I find the timeline of these x posts from the same person quite interesting, especially considering how little time passed between them.
October 6: He stated founders were already approaching major brokers about .si availability, and the ".si rocket ship" was described as "unprecedented."
October 7: He predicted that genuinely premium .si domains would be difficult to acquire for under $5,000 by the end of the month.
October 25: Just 18 days later, "the first wave of .si is over." Startups and end users apparently hadn't shown up in meaningful numbers, and he was now predicting a possible gradual decline in wholesale prices unless real-world adoption accelerated.
Then, just 14 hours later, he reminded everyone that he still had tens of thousands of dollars invested in .si himself.
Now, a few things don't quite add up for me.
Firstly, who says the first wave of domain investors is over after just a few weeks in the spotlight?
Domain markets don't develop in a straight line. They often begin with hand registrations, followed by trading among smaller investors, more established investors, and eventually those with much deeper pockets. Along the way, names can change hands several times, prices get tested, and an aftermarket gradually takes shape.
That process can take months or years. The initial rush slowing down doesn't necessarily mean the first wave of investment is finished. It may simply mean the market is moving into another stage.
Secondly, expecting meaningful startup and end-user adoption within such a short period seems an extraordinary expectation for a market barely finding its feet.
Businesses don't generally make branding decisions, approve budgets, negotiate domain purchases, and launch projects in a matter of days.
And here's where the timeline becomes particularly interesting.
On October 6, founder inquiries were enough to describe the market as an unprecedented rocket ship. By October 25, the apparent lack of end-user adoption had become a reason to predict possible declining wholesale prices.
But surely the time required for genuine commercial adoption hadn't changed in those 19 days?
There's also the financial side. Someone with tens of thousands of dollars already invested could benefit from rising prices on existing holdings, but potentially benefit from falling wholesale prices if they're still looking to acquire more.
That's not suggesting any particular motive. It's simply another reason why knowing whether someone is buying, selling, or holding can provide useful context.
Of course, everyone is entitled to change their opinion. Markets change, and predictions can be wrong.
But what new evidence emerged in those 18 days that wasn't already apparent when the original predictions were made?
Because the absence of meaningful end-user adoption after a few weeks isn't exactly an unexpected development. It's what one might reasonably anticipate in a market at such an early stage.
And declaring the first wave over is itself another prediction, not an established fact.
Perhaps the real question isn't why startups and end users haven't arrived in meaningful numbers after a few weeks, but why anyone would have expected them to.
