Spaceship

opinion Crypto’s Hype vs. Domains' Legacy: The Real Value of the Internet

Spaceship Spaceship
Let’s talk about something important—something that’s been around for a while but doesn’t always get the attention it deserves. If you’re spending your hard-earned money without fully understanding where it’s going, you’re not really investing. You’re gambling. And let's be real, with the rise of crypto, NFTs, and other hyped-up digital assets, it's easy to get caught up in the excitement. But behind all the noise, there’s something steady, something real, that’s been quietly building value for over 40 years: domain names.

While crypto might be the talk of the town today, domains have been the silent heroes—consistent, reliable, and valuable in ways we often take for granted.

Domains: A Solid, Safe Bet

Picture this: a domain name is like digital real estate. Every business, every personal brand, every startup needs a spot on the internet, and that spot is a domain name. Just like you can’t build a physical store without an address, you can’t build a presence online without a domain. And for the past four decades, domains have been there—growing in value, enduring through crashes, and surviving trends.

Yes, the rollercoaster ride of crypto might give you a rush, but domains? They've weathered storms. They've proven their worth, not based on wild speculation, but on the simple fact that people need them to connect online. Think about Voice.com, which sold for a whopping $30 million in 2019. That’s not a fluke; that’s because good domains are in demand, and that demand is only growing.

Stability, Not Speculation

When you invest in a domain, you’re buying something tangible. You’re buying an asset with real value, not one that's subject to extreme swings like the stock market or crypto. In fact, while Bitcoin and Ethereum are known for their heart-stopping ups and downs, domain names have quietly appreciated in value, growing steadily as the internet expands.

And the best part? Domains come with built-in protection. Unlike crypto, which operates in a murky world without much oversight, domain names are governed by ICANN—the organization responsible for overseeing domain registration and ownership. That means clear rules, transparent ownership, and a regulated environment.

On the other hand, crypto is often a game of shadows. The creators of many projects are anonymous, and even though we hear a lot about “blockchain security,” crypto’s wild volatility has led many investors down a painful road. Many have lost money to rug pulls, Ponzi schemes, or exchange hacks. It’s a high-risk game. Domains, though? They’ve been around for 40 years and remain steady, even in the face of recessions and tech bubbles.

The Power of Domains in the Real World

Here’s the thing: crypto might promise wealth, but domains create jobs and wealth in the real world. For over 5.6 billion people who use the internet every day, domains are the gateway to everything we do online. In fact, when the pandemic hit and the world locked down, domain names didn’t just sit there—they powered the businesses, schools, and even social movements that kept us connected during the darkest hours. Without domains, there would be no websites, no e-commerce, no digital transformation.

So yes, crypto may have created some millionaires. But domains? They’ve built empires. They’ve empowered businesses, created jobs, and given rise to entire industries. A single domain name can shape the future of a company. Crypto might be the new kid on the block, but domains? They’re the backbone of the internet.

Not a Risk-Free Bet, But a Smart One

Now, don’t get me wrong—domain investing isn’t a walk in the park. Some premium domains can cost a lot of money, and competition can be tough. Plus, the world of SEO and marketing can make reselling domains tricky. But even so, domain names have a proven track record. The risks are there, sure, but they’re far more predictable than crypto’s chaos.

And remember, domain investing is more of a long-term game. You’re not going to see immediate, overnight riches. But the value grows steadily, and with domains, you don’t have to worry about your asset vanishing into thin air. They are secure, reliable, and will always have value as long as businesses and individuals need a digital presence.

Why Domains Win the Long Game

So, let’s look at the big picture. Crypto might offer the thrill of instant gains, but it’s a gamble. It’s fast, it’s flashy, but it’s driven more by hype than long-term value. Domains, on the other hand, are grounded in something real: the need for digital addresses, the foundation of the online world. They’ve been around for 40 years, and they’re only becoming more important.

While crypto may come and go with the trends, domain names will continue to stand strong. In fact, they’ve already been tested—through the dot-com bubble, the rise of social media, and even global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. They’ve weathered the storms and emerged stronger, providing a steady, reliable asset to those who truly understand their worth.

