ENS/NameStone identity bound to deployer
Hyperlane's assessment for RD-F-117 — scored yellow on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
Deployer EOA 0xa7ECcdb9Be08178f896c26b7BbD8C3D4E844d9Ba has NO ENS name bound per Etherscan review — the address page shows no ENS label. The ENS name 'hyperlanexyz.eth' resolves to a different address (0x5b73A98165778BCCE72979B4EE3faCdb31728b8E), which is one of the Operations Multisig Safe signers, not the deployer EOA itself. An ENS-bound team identity does exist for one multisig signer but not for the primary deployer, yielding yellow rather than red (team is publicly doxxed by other means).
Sources #
- EtherscanDeployer EOA — Etherscan (no ENS)Etherscan 0xa7ECcdb9 — no ENS label displayed on address pageretrieved 2026-05-17
- hyperlanexyz.eth — Etherscan ENS resolutionhyperlanexyz.eth resolves to 0x5b73A98165778BCCE72979B4EE3faCdb31728b8E (Operations Multisig signer, not deployer EOA)retrieved 2026-05-17
Methodology #
Determine whether the deployer address has a bound ENS or NameStone name resolvable to a verifiable identity.
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →