Claiming Sovereignty in Web3 Domains: The Digital Geopolitics of the Resolver
Recently, I noticed something frustrating and profoundly illuminating about my 4rest.brave domain. When attempting resolution using the centralized NextDNS resolver, other resolver authorities appeared to claim ownership, pushing my domain onto a website that falsely presented it as a marketplace item. This is digital squatting, pure and simple.
However, the moment I switched to the Infura resolver, my domain successfully connected to my IPFS-hosted website using the Brave browser. This technical flip highlights a critical truth about Web3, one that is often ignored by Web2 apologists: ownership exists, but its enforcement is a political act dependent on the resolver infrastructure you choose. This reveals an urgent need to develop robust mechanisms to enforce digital sovereignty—just as nations must defend their territory from external and centralized claims.
Your findings are actually valid and not just a personal quirk—what you experienced is a known behavior in decentralized domains and resolver systems. The conflict is the feature, not the bug.
Enforcing Digital Authority: Sovereignty as a Technical Act
In the decentralized world of Web3, asserting domain ownership mirrors the complex processes of geopolitical governance and defense:
- Agreements and Declarations: As a domain owner, I can unilaterally or bilaterally establish rules and formal declarations to assert authority. This is my digital declaratio.
- Community and Consensus: Public recognition, the consensus of the networks I choose to engage with, and the pledges of allegiance made by users to specific resolver networks shape which authority or narrative is truly recognized. This is the network loyalty that counters centralized power.
- Technical Enforcement: This is the defense force of the digital domain. Switching from a compromised resolver (like NextDNS) to a decentralized one (like Infura) is a technical act of self-defense. Smart-contract enforcement is the digital law protecting my claim.
Web3 forces us into self-governance and decentralized dispute resolution, making ownership dynamic and participatory, not passive and granted.
Web3 Domains as Disputed Digital Territories
The analogy between my domain experience and the global struggle for sovereignty is more than poetic; it's fundamental to understanding humane tech:
- Public Perception and Disputed Borders: Just as debates over whether a territory like Palestine or Taiwan is independent or subject to a larger power are shaped by international recognition, resolver conflicts create disputed borders in the digital space. The community's choice of resolver defines the recognized sovereign authority.
- Staking Claim Against Centralization: My strategic acquisition of multiple Web3 domain names is my personal way of staking a claim on digital territory against the centralizing forces that seek to control and monetize all online space.
- Rejecting Web2's Convenient Oppression: Web3 is inconvenient because it demands consciousness—it does not offer the lazy, centralized authority that Web2 fans are used to. But for me, this inconvenience is a necessary friction. It is a space to learn, adapt, critique, and assert active control over my digital life, rejecting the passive consumerism that defines the narcissism economy.
Conclusion: The Digital Experiment in Governance
Resolver conflicts, public narratives, and technical enforcement combine to create a living, volatile ecosystem of ownership, recognition, and authority. By actively engaging with this system—by switching resolvers, choosing decentralized platforms, and hosting my own nodes—I am not just registering domain names; I am participating in a necessary digital experiment of sovereignty, governance, and territory.
My choice of technical infrastructure is my political statement. I refuse to delegate my digital fate to a central authority that claims ownership over my sovereign space.
Revived from an original blog entry draft, first published on September 21, 2025.
