HF6 was activated on August 28, and the first registration appeared shortly afterwards.

First Gateway registration

• Block: 3,836,052
• Transaction: 03edb09ab5d9ec759aa2c2b98b377499cdb136e6a222622c75445d095902c517
• Registration fee: 100 ZANO
• The transaction contains a gateway_address_descriptor_operation_register operation.

A second registration appeared only a few days later.

Second Gateway registration

• Block: 3,844,508
• Date: September 3, 2026
• Transaction: 99e48b4e35f03b0a2e8f531e9deeaed2c111765503171380fc745d6b9debc7ef
• Registration fee: 100 ZANO
• Total transaction fees in the block: 100.05 ZANO
• The transaction also explicitly contains a gateway_address_descriptor_operation_register operation.

This means that two Gateway Addresses have been registered during the first week after HF6 activation.

There is another relevant detail: transaction fees in Zano are burned. Therefore, the 100 ZANO registration fee is not a refundable deposit or an amount transferred to another participant. It is permanently removed from circulation.

These first two Gateway registrations have therefore already resulted in approximately 200 ZANO being burned through registration fees alone.

Why this may be significant

A Gateway Address registration is not just an ordinary transaction. According to the Gateway implementation, registering one requires a fee of at least 100 ZANO.

And because that fee is burned, registering a Gateway Address represents a genuine economic commitment. The registrant is deliberately giving up 100 ZANO in order to create the address.

That makes these registrations more interesting than simple test transactions costing a fraction of a ZANO.

A single Gateway Address immediately after HF6 could easily be explained as an initial deployment or test. A second registered address several days later begins to provide evidence that the new Gateway functionality is actually being used on mainnet.

The fact that approximately 200 ZANO have already been irreversibly spent on these registrations makes repeated registrations somewhat less likely to be casual experimentation.

Can we identify the owners?

This is probably the most interesting question now.

The second registration exposes, among other information, the following public key:

36975f30104699c2d8b941028de113b4a9b3887a39bd33eb9f58b62ec8063298

and an Ethereum-related owner public key:

03e46e58e6f3ae4cf8f9e8fa6e236e2b220519b9d863f184adc1cf29cd4a09e87b

At the moment, however, there does not appear to be public evidence to attribute this Gateway Address confidently to a particular exchange or service.

It will therefore be worth watching these addresses for subsequent activity, descriptor or metadata changes, asset movements, and other on-chain operations that might reveal their purpose.

If anyone can associate either registration with a known service or entity from publicly verifiable information, that would be particularly useful.

What to watch next

It is too early to call this adoption by exchanges, but it is certainly an encouraging sign that the new infrastructure is already being exercised on mainnet — and at a non-trivial, irreversible cost to those registering the addresses.

If anyone can identify the entities behind these first two registrations from publicly verifiable information, please share the evidence here.