Dynadot

various Top Topics: SLD's vs ngTLD's; Floor Price of LLLL.com's; Death of Domaining...

Spaceship Spaceship
The most popular discussions this week include choosing between a new generic Top Level Domain and a Second Level Domain; the current, past, and future outlook on LLLL.com’s price floor; technical advances being made that could end domain name investing as we know it; and a debate on whether .info will succeed in the pool of ngTLD’s.

.us.com vs .center
Which would be better for a business to start out with: a new gTLD that the vast majority of the public is unaware of or a second-level domain name focused in a geographical area in which you operate, such as yourname.gb.net using CentralNic’s gb.net for Great Britain?
Topic by @33S

Future Floor Price of LLLL.com
If you’ve been watching the LLLL.com market, you’ve steadily seen the price of LLLL’s without vowels or a V rise, as well as those with. There is almost all certainty that what you could once get for $25 a couple years ago, you would now need a minimum of $350 to buy it today. But will this rise continue with the same magnitude throughout 2016, and perhaps even 2017? What's your prediction (poll)?
Topic by @DNVantage

The Death of Domaining
Everywhere we look, technical advances are being made: from 3-D printing to virtual reality. Will there be other leaps made that will end domaining as we know it today?
Topic by @greggb

Depreciation of .Info
There was once a day where .info domain names would sell high, but now, they can barely sell for some. Recently, pizza.info was sold for $3,150 – half of what it was acquired for in the past. Is .info done for or will it make a comeback?
Topic by @Arpit131



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!
 
9
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Thanks for the post David.
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back