History of HNS

The History of Handshake (HNS): Decentralizing the DNS System

Handshake (HNS) was conceived as an attempt to decentralize the internet’s domain name system (DNS) by replacing traditional certificate authorities with a blockchain-based system. The project was backed by prominent figures in the crypto space, some of whom had previously contributed to leading open-source software and decentralized infrastructure projects.

The origins of Handshake stem from frustrations with the centralized DNS system, which relies on organizations like ICANN to oversee domain name registration and governance. Traditional domain name allocation is susceptible to censorship, deplatforming, and security issues via trusted third parties. Handshake proposed an alternative: a fully decentralized system where top-level domain (TLD) ownership is secured through cryptographic keys on a blockchain, eliminating the need for a central authority.

Handshake held an unconventional launch. Instead of conducting a typical token sale or ICO, a significant portion of the initial HNS supply was airdropped to open-source developers, cryptographers, and other contributors to decentralized technologies. Additionally, a public auction model was introduced for TLD acquisition, using a Vickrey auction format to ensure fair pricing. This approach aimed to align the interests of internet builders with the project's long-term vision.

Despite its technical innovation, Handshake faced multiple adoption challenges. One major roadblock has been browser support. Unlike traditional domains governed by ICANN, Handshake domains require special configurations or browser plugins to resolve correctly. Major internet infrastructure providers have been slow to integrate Handshake domains natively, limiting usability for the wider public.

Security concerns have also emerged. While the blockchain itself is resistant to tampering, domain squatting has been a persistent issue. Early adopters acquired many valuable TLDs in the hopes of reselling them at a premium, mirroring behaviors seen in the traditional domain name market. This has led to debates about whether Handshake’s approach to domain distribution effectively decentralizes control or simply recreates profiteering dynamics within a different system.

Other historical challenges include competition from Ethereum Name Service (ENS) and other blockchain-based naming systems that have gained stronger integrations and broader recognition. While Handshake operates independently from Ethereum, its lack of direct smart contract interoperability has made it less adaptable to DeFi and other Web3 ecosystems.

Despite these hurdles, Handshake’s history reflects a continued push toward decentralized naming solutions. By replacing centralized gatekeepers with cryptographic verification, it offers a model for censorship-resistant domains—but widespread adoption remains an ongoing struggle.

How HNS Works

How Handshake (HNS) Works: A Deep Dive into Its Mechanisms

Handshake (HNS) is a decentralized, permissionless naming protocol that aims to replace the traditional Domain Name System (DNS) with a blockchain-based alternative. At its core, HNS decentralizes the process of domain name ownership by utilizing a Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism and an auction model for top-level domains (TLDs).

The Blockchain and Consensus Mechanism

Handshake operates on its own blockchain, which uses a variant of the Bitcoin codebase. It relies on a Nakamoto-style PoW consensus mechanism, meaning miners secure the network by solving cryptographic puzzles. Blocks are produced similarly to Bitcoin, and transactions—including domain auctions, transfers, and updates—are settled on-chain. Miners are incentivized with HNS tokens through block rewards and transaction fees.

Decentralized Auctions and Domain Ownership

Unlike traditional DNS systems where TLDs are controlled by centralized entities like ICANN, Handshake domains are acquired through on-chain Vickrey auctions. Every available TLD (except for those pre-reserved to avoid conflicts with existing systems) can be bid on through a blind auction process. When an auction is initiated, bidders submit encrypted bids along with a deposit. After the bidding period ends, the highest bidder wins but only pays the second-highest bid amount. The winner then officially "registers" the domain on-chain, locking in ownership.

Domain Utility and Constraints

Handshake domains function as decentralized TLDs rather than second-level domains (SLDs). This means instead of purchasing example.com, a user acquires .example and can create subdomains under it. However, resolving Handshake domains requires special configurations, as mainstream resolver support is limited. Current adoption remains a barrier, with most browsers lacking out-of-the-box compatibility. Workarounds involve using browser extensions or custom DNS resolvers.