The Bottom Line

When you compare domains to crypto, the choice is clear. Yes, crypto is exciting. It’s buzzing right now, and maybe you’ll catch some quick profits. But domains? They’ve built a legacy. They’ve been tested, time and again. They provide a solid foundation, not just for businesses, but for everyone who uses the internet.

While crypto might create some wealth, domain names create sustainability. They provide long-term value that only grows with time. And that, in the end, is the true definition of an investment worth making.
 
14
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
If domains, at least the best ones, are appreciating assets, shouldn't we just HODL instead of selling them (actively)? Voice.com wasn't for sale when Saylor sold it a bit reluctantly.

Of course many people try (some successfully) to make a living out of domaining, so they have to sell their assets, but that makes them more vulnerable to bad economic times.
 
Last edited:
3
•••
Crypto isn't 'hype' -- it's becoming a deeply integrated part of the global economy.

Domains are temporary and will be replaced by something else, likely involving the blockchain.

Crypto will be around long after domains are dead.
 
0
•••
If domains, at least the best ones, are appreciating assets, shouldn't we just HODL instead of selling them (actively)? Voice.com wasn't for sale when Saylor sold it a bit reluctantly.

Of course many people try (some successfully) to make a living out of domaining, so they have to sell their assets, but that makes them more vulnerable to bad economic times.
Thank you for your feedback/question. In my opinion, no domain name has ever been sold immediately after being registered or acquired; there is always a holding period before a domain name is sold to a buyer (whether an investor or an end user). Secondly, almost all valuable domain name sales took time—sometimes up to 19 years—before selling for the right price or to the right end user.

When it comes to domain investing, no investor should enter this industry with a get-rich-quick mindset, as domain investing is not a lottery ticket or scratch card. Regarding the sale of Voice.com, I don't have enough information to comment on why Saylor/Strategy did not list the domain name for sale.

Once again, thank you for reading this article and for your feedback/question.
 
0
•••
Crypto isn't 'hype' -- it's becoming a deeply integrated part of the global economy.

Domains are temporary and will be replaced by something else, likely involving the blockchain.

Crypto will be around long after domains are dead.
Thank you for your feedback, and for the sake of argument, I hope you are right. I’m sure you are aware that domain names are universally accepted, but I cannot make the same argument for crypto. You would also agree that crypto cannot be used as a business identifier online, right? It is not yet accepted as a form of payment in every territory or country in the world.

For crypto to be viewed and accepted as a universal form of payment, every country—especially emerging economies—would need the necessary infrastructure to store and protect information related to crypto.

These are just my two cents, and again, I hope you are right about domains being on their way to the graveyard.
 
0
•••
Comparing domains to crypto is like comparing street signs to cities—domains serve a narrow function, while crypto is reshaping the entire infrastructure of the modern world. To position domains as the “smart investment” and dismiss crypto as hype isn’t just misguided—it’s fundamentally misunderstanding the scale. Domains are a legacy utility from the early internet. Crypto is reconstructing global finance, redefining ownership, decentralizing power structures, and laying the foundation for how value and identity will operate in the decades to come. This isn’t a debate between two asset classes. It’s the difference between a browser tab and the operating system.
 
0
•••
Comparing domains to crypto is like comparing street signs to cities—domains serve a narrow function, while crypto is reshaping the entire infrastructure of the modern world. To position domains as the “smart investment” and dismiss crypto as hype isn’t just misguided—it’s fundamentally misunderstanding the scale. Domains are a legacy utility from the early internet. Crypto is reconstructing global finance, redefining ownership, decentralizing power structures, and laying the foundation for how value and identity will operate in the decades to come. This isn’t a debate between two asset classes. It’s the difference between a browser tab and the operating system.
Thank you for your feedback and comments. I wish you success in your crypto investing!
 
1
•••
Thank you for your feedback and comments. I wish you success in your crypto investing!

Appreciate the reply—but just to clarify, my point isn’t about “crypto vs. domains” as competing investments. It’s about the mismatch in scope.

Domains are a tool within an aging layer of the internet.

Crypto, on the other hand, is rebuilding the infrastructure beneath everything—finance, identity, ownership, coordination.

Comparing the two isn’t just apples and oranges—it’s apples and ecosystems.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Crypto is reconstructing global finance

How?

