Dynadot

interviews An Interview with Sten Lillieström: Part 1 Challenging Persistent Domain Name Views

Spaceship Spaceship
I am delighted for the opportunity to interview Sten Lillieström, a creative domain name investor interested in the brandable side of domain name investing. Sten, handle @trelgor, has been a NamePros member for more than a decade, and has achieved Top Member status.

During 2022 Sten had 173 domain name sales. His lifetime total is now well over 900 sales. At time of writing in late February, he has already sold 19 domain names in 2023.

Sten Lillieström is the CEO of the domain acquisition and naming agency Next Venture. He is a brandable domain investor, a domain acquisition broker, and a member of the Internet Commerce Association, ICA, that advocates for the rights of domain name registrants.

Sten is laser-focused on names that make great brands. His original views challenge some common assumptions about domain investing. This interview will explore that, and I suspect will have many questioning preconceptions on names and naming. At least it was that way for me.
Image-CaptionItsAboutName.png

What Does Generic Mean?

You feel that we have perhaps placed too much emphasis on a certain definition of ‘generic’ terms. Can you elaborate, please?

A term, in this case generic, will often mean different things in different contexts. In the legacy domain investor context, my opinion is that it is basically code for ‘in the dictionary’, which in turn is code for ‘valuable domain’. And that is where the line of inquiry traditionally pretty much ends.

From my perspective, some ‘generic’ terms have great brandability, if by ‘generic’ we mean ‘dictionary word’, which in essence means widespread use of a term, perhaps in a wide range of different contexts.

Successful Brands and Generic Terms

On Jan. 15, 2023 Terrence Rohan tweeted an infographic containing the brand logos of 1203 unicorns, companies with valuations above one billion dollars. You challenged readers to find dictionary words in the list that matched the product or service of the business, and there were very few. Why do you think so few modern companies are choosing descriptive generic terms for their brand name?

My ‘controversial’ take, that is not really controversial outside of legacy domain investor framework, is that ‘standard use’ is anathema to the brand name framework, and in fact the function of a name. The more ‘standard’ a term is, the less of a ‘name’ it can be.

We use and coin names to point to a specific source. That is the function of a name. The more broadly descriptive of the source, the more the inherent function of ‘name’ will evaporate, in that it no longer represents the specific instance, but instead something general.

So the question here is not really if something is ‘generic’ or not, but something else.

Great Brand Vessels

But some generic words, make great brands, right?

Apple is a dictionary word. So is Amazon. Many may argue that the value in these words as the brands they are today is all a result of marketing and business prowess. Even if it is true that countless billions in marketing spend have imbued immeasurable value in these branding vessels, it does not detract from the fact that they are precisely that: vessels. And incredible vessels at that.

They represent a type of name that in my opinion will only ever increase in value. The reason that they are great brands, is that they are not literally anchored in the same way as other dictionary entries may be. They carry connotations and metaphor that remain intact, while the term is at the same time uprooted and re-applied to new context.

Descriptive Terms and Brands

But not all terms make great vessels, some are restricted to a specific sector or service – is that the key distinction?

Yes, at the other end of this spectrum are ‘names’ that are anything but vessels. They are prefab, at least in a freeze-frame perspective of current use of standard terms. These are the kinds of ‘names’ that many domain investors, in general, prefer.

Examples would range from Hotels or Booking to DentalServices and NewYorkLawyerDirectoryOnline. These are not names but descriptions, and the entities using them will have to pay a price for that, which consists of confusion as to what is referred to – a category or a specific vendor?

They will also have to live with a diminishing flow of search box by-passes in the form of ‘type-ins’. A phenomenon that because of the nature of this kind of ‘name’ is virtually impossible to turn around through marketing. You can pour endless amounts of advertising on a term that is ‘generic’ for its use, and it will leak to the denotation of the term in general. Booking.com is the exception that affirms the rule. But they also have to live with a low likelihood of achieving a trademark status that is useful in practice. Their trademark rights, built on evidence of consumer association, is very limited in scope.

I am NOT saying that this type of ‘name’ does not have value. What I am saying, is that its value is derived from things that I, and perhaps businesses with an aim to grow and become ‘names’ in people’s minds, do not consider useful. They are simply at odds with other things that are more important.