Handshake Coin (HNS) Utility

HNS acts as the primary currency within the ecosystem. It is required for bidding in auctions, renewing domain registrations, and making certain network transactions. Unlike traditional DNS systems that rely on annual fees paid to registrars, Handshake domains do not require ongoing renewal fees beyond maintaining an active transaction within a set expiration window.

Handshake introduces a decentralized and censorship-resistant naming solution, but adoption challenges remain. Without widespread resolver support, usability is limited compared to traditional DNS. Additionally, the auction process can lead to domain squatting issues, where speculative buyers acquire TLDs without utilizing them, potentially impacting the ecosystem’s growth.

Use Cases

Handshake (HNS) Use Cases: Decentralizing the Domain Name System

Censorship-Resistant Domain Names

Handshake (HNS) serves as a decentralized alternative to the traditional Domain Name System (DNS). Unlike conventional domains, which rely on centralized entities like ICANN, Handshake domains are recorded on a blockchain, preventing single points of failure and reducing the risk of censorship. Individuals and organizations can register top-level domains (TLDs) without the need for intermediaries, ensuring autonomy over their web presence. However, adoption remains a challenge due to the necessity of custom DNS resolvers, as major browsers do not natively support Handshake domains.

Trustless Domain Ownership and Transfer

HNS provides an immutable and verifiable way to own and transfer domain names without third-party oversight. Ownership is secured through blockchain transactions, eliminating common issues like domain squatting by registrars and domain seizures by centralized authorities. Moreover, Handshake names can be bought, sold, and transferred via atomic swaps or escrowless smart contracts, simplifying domain trading. However, one limitation is that, unlike traditional DNS systems, Handshake does not yet have widespread registrar and hosting service integrations.

Web3 and Decentralized Identities

Beyond domain names, Handshake facilitates Web3 applications by enabling decentralized identities (DIDs). HNS domains can serve as human-readable wallet addresses, creating memorable and censorship-resistant identifiers for blockchain transactions. Projects integrating decentralized websites or peer-to-peer communication protocols can use HNS as a base layer for identity verification. Despite this, usability barriers exist, as current implementations require users to configure browsers or use specific gateways to resolve Handshake names.

Enhanced Security Through Cryptographic Validation

Handshake enhances domain security with cryptographic techniques like DNSSEC by default, which protects against common DNS-based attacks such as cache poisoning and spoofing. Traditional DNS relies on trust in certificate authorities (CAs), which have been exploited in various breaches. With Handshake, ownership is verifiable through blockchain transactions, significantly reducing the attack surface. However, this security model also increases responsibility on users, requiring them to secure private keys properly to avoid loss of access to domain assets.

Limitations and Adoption Barriers

Despite its benefits, Handshake faces challenges in mainstream adoption. Integration with existing internet infrastructure remains limited, as major browsers and ISPs rely on traditional DNS. Users must manually configure settings or rely on third-party resolvers to access HNS domains, creating friction compared to conventional web navigation. Additionally, while the free-market auction system for domain registration is decentralized, it can lead to speculative hoarding, making desirable names expensive or inaccessible to legitimate users.

HNS Tokenomics

HNS Tokenomics: Supply, Distribution, and Incentives

Fixed Supply and Distribution Model

Handshake (HNS) has a fixed max supply of 2.04 billion tokens. The initial distribution prioritized decentralization, with a significant portion airdropped to open-source developers. A sizable allocation was set for the Handshake Foundation to fund development, with the remainder distributed through Proof of Work (PoW) mining.

This distribution model aimed to prevent excessive concentration but also introduced challenges. The developer airdrop, while unique, resulted in a substantial portion of tokens never being claimed, leading to inefficiencies in circulating supply. Over time, this has influenced market dynamics, as a large theoretical supply remains inaccessible.

