aware of the details of that data.

Game changer! Even say API integration into Wiki, Docs, DAO, with pay as you go for offchain plans for API engines. Stops the Knowledge Base response API from being exploited.

Too cool.