Search Volume Doesn’t Matter

On Dec. 2, 2022, Sten wrote a Tweet thread about “things I don’t give a snoot about.” First on the list was search volume, with the cost-per-click also mentioned. Why are these, and things like type-in traffic, not important?

This will tie in to answers to the earlier questions, so I’ll try to be brief. The main reason that I don’t look beyond the name as a name, is that I don’t need to. Search volume in my book is a measure of the demand for a product or service. Interesting as such, but there is simply no direct relation for me between that and explicit names. As to CPC, it is built around the same concepts. Interesting data if you want to keep tabs on markets and industries, but not relevant to names. Type-in traffic is the portion of search behavior that by-passes search engines. What is being found at the end of search is going to be brands, and brands have brand names.

Comparator Sales

Comparator sales are the bedrock of how many investors approach domain investing, but you said that you don’t care much about comparable past sales. Why are past sales not important?

A focus on comparator sales may work better for completely literally descriptive ‘names’. I haven’t tried. But I think I would avoid it even if that was my bag. It is helpful to see what sells and for what price. But it is only a very remote general guideline.

Sten went on to outline reasons that comparable sales should not be made into a blanket solution:
  1. Domain name investment is young, and the choices made by a handful of early settlers have greatly influenced those who followed. Predecessors, who in the name of logic, have adopted the same approach. A certain dominant way to think about value is the reason that inventory is geared and priced like it is. This, in turn, also sets the stage for which sales happen and at what price. You won’t find anomalies or alternative takes that can nuance the truth if there are no examples that deviate from the norm.
  2. Domain names are unique and every use case is unique. In that light, forcing a certain name into a certain price category, without knowing more, would not do justice to the point of being particularly useful.
  3. Domain name value is not a constant. It is like most things, in flux. That means that a name that may have had a magnificent offer or two some years ago, may never find a buyer again. The name you registered yesterday, in five year’s time may be able to fetch a fantasy number.
  4. The variation is just too great to use real estate type measures. But, as a finger on the pulse, sales reports are of course valuable, just not a tool of explicit reference.

Number of Extensions Registered

You also said that you did not pay attention to the number of registered extensions. Why do you feel that way?

It’s one of the few metrics that are great, because it ignores search-type metrics. However, to me the point of investment is being there first. When explicit metrics like registered extensions are already present, the prospect of a profitable investment is likely not great. This is also why I only look at the name for the initial investment decision. If and when a name garners explicit traction, registered extensions is a very valuable metric to monitor.

Formulae and Appraisals

Since things like the Modified Rosener Equation, and many of the domain appraisal tools, like Estibot, take into account those factors you say you don’t care about, I take it you don’t find them useful, and probably misleading?

I never use them, no. They can probably be interesting as a mirror of the industry, but in my view they don’t have answers that relate enough to the potential of a name as a name.

Investment Grade and Generic

On Jan. 19, 2023 you wrote: “The idea that the definition of an ‘investment grade’ domain name is dependent on if the name is ‘generic’ will eventually perish.” Do you see that as already happening to some degree?

At the risk of sounding more obstinate than I intend, I think that in the sphere of demand for names, it was never a thing. The demand for descriptions, as opposed to unique name identities, is based on a public notion that there are more benefits to ‘calling something what it is’ than there actually are.

I think it is also a remnant of a directory type notion of the internet. People may be inclined to believe that they are not found if they don’t align to standard description. In a way, I believe that this vertical of value is based on a reluctance to ‘stand out’, while standing out is at the same time the actual point.

What Is A Word?

I am paraphrasing, but you made the comment that a ‘word’ is not dependent on it being listed in a dictionary, or even the amount the term is in use. What, then, makes something a ‘word’?

A word is whatever conveys a decipherable message and fits into syntax. In Swedish, neologisms (new words) are very much created on the fly, as needed, in everyday context. The favored way to do that is through compounding. This article for instance is a namngivningsteoriartikel (a namingtheoryarticle) and you Bob are a domänindustriförfattare (a domain industry writer). Those are words.

It does not matter one iota if they have some stamp of approval by a dictionary committee, forever chasing units of actual language like they were insects to categorize. In English, there is strong convention not to compound, but new words are created in context in English too, more often than we are able to notice. Words don’t become words courtesy of widespread use or a dictionary entry. The very idea is absurd. Words appear, shift and morph, and disappear, even as you read this sentence never before uttered or read.