Inflationary Mining Rewards

Handshake relies on a PoW consensus mechanism, similar to Bitcoin, with a halving model that reduces mining rewards over time. Initially, block rewards were set high to attract miners, but halvings systematically decrease issuance, reducing inflationary pressure.

Mining participation has fluctuated due to varying profitability, as Handshake competes for hash power with other SHA3-based networks. This dynamic affects security, as lower mining participation increases the risk of 51% attacks. Token velocity also shifts in response to miner behavior—when profitability is low, miners may sell rewards immediately, influencing short-term market conditions.

Naming Auctions and Token Utility

Unlike many crypto assets, HNS has a direct on-chain utility: bidding for decentralized domain names through Vickrey auctions. This introduces a deflationary mechanism, as winning bids are burned, permanently removing HNS from circulation.

However, the effectiveness of this burn mechanic is influenced by adoption rates. If demand for Handshake domains remains low, burn rates may not offset inflation, leading to long-term challenges in supply-demand balance. Additionally, strategic bidding techniques, like sniping auctions close to expiration, can affect token velocity and distribution among users.

Liquidity and Market Dynamics

HNS liquidity is concentrated in select trading venues, which can result in fragmented order books and price inefficiencies. The accessibility of HNS remains a point of friction, as exchange listings are limited compared to other PoW assets.

Staking mechanisms are absent, meaning holders have no passive yield options. This reduces incentive for long-term holding unless users actively participate in domain auctions. Meanwhile, the lack of smart contract support constrains DeFi integrations, limiting additional use cases that could drive more sustained demand.

HNS Governance

HNS Governance: Decentralization, Challenges, and Decision-Making

The governance of Handshake (HNS) is fundamentally decentralized, relying on a combination of proof-of-work (PoW) mining, community-led proposals, and the inherent immutability of blockchain technology. Unlike traditional domain name systems (DNS) controlled by centralized entities, HNS distributes control among miners and users, eliminating a single point of failure. However, this decentralized model has trade-offs, including governance inertia and potential coordination challenges.

No On-Chain Governance Mechanism

Handshake does not include an explicit on-chain governance mechanism. Unlike networks with token-based voting or delegated governance models, HNS relies on community-driven consensus outside of the blockchain itself. Any protocol upgrades or modifications require off-chain discussions and voluntary adoption by node operators and miners. This minimizes governance attack vectors but also makes upgrades slower and potentially more contentious.

Role of Miners in Governance

Because Handshake operates using proof-of-work, miners play a crucial role in governance. They validate transactions, secure the network, and ultimately determine whether proposed changes gain traction. However, since miners prioritize economic incentives, they may not always act in the ecosystem’s long-term best interest—especially if a protocol change threatens short-term profitability. As a result, any major upgrade must align with miner incentives to achieve widespread adoption.

Protocol Changes and Forking Risks

Without a formal governance structure, major changes to Handshake require coordination among developers, miners, and the broader community. This can be an advantage in preventing hasty protocol changes but also introduces the risk of gridlock. If the community becomes divided on a proposed change, HNS may face potential chain splits (hard forks), fragmenting support and liquidity across multiple iterations of the network.

Governance Challenges and Community Fragmentation

One of the biggest challenges in HNS governance is community fragmentation. With no authoritative governance body, decisions are often debated across multiple platforms, including forums, developer discussions, and independent initiatives. While this approach aligns with the ethos of decentralization, it also leads to inefficiencies when urgent decisions need to be made or when funding decentralized development efforts.

Funding and Sustainability Concerns

Without a native governance treasury, Handshake lacks a structured mechanism for funding ongoing protocol development. Unlike networks with self-sustaining treasuries funded through block rewards or transaction fees, HNS relies on voluntary contributions and grants. This creates uncertainty around long-term development sustainability, as ongoing improvements depend on the willingness of external parties to fund initiatives.