Crypto is ...redefining ownership, decentralizing power structures, and laying the foundation for how value and identity will operate in the decades to come. This isn’t a debate between two asset classes. It’s the difference between a browser tab and the operating system.

Lol, blockchain 'might' redefine ownership long term, today, not really, unless you think you're building generational wealth w/ jpgs

And even blockchain tech, tell me something it can do that a standard db can't, include POA etc.

Crypto isn't as asset class, just like tulips weren't back in the day, look up tulip mania.

Excellent article Elie! Agree with most of what you've said. Though if anything comparing domains, an essential cog for a successful business, to crypto is a disservice to domains.
 
Last edited:
7
•••

I’m not saying crypto has already transformed the world at scale—but the infrastructure is being built to do exactly that. Dismissing it because it hasn’t fully delivered yet is like mocking the internet in 1993 because most people were still on dial-up and using AOL CDs.

As for what blockchain can do that a standard database can’t: it’s not about data storage, it’s about trustless coordination at scale. A traditional database requires a centralized admin—someone with authority over edits, access, and governance. Blockchains allow multiple parties to interact without needing to trust each other or a central intermediary—that’s the breakthrough.

Smart contracts, for example, let people write programmable agreements that self-execute, verifiable by anyone. That’s not something your SQL database is set up to handle across borders and legal systems.

And ownership? We’re already seeing experiments in decentralized identity, DAOs, tokenized real estate, and creator economy tools. It’s early, messy, and yes—overhyped in places. But the direction is clear, and it’s definitely not about JPEGs anymore.

Domains are a piece of the existing web. Crypto is attempting something far bigger—rebuilding the foundations of how humans coordinate, govern, exchange value, and establish ownership—not just online, but across finance, identity, art, governance, and beyond.

So to say crypto is all hype and scams, and that we should focus on domains instead, is like standing at the edge of a seismic shift in human coordination—and choosing to talk about URLs. Domains matter, sure. But crypto is rewriting the rules of the system itself.
 
2
•••
How?



Lol, blockchain 'might' redefine ownership long term, today, not really, unless you think you're building generational wealth w/ jpgs

And even blockchain tech, tell me something it can do that a standard db can't, include POA etc.

Crypto isn't as asset class, just like tulips weren't back in the day, look up tulip mania.

Excellent article Elie! Agree with most of what you've said. Though if anything comparing domains, an essential cog for a successful business, to crypto is a disservice to domains.
I love and appreciate healthy conversations based on facts, compelling experiences, or reasonable arguments. I have read about cryptocurrency and its potential future utility. What concerns me most is the secrecy surrounding crypto ownership and the fact that if you lose your private key to your wallet—well, that’s it. Thank you for your contribution and feedback.
 
0
•••
it’s about trustless coordination at scale

Smart contracts

And ownership? We’re already seeing experiments in decentralized identity, DAOs, tokenized real estate, and creator economy tools.

That's blockchain tech, doesn't need crypto currency to work.

Domains are a piece of the existing web.

Sales are function of demand, aren't they. And I'm yet to come across one web3 project that operates exclusively in web3 w/o a web2 domain name. Maybe I'm not as clued in as you about that.

Crypto is attempting something far bigger—rebuilding the foundations of how humans coordinate, govern, exchange value, and establish ownership—not just online, but across finance, identity, art, governance, and beyond.

That's cryptography, not crypto currency.

So to say crypto is all hype and scams, and that we should focus on domains instead, is like standing at the edge of a seismic shift in human coordination—and choosing to talk about URLs. Domains matter, sure. But crypto is rewriting the rules of the system itself.

I don't recall saying anything of the sort, the market is just too big for it to all be a scam, there is substance there, but as an investment vehicle a quality domain is still a safer bet than the latest shitcoin.
 
1
•••
That's blockchain tech, doesn't need crypto currency to work.

You're right that much of what I mentioned falls under blockchain, not just cryptocurrency. But in practice, "crypto" has become shorthand for the broader ecosystem: decentralized finance, smart contracts, DAOs, and tokenized coordination mechanisms. Tokens aren’t just speculative—they secure networks, incentivize participation, and enable programmable value transfer. That functionality is fundamental to how these systems operate.

As for domains: yes, they’re essential today. But they’re a tool of the current internet layer. Web3 projects still rely on web2 infrastructure—but that’s a transitional phase. Just like early internet apps needed phone lines, the long arc is bending toward systems that reduce dependence on legacy protocols.

