On 17 August 2026, the ENS.Tools marketplace contained more than 21,000 names for sale. Sorting those listings by previous sale price produces some extraordinary-looking discounts.
The headline is 000.eth. It last sold for 300 ETH and is now listed for 100 ETH: a nominal reduction of 200 ETH, or 66.7%.
Further down the table, several names appear to have lost more than 99% of their previous value.
The largest asking-price markdowns
| ENS name | Recorded sale | Current ask | Nominal gap | Markdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000.eth | 300 ETH | 100 ETH | 200 ETH | 66.7% |
| 46648.eth | 158.996 ETH | 1.5 ETH | 157.496 ETH | 99.1% |
| aryas.eth | 155.3 ETH | 0.5 ETH | 154.8 ETH | 99.7% |
| hk058.eth | 155.7 ETH | 0.99 ETH | 154.71 ETH | 99.4% |
| asesordefi.eth | 93 ETH | 25 ETH | 68 ETH | 73.1% |
At first glance, this looks like a graveyard of spectacular ENS losses. It is not quite that simple.
000.eth: the clearest paper loss
The 300 ETH purchase of 000.eth in July 2022 was widely reported at the time as the second-largest ENS sale on record, worth roughly $315,000 then. The reported buyer was an OpenSea user called B34D84, while the current listing comes from a wallet beginning 0xb34d84, suggesting that the name may still be held by the same buyer. The Block reported the original sale, while contemporaneous coverage identified the buyer.
If the name sells for its present 100 ETH asking price, that would therefore look like a genuine 200 ETH nominal loss before considering fees, taxes or the changing dollar value of ETH.
But it has not sold. The 100 ETH figure is still only an ask. The listing showed a highest visible offer of 1 ETH at the time of the snapshot, illustrating the enormous gap that can exist between a seller's expectation and executable demand.
The apparent 99% collapses need an asterisk
The next three names produce even more dramatic percentages:
- aryas.eth is listed 99.7% below its 155.3 ETH sale.
- hk058.eth is listed 99.4% below 155.7 ETH.
- 46648.eth is listed 99.1% below 158.996 ETH.
Their transaction histories, however, make those prices difficult to use as clean market comparables.
Take 46648.eth. On 10 June 2024, the wallet that sold it for 158.996 ETH had acquired the same name for just 0.00099 ETH approximately three minutes earlier. The two transactions occurred at 02:48 UTC and 02:51 UTC.
That does not prove anything improper. It does mean that 158.996 ETH should be treated as an unusual transaction rather than an unquestioned valuation benchmark.
The histories of aryas.eth, hk058.eth and asesordefi.eth contain a similar combination of a very high sale and a roughly 0.001 ETH transaction on the same day. Their current listing wallets also differ from the wallets shown in those historic sales. Calling the difference a loss for today's seller would therefore be unjustified.
More useful markdowns
Several other listings offer less sensational, but potentially more informative, comparisons:
- ⌐◨-◨.eth sold for 42.69 ETH and is listed for 6.9 ETH, an 83.8% markdown.
- 272.eth sold for 35.927 ETH and is listed for 9 ETH, 74.9% lower.
- ladygaga.eth moved from a 32 ETH sale to a 10 ETH ask, a 68.8% reduction.
- ddd.eth also carries a 10 ETH ask after a 30 ETH sale.
Even here, "markdown" remains more accurate than "loss". Ownership may have changed through transfers, wrapping or transactions that are not reflected in a simple last-sale column.
What the list really tells us
The data exposes three realities of the ENS market.
First, historic trophy-name prices are weak anchors. Many of the largest sales occurred during very different market conditions in 2022 and 2024.
Second, ENS names are highly individual assets. A sale of one three-digit name does not establish a reliable market price for another, and personal, numeric and symbolic names attract very different buyers.
Finally, onchain does not mean self-explanatory. The blockchain preserves transactions perfectly, but it cannot tell us whether a sale was representative, whether two wallets were related, or what the current owner actually paid.
So which ENS domain is facing the biggest loss? Based on the available evidence, 000.eth is the strongest candidate for the largest potential nominal loss: 200 ETH if its 100 ETH listing sells.
The more dramatic 99% "losses" make better headlines, but a closer reading turns them into a different story — one about the limits of using "last sale" as a proxy for value.
Methodology: figures are an ENS.Tools snapshot from 17 August 2026. "Markdown" means current list price relative to the displayed previous sale. It does not represent a completed sale, verified cost basis or asset appraisal. ENS.Tools adds its 2% marketplace fee to the buyer's checkout price, so the calculations use the seller's listed proceeds.