Technical future of HNS

Handshake (HNS) Technical Roadmap and Expected Developments

Upcoming Protocol Enhancements

Handshake continues to refine its core protocol to improve decentralization, security, and efficiency. One key area of focus is optimization of the Name Auction system to reduce stalled or inefficient bidding processes. Developers are exploring modifications that could mitigate bid-griefing and ensure smoother domain acquisitions. Additionally, there are ongoing discussions about refining covenant structures to improve security in name transfers and subdomain management.

Layer-2 Scaling and Off-Chain Solutions

With name resolution on-chain, scalability remains a critical consideration. Various community proposals explore ways to introduce Layer-2 solutions that enable more efficient off-chain resolution while maintaining trust-minimized security guarantees. Solutions like rollups or state channels could reduce direct chain congestion without requiring significant changes to the core protocol. However, given the decentralized nature of Handshake’s development, implementation timelines remain uncertain.

Integration of Recursive Naming and ENS Compatibility

Recursive name structures could enhance Handshake’s usability by allowing for more flexible domain hierarchies. Developers are investigating implementations that would allow delegated subdomains while maintaining cryptographic security. Additionally, cross-compatibility with Ethereum Name Service (ENS) has been a topic of ongoing research. If implemented efficiently, this could bridge Handshake’s decentralized DNS with existing Ethereum-based name resolution infrastructure. However, technical challenges related to interoperability and trust assumptions pose significant hurdles.

Improvements in SPV Resolution and Light Clients

Handshake’s reliance on full nodes for name resolution currently limits accessibility for non-technical users. There are ongoing efforts to implement simplified payment verification (SPV) techniques that enable light clients to interact with the network without requiring full node synchronization. This would greatly benefit adoption by making Handshake more usable in browser extensions, mobile apps, and hardware-limited environments.

Security Enhancements and Resistance to Attacks

Security enhancements remain a priority as Handshake evolves. Concerns over potential Sybil attacks, malicious bidding strategies, and network partition risks have led to ongoing research into cryptographic hardening and incentive adjustments. Developers are considering potential upgrades to proof-of-work difficulty adjustments and ways to mitigate issues like mining centralization while still maintaining network integrity.

Challenges in Developer Coordination

Due to Handshake’s decentralized ecosystem, development coordination can be slow. Unlike centralized projects, Handshake does not have a single governing entity pushing upgrades, leading to uncertainty in roadmap execution. While this ensures censorship resistance, it presents difficulties in rolling out major technical changes efficiently.

Comparing HNS to it’s rivals

Handshake (HNS) vs. Bitcoin (BTC): A Technical Comparison

Purpose and Core Functionality

Bitcoin (BTC) operates as the leading decentralized digital currency, primarily focused on secure, peer-to-peer transactions and serving as a store of value. Handshake (HNS), in contrast, is designed for decentralized domain name registration, aiming to replace the traditional DNS system with a blockchain-based alternative. While both are decentralized networks, their fundamental use cases differ significantly—BTC as a censorship-resistant monetary asset, and HNS as an alternative to the internet’s existing domain name infrastructure.

Consensus Mechanism and Security

Both Handshake and Bitcoin rely on proof-of-work (PoW) for network security, but their mining ecosystems are distinct. Bitcoin has a highly specialized and competitive mining ecosystem dominated by ASIC hardware, leading to immense network security but also raising concerns about centralization among mining pools. Handshake, being a much smaller network, is more susceptible to lower hash rate security risks, making it potentially vulnerable to reorganization attacks or mining dominance by a few entities.

Another key difference is the merger mining capability of HNS. Miners who already mine BTC can simultaneously mine HNS with their existing hardware by participating in Handshake’s auxiliary proof-of-work model. While this theoretically increases HNS’s security by piggybacking off BTC’s mining infrastructure, in practice, Handshake struggles with consistent miner participation, leading to fluctuations in network security.