The original post largely dismissed crypto as unstable and scam-ridden, which misses the bigger picture. Not all crypto investing is about chasing tokens. Many investors are focused on infrastructure, blockchain-native startups, and real-world utility—areas that have proven both profitable and strategic. Reducing the entire crypto movement to speculative gambling while elevating domains feels like a category error—and a pretty myopic one.
 
2
•••
You're right that much of what I mentioned falls under blockchain, not just cryptocurrency. But in practice, "crypto" has become shorthand for the broader ecosystem: decentralized finance, smart contracts, DAOs, and tokenized coordination mechanisms. Tokens aren’t just speculative—they secure networks, incentivize participation, and enable programmable value transfer. That functionality is fundamental to how these systems operate.

As for domains: yes, they’re essential today. But they’re a tool of the current internet layer. Web3 projects still rely on web2 infrastructure—but that’s a transitional phase. Just like early internet apps needed phone lines, the long arc is bending toward systems that reduce dependence on legacy protocols.

The original post largely dismissed crypto as unstable and scam-ridden, which misses the bigger picture. Not all crypto investing is about chasing tokens. Many investors are focused on infrastructure, blockchain-native startups, and real-world utility—areas that have proven both profitable and strategic. Reducing the entire crypto movement to speculative gambling while elevating domains feels like a category error—and a pretty myopic one.
You said and I quote, "The original post largely dismissed crypto as unstable and scam-ridden, which misses the bigger picture. Not all crypto investing is about chasing tokens." Rewind, please! Read the article again, but this time with an open mind. Secondly, last time I checked, I’m still entitled to my opinion, which is exactly what this article represents. Lastly, in my experience, no one truly wins an argument, but everyone is allowed to express an alternative perspective.
 
0
•••
You said and I quote, "The original post largely dismissed crypto as unstable and scam-ridden, which misses the bigger picture. Not all crypto investing is about chasing tokens." Rewind, please! Read the article again, but this time with an open mind.

I think it’s fair to point out when an opinion (especially one published on Namepros) seems to conflate an entire ecosystem with its most speculative parts. Your article stresses crypto's volatility, scams, and instability without acknowledging the broader innovations in blockchain and decentralized systems. This framing comes across as dismissive, intentionally or not.

I’m not here to win an argument, just to offer a different lens: one that sees crypto not as hype or a passing trend, but as infrastructure-level innovation with long-term implications. We can disagree on the framing—but it’s a meaningful conversation to have.
 
1
•••
If domains, at least the best ones, are appreciating assets, shouldn't we just HODL instead of selling them (actively)? Voice.com wasn't for sale when Saylor sold it a bit reluctantly.

Of course many people try (some successfully) to make a living out of domaining, so they have to sell their assets, but that makes them more vulnerable to bad economic times.
Not everyone is in the position of Saylor or Rick (both who are wealthy) to be able to say no to huge amounts.

Those guys are outliers (like there are in all walks of life).
 
0
•••
Elie, your opinion is interesting, but I think it's important to avoid painting crypto as merely a 'gamble' driven by 'hype.' While your points about domain stability and ICANN regulation are valid, they don't fully capture the potential and evolution of the crypto space.

Look, you're not wrong, domains are the digital bedrock. They're the 'probably still useful in ten years' kind of thing. But writing off crypto as just a shiny distraction? That's like saying the internet was just a chatroom fad back in the day
 
1
•••
There are three reasons why I read an article or post: to increase my knowledge, to question what I know, or to understand what others are thinking. When I disagree with a viewpoint, I research further to uncover the truth and then write about my findings. When I agree with a viewpoint, I like the article and sometimes share it. If I am undecided about a viewpoint, I ask questions to learn and improve my understanding.
 
1
•••
I lost 20K in crypto when I took a break from domain investing, big mistake. I could have picked up some great domains instead.
 
1
•••
then one of the best options is to invest in good .com-names in the crypto niche
 
0
•••
On the subject of cryptocurrencies: I'd say sites such as Web3 is Going Just Great show that cryptocurrencies are in fact hype and scams, and that people who deny that are either part of it, too heavily invested to want to admit to it as they obviously need others who believe it to divest their holdings if they don't want to lose the amount they put into it, or just too taken in by what it supposedly promises to realise the truth.