Unfortunately, the idea that we have a set static and constant vocabulary and that it can be located in the dictionary of “real words”, as if dictionaries were the source of language is extremely common and hard to kill.

Trademarks and Dictionary Words

On Jan. 29, 2023 you tweeted “TM law should not outsource assessments of descriptiveness to a stamp of approval from the ‘dictionary authority’. I'm certain they would disapprove of that application.” Can you explain what you were getting at?

In UDRP and trademark context, I often see arguments that artificially demarcate between a ‘dictionary word’ and a neologism, as though it was a law of nature that it is impossible to coin a new expression that has meaning or appeal, and that it is therefore natural to refer to the dictionary as the de facto arbiter on if a contested expression is ‘allowed’ as it’s ‘public domain’ and can’t be appropriated for exclusive right.

In UDRP context, and to some extent trademark law, not being in the dictionary amounts to increased trademarkability. In UDRP context explicitly, non-dictionary existence is often used as an incredibly weak argument that the expression must have been copied with targeting of the complainant’s rights in mind. This incredibly weak argument is touted as factual truth, and few will have the presence of mind to refute it.

The only law of nature when it comes to language, besides the fact that it is a system, is its infinite ability for expression. It’s really a bit dictatorial in a way to equate language with the dictionary. For those interested, language is a specific type of system too, a ‘discrete combinatorial system’. That is, it has limitations, but is still endless. Another discrete combinatorial system is DNA.

The reason that ‘law workers’ do this is that they need to make simplistic sense of something that is a lot more intricate. I understand why they do. That doesn’t make it right, in my opinion. Or perhaps even necessary.

Co-incidentally, domain investors use the same type of framework, which to me is evidence of how widespread the misconception is about what a dictionary is and does.

Are Generic Terms More Memorable?

On Jan. 19, 2023 you wrote: “Contrary to popular belief in certain circles, literal descriptions are not more ‘memorable’ than a distinctive brand name. There is simply no scientific evidence for this claim. It may seem true and logical on the surface. But it's not.” This is a bold statement. It seems like common sense that a familiar word would be more readily remembered as a brand. Is that not true?

No, it’s not true. Please try not to muddle concepts here. Some familiar words can be great brands, if they are used out of context. It’s the Apple analogy again. This kind of arbitrary use promotes memorability in that it creates a new connection, stored in your mind. What will be remembered is a new link between <Consumer Electronics Provider Apple> and the lexical item <Apple>.

If ‘Consumer Electronics Provider’ or similar was used as the ‘name’ for said provider, what would need to be remembered? There would be no synaptic activity needed. No brand created. If I saw an ad encouraging me to go check out ‘Consumer Electronics Provider’ I would honestly not remember what I saw or heard, because there would be nothing out of the ordinary to register. We simply don’t remember mundane stuff that is not new to us. We may think that we do, but that is not the same thing.

The same holds true for other arbitrary, ‘inherently distinctive’ or suggestive constructs. They make a new dent in the mind, which is close to the definition of ‘memorability’.

Extend The Discussion

Thanks to Sten for this fresh perspective on domain names, eloquently expressed.

In the final part of this interview, which will appear next week in the NamePros Blog, I ask Sten the components the go into a great brand name, the role of suggestion, and how to create strong brand names. He shares a four-point ‘blueprint’ he uses when creating names. Some examples from his recent sales are used to illustrate the process. The second part ends with advice for those interested in brandable domain names.

Sten has indicated that he is happy to interact with NamePros readers on the topics of this interview in the discussion thread below, so please ask questions and share your own take.

Those on Twitter will want to follow him there, at the handle BrandAlready. Here on NamePros, follow Sten at @trelgor.

Update: Part 2 of the interview is now available.
 
Last edited:
53
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
If anyone has questions, don't hesitate to share them, and I will do my best to try to answer. To answer @Sammy Jakes, my PF has been hovering below the 10k mark for a while in an effort to reconsider inventory that may not have the appeal once imagined.
 
18
•••
i thought this stuff sounded familiar.

many of these insights are straight from Nick Kolenda's Naming Guide:
https://www.nickkolenda.com/brand-names/
It is one of the first resources I share when asked where to start processing "this stuff". The reason is that it is an honest attempt to build on the actual science behind the merits of a brandable name, and not the usual search keyword gospel.
 