Monetary Policy and Token Utility

Bitcoin has a fixed supply of 21 million coins, reinforcing its narrative as “digital gold.” Handshake, on the other hand, has a total supply of around 2.04 billion HNS tokens. While BTC’s primary role is as a financial asset, HNS tokens function as a medium of exchange within its naming system—users need HNS to bid on, register, and renew decentralized domain names.

Unlike BTC, which benefits from its role as the flagship cryptocurrency with global adoption, HNS has struggled with utility beyond its niche domain auction system. The lack of mainstream integration with web browsers limits its real-world adoption compared to Bitcoin’s growing acceptance in payments and institutional finance.

Network Effects and Adoption Challenges

Bitcoin’s first-mover advantage and strong network effects have resulted in widespread adoption, deep liquidity, and recognition as a legitimate asset class. In contrast, Handshake lacks the same level of institutional support and developer activity. Since it directly competes with the traditional DNS structure, adoption barriers remain high, and without major browser and registrar support, it faces an uphill battle in gaining traction beyond its niche user base.

Handshake (HNS) vs Ethereum (ETH): A Decentralized Naming System Showdown

Consensus Mechanisms and Security Trade-offs

Handshake (HNS) and Ethereum (ETH) operate on fundamentally different consensus mechanisms, leading to distinct security properties. HNS utilizes a Proof-of-Work (PoW) model specifically designed to secure its decentralized root DNS, whereas Ethereum transitioned from PoW to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) to enhance scalability and reduce energy consumption.

HNS's PoW model provides strong resistance to Sybil attacks, ensuring that name auctions cannot be gamed easily. However, its relatively small mining ecosystem compared to ETH’s validator set raises concerns about the practicality of a 51% attack. Ethereum, supported by thousands of validators, offers significantly more economic security, but at the potential cost of centralization risks—large staking pools dominate much of its validator landscape.

Naming Structure and Ecosystem Compatibility

Handshake aims to decentralize the root DNS by enabling blockchain-based ownership of top-level domains (TLDs). In contrast, Ethereum-based naming solutions, such as ENS, focus on human-readable subdomains mapped to wallet addresses. While ENS benefits from Ethereum’s robust smart contract functionality, giving users access to deep integrations across DeFi and NFT markets, it remains dependent on Ethereum’s scalability constraints and high gas fees.

ENS domains are essentially smart contract records on Ethereum, requiring renewals and interaction fees. Handshake, on the other hand, grants perpetual domain ownership after the initial auction, reducing long-term costs but limiting programmability. HNS domains operate outside Ethereum’s economic ecosystem, making cross-chain adoption more challenging.

Cost and Accessibility Differences

Ethereum’s gas fees remain a major barrier to usability, particularly during high-network congestion periods. Registering or managing an ENS name can become expensive due to fluctuating transaction costs. With Handshake, domain auctions and renewals incur lower fees, as they do not rely on Ethereum’s blockspace demand. However, the downside is that HNS’s ecosystem has far fewer integrations with major wallet providers, browsers, and dApps.

Centralization and Governance Issues

While both ecosystems aim for decentralization, Ethereum’s ongoing development is largely steered by its core developer community and governance improvements, such as EIPs. Handshake, by contrast, has minimal governance updates and faces challenges in developer retention. Ethereum’s large developer base ensures continuous upgrades, whereas HNS's smaller ecosystem results in slower feature innovation and adoption.

Adoption Hurdles and Network Effects

Ethereum benefits from network effects due to its DeFi, NFT, and DAO ecosystems, where ENS domains can serve as identity layers. Handshake, while decentralized at the root level, has seen slow adoption among mainstream DNS providers and browsers, creating friction for widespread use. The lack of deep integrations hinders HNS’s potential reach compared to Ethereum’s expansive user base.

