.com This .com Domain Name Drops 96.7% In Value. Why?

Tewksbury said:

Your post appears to be yet another example of how status quo bias favors .com top-level domain. A prodigious percentage of people still believe dot com to be the only viable TLD choice out of 1,200+ other options. This false premise of .com supremacy creates an illusion of scarcity which in turn artificially drives up the price for .com domain names –on the secondary market– at the expense of all other TLDs.

Why settle for a less-than-optimal legacy TLD domain name when other, more secure and brand-able options exist?

Click to expand...

equity78 said:

....PhoneMarket .ext registered in 36 extensions.....

Click to expand...

Tewksbury said:

Frank, you're clearly biased in favor of dotcom. On your BuyUsedDomain[.com] website you state: "Yes, .com should always be your first choice whenever possible, particularly if you're planning to go big, nationwide, or international with your new brand." This advice became irrelevant when ICANN began delegating new gTLDs five years ago.

A couple things I've learned over the years: 1) a diversified investment strategy almost always out-performs the "going all-in" approach. I'm happy for you that you have sufficient capital and a larger-than-average risk tolerance to "bet the farm" on one TLD option. 2) Nothing lasts forever. Dotcom's current gTLD market status is no exception.

There is really no need to feel threatened by comments that other gTLDs may also be desirable and valuable. After-market sales of many new gTLDs firmly establishes this reality -whether you (and others) like it or not. Thinking I'm wrong, saying I'm wrong, hoping I'm wrong doesn't make it so. I understand my words frighten and perhaps anger you and others who've built businesses around one TLD, in a market with more than 1,200 delegated strings. That's on you. Perhaps broadening your gTLD horizons -with an open mind that there might be other viable new gTLDs options- can open new business opportunities that you never expected.

Why settle for a less-than-optimal legacy TLD domain name when other, more secure and brand-able options exist?

.app is where it's @

Click to expand...

frank-germany said:

thank you for your kind answer

but are wrong again
my focus is .de

functionality is the same in all extensions
but not the desire of a potential buyer

Click to expand...

frank-germany said:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Landllocked?src=hash

Click to expand...

Tewksbury said:

Seriously? Your response is a Twitter hashtag -with only two tweets from a self-appointed monarch whose claim-to-fame is selling Porno[.com] for seven figures. Did you know your King has publicly stated: "ROI is something I never ever consider. It is something I ignore. Maybe that’s why my ROI is off the charts" I'm happy for you -and your King- that return on investment is of no concern. Lucky you. For serious investors ROI is the paramount concern.

Regarding the pretzel-logic concept of land-locked domain names ... a lot of domainers like to draw a comparison between real estate (an asset you can own) and domain names (an asset you can't own). This analogy creates a false equivalency between these investments and can create unnecessary confusion in the marketplace. As I've previously stated, there are several widely-accepted methods for appraising real estate. There is no consensus valuation-model for domain names that can withstand peer-review scrutiny.

I'm here in good faith. I'm happy to have an honest, open and respectful discussion about these matters with people willing to reciprocate.

Click to expand...