Last edited:
17
•••
@trelgor
Hello
just want to ask if a domain valued 25000 US dollars in godaddy value system , would you pay 30% to buy it for investment ?
silly question , but want to know how do you think about it
Not from that data alone, never. I would look at the name. If it's valued by the GD system at $25,000 it is likely to have many of the explicit signals I speak of in the article (signals which I acknowledge, but that are not my north star). This for me will signal that many investors will take an interest, and that I likely won't. There can still be a chance that I think that the valuation is off by an order of magnitude - that the explicit signals don't match the implicit ones encoded in the potential of the name as a name, in which case I may take an interest anyway. That is also a question of cash flow. I see many names with valuations like the one you mention that are not valued based on their brand name potential, and if I had a wallet to match, I would do some more high level shopping.

You see, there are domains with a ton of stats that purportedly confirm their value. But a significant portion are still dead in the water. Similarly, there are domains that have no stats of that kind, but are still incredible identities. This is what I look for.
 
Last edited:
14
•••
Is this because of the saturated market / market competition, or is it because you see little value in them for clients?
Big question. At the end of the day, even if they may sell, I don't think they are functional brand names. I don't sell them, because I would not sincerely be able to recommend that route. In the spheres I concentrate on finding and acquiring names for, business names are brand names, not anchored literal descriptions. Literal descriptions sell for reasons I don't want to advocate, because I don't believe I can argue that they are the best option for a business that wants to become a "name".

To me, they are the stale, inevitable by-product of standardized ways to express something. That effect has more to do with lack of creativity and understanding of what a name and a brand is, than a sober evaluation of the actual benefits inherent to them.
 
Last edited:
14
•••
thank you much .@trelgor
one more question
if you had buy one dream domain , you really like it ! and the .net and .org are both still for sale ,and cheap , maybe xxx usd , you will get it or both for brand protection or fotget them ?
thank you much !
I don't do "brand protection" registrations. Alternate extensions, other than dotcom, are for one word brandables from an investment perspective. I only have very few. I'll leave them alone. I have no .net or .org.
 
11
•••
@trelgor you mainly invest in brandable domains, and you consider some generic domains brandable, do you also invest in abbreviated domains (e.g. LLLL.com), numeric domains (e.g. NNNN.com), and partial- and exact-match domains? And if so, to what extent?

Also, I know some exact-match can be considered brandable, e.g. Houston Plumbing is a very effective brand for marketing purposes (it tells you where they are, and what they do), and houstonplumbing.com would be the corresponding domain. Do you also consider these kind of domains brandable?
1. I don't invest in numeric domains. Numerics can have brandable aspects on the chinese market, but I don't know squat about that. As to LLLL - sure - but very selectively and from a brandable perspective. I don't use abbreviations in names.
2. If you mean "exact match" of a search term, it is one of the things that I completely avoid. My names are only intended to be keywords that lead to you, not primarily the world of content related to it.
3. I don't use a definition of "brandable" that allows for using anchored literal descriptions such as "Houston Plumbing" as names.
 
Last edited:
11
•••
@Bob Hawkes , thanks for this interview, really inspiring.

@trelgor , appreciate your insights. I love to see domainers succeed that are really transparent. You are basically an open book to everyone in terms of what you buy and sell which proves us two important points:

- it is never late to the game ( though getting into to it lately has became costlier )
- your creative thinking outside of the box approach illustrates the only thing matters is the name

Lately I also tend to purchase whatever it think could make a great brand, not only looking at data meticulously. Of course if some company could upgrade on the same name would never hurt, but I try also to develop my gut feeling to a level where I can judge a name simply by looking at it.

Trelgor, care to share a few things about your experience about SH such as:
- your distribution of Afternic sales vs SH lander
- Is your portfolio maintenance there entirely passive e.g. submitting names to contests, super boosting names in order try to keep them in top 10%?
- looking at your excellent name selection skills I assume your approval rate must be sky high. What do you do with names which don´t make the cut? Do you normally retry submission at a later stage e.g possible market change and second time the particular name might be accepted?
- upon submission do you include a few notes about why do you think it would be an awesome brand?
- not sure if the second part of the interview cover your pricing strategy, but I would love to hear more about what makes you think one domain worth 8995 and other only 2695 if you take the data points fully out. Do you rely on SH appraisals or you tend to align them to your personal valuation methods?