Handshake (HNS) vs. Ethereum Name Service (ENS): A Technical Comparison

Decentralization: Handshake’s Proof-of-Work vs. ENS’s Ethereum Dependence

Handshake (HNS) and Ethereum Name Service (ENS) both aim to decentralize domain naming, but they take radically different approaches. ENS operates on Ethereum’s smart contract layer, inheriting Ethereum’s security but also its limitations—such as gas fees, network congestion, and potential contract vulnerabilities. ENS domain registrations depend on Ethereum addresses, and transactions require interaction with Ethereum’s blockchain, creating cost variability due to gas price fluctuations.

In contrast, Handshake leverages a dedicated proof-of-work blockchain to secure top-level domain (TLD) ownership. Since ownership is settled at the blockchain level rather than via smart contracts, Handshake domains are not reliant on an external ecosystem like Ethereum. This structural difference means that, unlike ENS, Handshake is not affected by Ethereum network conditions and operates independently from Ethereum’s consensus rules and upgrades.

TLD Ownership vs. Subdomain Leasing

A major distinction between the two is how domain ownership is structured. ENS names function as subdomains of “.eth” and do not represent sovereign ownership of TLDs. Instead, they are ERC-721 (NFT-like) records that exist within Ethereum's namespace. This means that ENS domains remain dependent on the ENS smart contract, limiting their use outside the Ethereum ecosystem.

On the other hand, Handshake auctions full top-level domains (TLDs), which are recognized by Handshake’s root zone. Owners of Handshake TLDs have control over subdomain issuance, similar to a traditional DNS registry operator. This enables greater flexibility, particularly for businesses or developers looking to build alternative naming systems without relying on a single entity or registry.

Adoption and Integration Challenges

ENS benefits from Ethereum’s extensive ecosystem, with integrations into wallets, dApps, and DeFi protocols providing strong usability for Ethereum users. Many ENS names resolve directly to Ethereum addresses, making them a recognizable standard within the Ethereum community. However, this integration advantage also means ENS domains are primarily useful within Ethereum-based applications rather than the broader internet.

Handshake faces different hurdles. Despite offering TLD-level ownership, traditional web browsers require additional configuration or third-party resolvers to interact with Handshake domains natively. This creates a barrier to adoption compared to ENS, which is more seamlessly utilized within Ethereum wallets and dApps. Because Handshake domains exist at the root level, broader DNS adoption is required for widespread accessibility, whereas ENS is optimized for Ethereum users rather than the traditional web.

Primary criticisms of HNS

Primary Criticism of Handshake (HNS)

Centralization Risks in Mining

One of the major concerns surrounding Handshake (HNS) is the centralization of mining power. Despite being designed as a more decentralized alternative to traditional domain name systems, its mining ecosystem has been largely dominated by a small number of powerful entities. The relatively low hashrate compared to major proof-of-work blockchains makes it vulnerable to potential 51% attacks, where a single actor or coordinated group could manipulate transactions or censor domain auctions. This concentration of mining power raises concerns about the long-term security of the network.

Liquidity and Exchange Accessibility

Another prevalent issue with HNS is its limited liquidity and exchange support. Unlike more mainstream cryptocurrencies, HNS struggles with widespread adoption on major exchanges. This makes access to the token more difficult for new users and reduces its overall market efficiency. Low liquidity also results in larger spreads and slippage, making it less ideal for institutional traders or large investors. The difficulty of acquiring and trading HNS creates barriers to adoption and practical use of Handshake domains.

Slow Adoption of Handshake Domains

Despite the promise of a decentralized domain name system (DNS), Handshake has faced slow adoption among both end users and businesses. The primary challenge is that Handshake domains require new infrastructure and browser support, which many mainstream platforms have been slow to integrate. Without native support from major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, or Safari, users often need special configurations or extensions to access Handshake domains. The lack of widespread accessibility severely limits the incentive for businesses to migrate to the Handshake ecosystem.

