Who decides the status of a disputed .sol name?

Solana Name Service (.sol) names are used as identifiers across wallets, applications, and public-facing profiles. When a name is reported as stolen, disputed, frozen, blacklisted, or transferred to a downstream holder, affected parties need to know which process applies and who can change or confirm the name's status.

Public reporting of these cases exists, but the governing process — who receives reports, what criteria are applied, what timelines apply, and what remedies are available — is not consistently documented in one place. This record asks for that process to be stated publicly.

This record does not allege that any specific .sol name was stolen, mishandled, or wrongly frozen. It does not assign fault to any party, project, or individual. It does not assert what the correct outcome should be in any particular dispute.

It asks only for the public process: who decides status, on what basis, and through what channels affected parties can seek review or resolution.

Parties that may be able to answer or clarify this question include:

- Bonfida / Solana Name Service (SNS) — operators of the .sol naming infrastructure and published SNS documentation - Solana Foundation — where foundation communications or ecosystem guidance address naming disputes - Downstream registrars, marketplaces, or integrators — where transfer, resale, or display of .sol names is involved in a reported dispute

This list is not exhaustive. Any named party may submit a right of reply.

QuestionsFor.org publishes public-interest governance records. The publisher has no financial interest in any specific .sol name, SNS token, or dispute outcome. The publisher is not a party to any reported .sol name dispute and does not represent any affected user.

A complete public answer to this question would include:

1. Decision authority — Which entity or entities can confirm, change, or revoke the status of a .sol name reported as stolen, disputed, frozen, blacklisted, or transferred downstream? 2. Reporting channel — How should an affected party report a dispute publicly, and what information is required? 3. Review process — What steps are taken after a report is received, including any review period, evidence requirements, or escalation path? 4. Status outcomes — What status labels or actions are available (e.g. freeze, blacklist, reversal, transfer block), and who can apply them? 5. Downstream holders — How are downstream registrars, marketplaces, or integrators notified or expected to respond when a name is disputed? 6. Public record — Whether outcomes are published and where affected parties can verify the current status of a dispute.

A reasonable contrary view is that .sol names are on-chain assets governed by protocol rules and market transfer, not by a central dispute-resolution process. Under this view, naming disputes are private matters between holders, and no single public authority is responsible for adjudicating theft or freezing claims.

This record does not reject that view. It asks whether any public process exists despite it, and if so, how it is documented and accessed.