IT.COM

information Top Topics: AI.com Sells via Saw.com; ICANN Working Group Jeopardizes Domainer Rights...

NameSilo
In this week's Top Topics, domain investors discuss the recent domain sale of AI.com, which reportedly sold to an unknown buyer in the NFT space. Elsewhere, there's an ICANN working group report that has raised concerns for domain investors, and what are your thoughts on the recent surge in "meta" keyword domain sales?


How Do You Reduce Non-Payers?

There have been many stories of domain owners receiving inbound offers via their marketplace listings, only for the sales to fall through thanks to non-paying buyers. While non-payers may be breaching the terms of service of a registrar, it seems the problem as a whole still remains.

What, then, can we do to reduce non-paying domain buyers? Is it a case of removing the "make offer" facility from your domains, or is it an issue that domain investors must learn to live with?

Topic by: @davidc1


AI.com Sells Via Saw.com

It was recently announced that the two-letter .COM domain, AI.com, sold in a transaction brokered by Saw.com. The domain, previously owned by Future Media Architects, found a new home, reportedly with someone from the NFT industry.

Here, domain investors react to the sale of AI.com, which had an $11 million asking price, and offer opinions on the sales price and the potential buyer.

Topic by: @NickB


Duplicitous ICANN Working Group Jeopardizes Domain Owners’ Rights

ICANN, the non-profit organization tasked with maintaining and coordinating IP addresses and domain names, has set up a new working group that reportedly jeopardizes the rights of domain name owners.

According to this discussion, the ICANN working group has issued a report that would start to affect the rights of domain owners in the UDRP and URS domain name dispute procedures. More information about the report can be found in this discussion. Anyone opposing this report can publicly comment on it by October 24th, 2021.

Topic by: @GeorgeK


What Are Your Thoughts on the Recent Meta Sales Surge?

The keyword "meta" has exploded in popularity recently, with names such as Meta.so ($149,000), MetaXR.com ($60,000), and MetaPayments.co ($53,450) selling for five- and six-figure fees in the last week or so. Both Meta.io and Metaverse.io have also sold for six-figure fees this year.

What is causing the surge in meta domain sales, and what do you think about the current meta trend? Do you think meta keyword domains will continue to produce significant sales figures, or will they fade out in a matter or weeks or months?

Topic by: @equity78


Top Topics of the Week is a blog series featuring the most popular discussions and content within the domain community. Tune in weekly to see what’s trending
 
10
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Thanks @James Iles for a nice summary of some really important topics this week.

Thanks @GeorgeK for alerting the community to the proposed change.

It is interesting that meta has taken off much stronger than metaverse so far. Some of the meta prices pretty amazing.

Bob
 
Last edited:
4
•••
I was just thinking of this as I have a decent amount of meta +keyword and metaverse + keyword and believe meta and metaverse plus keyword will have great value to end user, one example, metabank (already a bank in existence) vs metaversebank or metaland or metaverseland (still undecided if one is better than the other, so far appears meta +keyword is in the lead with sales), time will tell and yet to have my first big sale of meta/metaverse + keyword but feel its coming soon, great work as always Bob! Most of my names in the meta prefix are handregs in the .co extension, .app, and .de extensions.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
I'm keeping my Meta play with both a English and Japanese meaning. I'm not sure about my pure Japanese Meta play though. Japan has 100 million internet users though. Does anyone know if Metaverse interest is worldwide?
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back