Competition with ENS and ICANN

Handshake operates in a competitive landscape against established naming systems. Ethereum Name Service (ENS) has gained significant traction within the blockchain space, particularly due to its seamless integration with Ethereum smart contracts and its deep liquidity within DeFi ecosystems. On the other hand, the traditional ICANN-controlled DNS system remains dominant, with massive institutional backing and decades of established infrastructure. Convincing users to switch to Handshake remains an ongoing challenge, especially when the existing alternatives offer more recognized and supported solutions.

Usability Challenges and Complexity

Using Handshake domains requires technical knowledge that many non-technical users find intimidating. Registering, managing, and resolving Handshake domains involves interacting with blockchain wallets and command-line interfaces, which are far more complex than traditional domain registration services. This complexity has hindered mainstream adoption, as most users prefer simpler, more familiar alternatives. Additionally, the lack of a standardized or widely adopted user-friendly interface further exacerbates the onboarding difficulty.

Founders

Handshake (HNS) Founding Team: Key Figures and Early Development

The Handshake (HNS) project was created by a group of developers, cryptographers, and decentralized web advocates with the goal of disrupting the traditional Domain Name System (DNS). Unlike many blockchain ventures led by a single public-facing figure, Handshake was developed by a collective of contributors, many of whom had prior experience in notable open-source and decentralized projects.

Joseph Poon and His Cryptographic Influence

Joseph Poon, best known for co-authoring the Lightning Network whitepaper, was among the key early contributors to Handshake. His expertise in scaling blockchain networks played a pivotal role in shaping the project's underlying protocols. While Poon's involvement provided technical credibility, he has not been a day-to-day leader of the project post-launch.

Andrew Lee and the Purse.io Connection

Andrew Lee, the founder of Purse.io (a Bitcoin-based e-commerce platform), was also closely involved in Handshake's early development. His background in Bitcoin adoption and cryptographic infrastructure added business acumen to the project's technical focus. However, the extent of his ongoing contributions remains uncertain, as he has since stepped away from direct involvement.

The Role of Christopher Jeffrey

Christopher Jeffrey (CJ), a core developer with deep experience in Bitcoin and open-source projects, emerged as one of the most critical contributors to Handshake’s protocol. Jeffrey’s work on bcoin, a full Bitcoin implementation in JavaScript, provided a foundation for much of Handshake’s code. His continued involvement in the decentralized web space has been key to maintaining and advancing the project.

Early Backing and Funding Model

Handshake distinguished itself early on by raising funds in an unconventional manner. Instead of a traditional Initial Coin Offering (ICO) or private token sale, the initial coin distribution allocated a significant portion to the open-source community, specifically targeting developers and organizations aligned with internet decentralization. This approach appealed to ideologically driven contributors but also introduced challenges, as the lack of a centralized foundation has sometimes led to development bottlenecks.

Challenges with a Decentralized Leadership Model

One of the major criticisms of Handshake's founding team and early development structure is the absence of a unified leadership entity. While decentralization aligns with the project’s ethos, it has contributed to slower governance decisions and fragmented development efforts. Unlike projects with structured foundations (such as the Ethereum Foundation for Ethereum), Handshake lacks a single authoritative body to drive sustained marketing, adoption, and protocol upgrades.

Anonymity and Limited Public Presence

Many of the original contributors to Handshake have maintained a relatively low profile compared to founders of other crypto projects. This has led to both positive and negative consequences; while it reinforces the project's decentralized ethos, it also limits mainstream recognition and institutional adoption.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://handshake.org/whitepaper.pdf
• https://github.com/handshake-org/hsd
• https://www.namebase.io/
• https://handshake.org/
• https://docs.handshake.org/
• https://github.com/handshake-org/handshake
• https://explorer.namebase.io/
• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/handshake
• https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/handshake/
• https://learn.namebase.io/
• https://hsd-dev.org/
• https://handshake.page/
• https://twitter.com/HandshakeLabs
• https://github.com/namebasehq/
• https://medium.com/namebase
• https://www.reddit.com/r/handshake/
• https://telegram.me/handshakecoin
• https://discord.gg/handshake