Thanks
Thanks for the questions! I will try to elaborate more on the popular dichotomy between "data" and "intuition" after the next part is published. Remind me if I forget. Basically, I think that the complex operations and computations related to language that we tend to do instantly, effortlessly and subconsciously get way too much bad rep.

1. I think AN sale distribution may be around 10-15%.
2. I try to use SH points to boost names sometimes, but it is time consuming, and the benefit is hard to predict.
3. My approval rate is likely very high compared to general figures.
4. Upon submission, I enter keywords and industries that align with the reason for selection. If I struggle to do that, the initial selection was likely flawed to begin with. I consistently terrorize myself on selection. If something is off in any way in terms of the overall potential, I don't acquire the name. If rejected - I keep it on Standard. I think this "self-policing" is very important, and something that may not always be evident for someone just trying to list as many handregs as possible on a brandable marketplace, which is a common way to look at it. It seems that the line of thought may be that "brandables" are weird leftover-names, and that there is no way of predicting them. I have heard "All in the eye of the beholder" more than once. I don't believe that approach is useful when it comes to brandables. You have to believe that work and analysis pays off, otherwise you need to do something else.
5. Nothing about pricing there, but my expected price mostly relates to the overall concept and it's prospective appeal. I will touch on what that appeal may consist of in the follow-up, and would appreciate questions, as that gives me basis for explanation.
 
Last edited:
11
•••
@trelgor, great interview! I've been down a similar road of thought lately, but there's one question I'm curious about.

It's not a unique idea, but I've set up a 10 character-, and 3 syllable-limit on what I consider to be a good brandable domain. The character limit is there to prevent people from being discouraged to read it while glossing over it, and the syllable limit is there to keep it memorable when spoken.

E.g. Master Card, an obvious play at the terms "master key" and "key card", but also" 10 letters, 3 syllables.

What do you think of this? Is it too restrictive or too broad? And if so why? And also, are there any other rules you'd implement?
Yes. Limiting length and syllables as a general rule is necessary. Names need brevity. It is however, like most any rule, not an exhaustive answer. There are exceptions, and there are additional considerations that can kill a shorter name and promote a longer name. As to rules, there is a second part of this interview, and that question may be answered there. If not, I will address it.
 
10
•••
Big Fan of Sten and my plan is also to grow part of my portfolio to emulate his.
 
9
•••
Nice interview. Definitely one of the very top brandable domain sellers. I like that he thinks outside the 📦. It probably has alot to do with his success- questioning standard inflexible assumptions about brandables.
 
9
•••
1. I'll answer the rephrase. I would not trust anyone to select names for my portfolio. I'm the investor. I make the call and reap the rewards or pay the price. This is the way I learn, which is the most important thing. Only accountability can do that.
2. Handregs: rare. Drops: Maybe 20-25%. Auctions, mostly closeout, the rest.
3. No decline, but the positive trend halted, and the increase in terms of sales revenue was low compared to '21. Factoring portfolio growth, it's probably status quo.
4. No.
 
9
•••
One last question about the elephant in the room: Google.

You mentioned Apple and Amazon as great examples of brandable generic domains. But Google is a rivaling company in terms of size, and it's not based off a word or a combination of words, it's based off a misspelling of the word Googol. And while it is short, it's not what we would've called a "brandable" if it wasn't for its success. How would you justify this counterexample to a client in a negotiation for a one-word domain name? Was it due to the lack of competition at the market at the time, or something else?
Yes, it is a brandable. In TM terms it would be dubbed "inherently distinctive" based on the distance between what meaning it has and it's use. It would be endowed with the same inherent strength as a TM as the arbitrarily used words Amazon and Apple mentioned. The reason for that is not the law in itself, but the facts it builds on, such as that signs - to function as signs - need the capacity to do so. I love "Google" type brandables just as much as the arbitrarily used words. Most I love the "suggestive" type which are more of a little bit of both worlds.

I also have to note that there is a contradiction in saying that Google is not based on a word, and then stating that it is based on a word.

Complete inherent distinctiveness, IMO, is somewhat of a myth. Meaning is imbedded in most utterances that are not a random juxtaposition of letters. If there is no apparent meaning, the prime example may be "Xerox", there are still formal conventions adhered to, otherwise everyone would name themselves variations on "hcfjbtccdfhjtgvbki" and it would not matter.

For a client, I would say that even though I consider the arbitrary word the holy grail, a flowing and intuitive abstract name can be a better choice, mostly in terms of availability and attainability.
 