The cryptocurrencies have no underlying value (and as such are a waste of CPU & GPU cycles for those mining them, unlike what can be provided by using those cycles for the actual benefit of projects such as Folding@Home), just speculation that they could be worth something at some point to someone. Which is even more the case if you look at all the memecoins causing anger to people 'investing' in them and losing out when people rugpull them, despite the obvious fact that it should have been obvious that they weren't worth anything (especially if names were used indicating such a thing was going to happen).

The blockchain itself is pointless with its apparent limit of 7 transactions per second, when traditional banking is a lot more capable.

The theory that the cryptobros push is something along the lines of not being beholden to banks etc., but in losing all of that, you also lose all the protections traditional banking causes you, making you much more likely to lose out. There are very good reasons that all of those protections are in place after all.

At some point the cryptocurrency bubble is going to burst (again, but hopefully more permanently so that people finally understand it was never worth anything), just like happened with the tulips.

Cryptocurrencies are just a glorified ponzi/pyramid scheme.

Hopefully the "AI" bubble follows soon after (or shortly before).

While domains are technically also worth only what someone is willing to pay for them, they are still a lot more tangible than cryptocurrencies and have various regulations and protections, with the value of them being that someone might like the name enough to use it themselves (or intend to use it in future).

Sure, you also have the same speculation aspect of whether a name will appeal to someone (whether now or in future), but as long as its within the expected rules and obligations (for example not trying to speculate by buying/newly registering domains that are obviously infringing on well-known/widely reported trademarks*).

* Obviously an acceptable exception would be if you were setting up a site designed to criticize a company, rather than something you're hoping to sell to that company (which if the latter would likely sooner or later result in said company using the UDRP), but only if you're actually doing that rather than just wanting to sell it to someone else who wanted to do that.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
On the subject of cryptocurrencies: I'd say sites such as Web3 is Going Just Great show that cryptocurrencies are in fact hype and scams,

Those sites don't show anything, they just tell one story. That story was mildly interesting before institutional money and even governments started to "accept" crypto.
 
1
•••
Those sites don't show anything, they just tell one story. That story was mildly interesting before institutional money and even governments started to "accept" crypto.
I disagree, I would say that it shows that there is an established pattern that overwhelmingly points in the direction of it mainly being hype and scams, regardless of how others may hope for it to be used otherwise.

And if it's mainly that, it doesn't leave much room for anything legitimate to successfully emerge from it.
 
0
•••
Cryptocurrencies are just a glorified ponzi/pyramid scheme.

Hopefully the "AI" bubble follows soon after (or shortly before).

Absolutely—crypto is definitely all scams, unlike the rock-solid institutions that brought us the 2008 financial crisis.

And AI? Total bubble. Just a passing fad, like the internet, smartphones, and indoor plumbing. I'm sure in five years we'll all go back to using fax machines and bartering goats for goods.
 
0
•••
Absolutely—crypto is definitely all scams, unlike the rock-solid institutions that brought us the 2008 financial crisis.
I'm not going to pretend that the banking industry is in any way perfect, but there are regulations and protections around the world for banking that are intended to actually protect the consumer (and I disagree with any rolling back of those regulations and protections, as they were put in place for a reason that has not suddenly gone away) and punish the banks for not adhering to them.

Cryptocurrencies however don't have those protections, with there being plenty of unscrupulous people trying to take advantage of that lack as a result, whether that be by using exploits, doing rugpulls, or other such behaviour.

And AI? Total bubble. Just a passing fad, like the internet, smartphones, and indoor plumbing. I'm sure in five years we'll all go back to using fax machines and bartering goats for goods.
It is a bubble, as the "AI" are just LLMs (Large Language Models), just because they aim to make things easier doesn't mean they actually can.

And of course there is the tendency for them to hallucinate, resulting in false output that doesn't correspond to actual facts, making it even less suited to be used in the way so many are trying to hype it up as being capable of (often with some intending to reduce jobs available to humans in the process, in positions that should really rely on humans instead).

Suggesting that it's an important advancement capable of changing things to the level of the internet, smartphones and especially indoor plumbing is disingenuous.
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back