not-equalSNS vs. ENS

How Sonic Name Service differs from Ethereum Name Service

While SNS and ENS share the same vision — decentralized identity and naming — their architectures diverge significantly to meet the evolving demands of high-performance L2s and modern dApps.

This page breaks down the technical and practical differences between SNS (Sonic Name Service) and ENS (Ethereum Name Service).

🔧 Architecture Comparison

Feature

ENS

SNS

Domain Representation

ERC721 NFTs

ERC721 NFTs

Storage Structure

Multiple contracts (ENS Registry, Resolver, Registrar)

Modular contracts with centralized Ledger for packed metadata — drastically reduces gas and storage via efficient bit-level encoding

Metadata

Mostly static, rendered off-chain

Fully dynamic, rendered via on-chain state + MetadataRenderer

Subdomain Ownership

Full ownership of subdomains

Full ownership of subdomains + Root domain owner assigns users

Fee Routing

Hardcoded per contract

Controlled via FeeController (upgradable)

Blacklist / Reserved Names

Not enforced at core level

Controlled via ListController

Referral System

Not natively supported

Built-in multi-level referral logic (up to 3 levels)

Reseller Support

None

Native ResellersHub with metadata, payouts, and commission tracking

Claiming Revenue

No fee redistribution

SNS token holders can claim protocol revenue via RevenueDistributor

⚡ Performance & Cost

Feature

ENS

SNS

Chain

Ethereum mainnet

Sonic (ultra-low fees, ultra-high speed)

Calldata Size

Higher (e.g., .eth vs .s)

Smaller (.s TLD = fewer bytes)

Gas Costs

High (due to Ethereum L1)

Minimal (optimized for Sonic)

🧱 Composability

Category

ENS

SNS

Upgradeable Core Modules

Limited

Modular, upgradeable via roles

Custom Resolvers

Supported

Planned via Pointer system (standard & subgraph)

DAO Integration

Optional, external

Core to revenue distribution and governance

Protocol Incentives

Mostly organic adoption

Built-in rewards for builders, referrers, resellers

🔐 Security & Control

Feature

ENS

SNS

Ownership Model

NFT-based

NFT-based

Expiration & Grace Period

Yes

Yes (customizable via Ledger)

Permission Roles

Limited (mostly admin)

Granular (AGENT_ROLE, BALANCE_MANAGER, etc.)

Reentrancy Protections

Varies by resolver

All modules protected (e.g., claim, receiveCommission)

🏷 Ownership Model

Feature

ENS

SNS

Domain Ownership

Stored in the ENS Registry contract, not tied directly to the NFT

Directly tied to the DotS NFT — NFT owner is the domain owner

Ownership Transfer

Transferring the NFT does not update ENS Registry automatically — requires additional transactions

Transferring a DotS NFT automatically transfers domain ownership, no updates needed elsewhere

Ledger Design

Registry holds ownership info, separate from metadata/resolver

Ledger stores only metadata, not ownership — full separation for efficiency and clarity

Model Type

Coupled: Registry + NFT must stay in sync

Decoupled: DotS NFT = single source of truth for domain ownership


Summary

ENS

SNS

Mature and widely adopted on Ethereum

Fresh, modular, and optimized for L2-native applications

.eth domains with legacy compatibility

.s domains with tiny calldata and fast resolution

High gas costs limit experimentation

Built for speed, scale, and composability

Last updated