Last edited:
8
•••
@trelgor Great to see a fellow Swede investing successfully in domain names!

How many years has it taken you to build your 10k portfolio?
13 if you count the first dip of the toe, 9 if you count from start of current trajectory, which marked a complete removal of the legacy concept of search terms as the bedrock of value from within my model. 3 if you count "full time".
 
Last edited:
7
•••
One last question about the elephant in the room: Google.

You mentioned Apple and Amazon as great examples of brandable generic domains. But Google is a rivaling company in terms of size, and it's not based off a word or a combination of words, it's based off a misspelling of the word Googol. And while it is short, it's not what we would've called a "brandable" if it wasn't for its success. How would you justify this counterexample to a client in a negotiation for a one-word domain name? Was it due to the lack of competition at the market at the time, or something else?
 
6
•••
@Bob Hawkes Thanks for the interview. Have been following nuggest shared by @trelgor on twitter and have learnt a lot.
@trelgor: I have noticed that you generally prefer price for all the names but there are few names you've set as make offer, How you go about them?
Do you set make offer at times when you don't agree with SH valuation as well?
Whats your insight into names you set as Make offer?
They are more valuable to my mind, and have perhaps exhibited more explicit signals such as registered extensions or unsuccessful offers. Even though, as a general rule, I BIN-price everything, I believe that discovering and acting on potential exceptions in terms of return is important. I also think, that with the right portfolio angle, this value-pop can happen for any name. It's an effect of the way I look at value, as not mainly a result of history, but of future potential. So it's two ideas held at the same time. 1. Sell your friggin' names. 2. Don't sell names where explicit potential has become apparent way too cheap.
 
Last edited:
6
•••
I like your mindset Sten, and thanks for article Bob.

It most certainly is about the name, I find it unfortunate that so many are willing to undermine their identity/presence/brand for the status quo.
 
6
•••
So much great stuff in the interview. Ty you Bob and Sten.
 
5
•••
@Bob Hawkes , thanks for this interview, really inspiring.

@trelgor , appreciate your insights. I love to see domainers succeed that are really transparent. You are basically an open book to everyone in terms of what you buy and sell which proves us two important points:

- it is never late to the game ( though getting into to it lately has became costlier )
- your creative thinking outside of the box approach illustrates the only thing matters is the name

Lately I also tend to purchase whatever it think could make a great brand, not only looking at data meticulously. Of course if some company could upgrade on the same name would never hurt, but I try also to develop my gut feeling to a level where I can judge a name simply by looking at it.

Trelgor, care to share a few things about your experience about SH such as:
- your distribution of Afternic sales vs SH lander
- Is your portfolio maintenance there entirely passive e.g. submitting names to contests, super boosting names in order try to keep them in top 10%?
- looking at your excellent name selection skills I assume your approval rate must be sky high. What do you do with names which don´t make the cut? Do you normally retry submission at a later stage e.g possible market change and second time the particular name might be accepted?
- upon submission do you include a few notes about why do you think it would be an awesome brand?
- not sure if the second part of the interview cover your pricing strategy, but I would love to hear more about what makes you think one domain worth 8995 and other only 2695 if you take the data points fully out. Do you rely on SH appraisals or you tend to align them to your personal valuation methods?

Thanks
 
5
•••
4
•••
Thanks you Mr. @Bob Hawkes for this interview.
I enjoyed the breakdown of his sales. It would be nice to know his portfolio size to have a full picture.
Thanks
@trelgor
 
4
•••
@trelgor you mainly invest in brandable domains, and you consider some generic domains brandable, do you also invest in abbreviated domains (e.g. LLLL.com), numeric domains (e.g. NNNN.com), and partial- and exact-match domains? And if so, to what extent?

Also, I know some exact-match can be considered brandable, e.g. Houston Plumbing is a very effective brand for marketing purposes (it tells you where they are, and what they do), and houstonplumbing.com would be the corresponding domain. Do you also consider these kind of domains brandable?
 
Last edited:
4
•••
4
•••
I also have to note that there is a contradiction in saying that Google is not based on a word, and then stating that it is based on a word.
Yeah, that was a stupid way of phrasing it. But you got my point.
 
4
•••
@trelgor Great to see a fellow Swede investing successfully in domain names!

How many years has it taken you to build your 10k portfolio?
 
4
•••
Back