information Acquire.com: Elon Musk wants more for the account than the domain’s cost!

[News]

In October of last year, MicroAcquire CEO Andrew Gazdecki announced his company’s acquisition of the domain name Acquire.com. In true Gazdecki style, this exciting news was broken with a twist; the domain’s acquisition price was Tweeted as being $2,000,000 dollars. That number, was soon changed to the real figure: $200,000 dollars.

Read More.

 

[Pusang Gala]

It's unfortunate that Elon Musk is asking for so much money for the Twitter handle. It's clear that MicroAcquiredeserves to own the handle the most, and they've been trying to acquire it for over a year.

I understand that Musk is trying to monetize Twitter, but I think he could do it in a more fair and ethical way. For example, he could offer to sell dormant handles to the companies that deserve them the most, at a discounted price. He could also offer other ways for companies to acquire matching handles.

I think it's important to remember that Twitter is a public platform, and it should be accessible to everyone. Musk's decision to charge such a high price for the @acquire handle is a barrier to entry for MicroAcquire, and it's unfair to the company's customers and users.

 

[Gabriel360]

It's unfortunate that Elon Musk is asking for so much money for the Twitter handle. It's clear that MicroAcquiredeserves to own the handle the most, and they've been trying to acquire it for over a year.

I understand that Musk is trying to monetize Twitter, but I think he could do it in a more fair and ethical way. For example, he could offer to sell dormant handles to the companies that deserve them the most, at a discounted price. He could also offer other ways for companies to acquire matching handles.

I think it's important to remember that Twitter is a public platform, and it should be accessible to everyone. Musk's decision to charge such a high price for the @acquire handle is a barrier to entry for MicroAcquire, and it's unfair to the company's customers and users.

Lol.

After spending $44B, Musk will do whatever the fuck he wants on and with Twitter.

Everyone saw how he snatched the @X handle without compensating the previous owner.

Also, only GENUINE IDIOTS will spend a dime acquiring a social media handle.

First, they can be snatched with no repercussion or compensation.

Secondly, your money is tied to the success of a third party. Imagine spending $250K just for Twitter to go under.

Also, unlike domain name there's no selling handles to recoup your investment. Or even part of it.

Then, there is the issue of audience ownership. You don't own your audience on ANY social media.

They could switch their policy overnight and you end up on the wrong side of it and get booted off.

You lose your audience and your $250K.
Best to build on your website and get EMAILS.

Andrew Gazdecki did the right thing by telling Elon Musk to go kick rocks.

SM should be a fringe part of a business' marketing/branding.

 

[MKA]

I thought they'd auction these off, so that the highest bidders got their handle and would be more active on their site. A quarter million is a ridiculous amount to ask for a social media handle, especially when there are no regulations preventing Twitter from reclaiming it.

Also, that social media handle is going to be unavailable on other social media. So either you have have "acquiredotcom" on Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, etc., or you can have "acquire" on Twitter, and "acquiredotcom" on the remaining platforms.

 

[pb]

Is that price confirmed by Musk? Because I give zero credibility to the guy known for falsifying the domain price to grab some attention to his otherwise unknown company/project.

 

[MKA]

Is that price confirmed by Musk? Because I give zero credibility to the guy known for falsifying the domain price to grab some attention to his otherwise unknown company/project.

Why would Musk or anyone else working for him confirm it?

 

[pb]

Why would Musk or anyone else working for him confirm it?

The article: "Elon Musk wants $250k for @acquire"
Me: "Did he actually say that? Do we have a proof?"
You: "Why would we want a proof?"

Dunno, just because I want my news to be based on a reliable source?

 

[MKA]

The article: "Elon Musk wants $250k for @acquire"
Me: "Did he actually say that? Do we have a proof?"
You: "Why would we want a proof?"

Dunno, just because I want my news to be based on a reliable source?

Elon was probably not even involved in setting the price.

The evidence we have is that the owner of acquire.com alleges to have been offered the handle @acquire for $250,000 and rejected it.

You may accept that, or you might reject it.

But I see no reason why he'd lie about this. If your argument is "he lied about the price of acquire.com," then the answer is that there's an incentive there: to inflate the perceived value of the domain he owns.

But there's no such incentive when rejecting the offer to buy the handle @acquire. He neither benefits or suffers from this.

 

[Keith]

When you have the .com domain name, that is the ultimate outlet to reach people. Forget the social media handle bs.

 

[pb]

Elon was probably not even involved in setting the price.

So you're saying the author of the article lied to us?
"Elon Musk wants more for the account than the domain’s cost!"
"Elon Musk wants to sell the Twitter/X handle for more money than it took Acquire to buy the domain name Acquire.com!"

The evidence we have is that the owner of acquire.com alleges to have been offered the handle @acquire for $250,000 and rejected it.

Regardless if that's the truth or just another publicity stunt, he at the very least doesn't mention Elon Musk. While the article quite explicitly does.

 

[MKA]

So you're saying the author of the article lied to us?
"Elon Musk wants more for the account than the domain’s cost!"
"Elon Musk wants to sell the Twitter/X handle for more money than it took Acquire to buy the domain name Acquire.com!"

Most likely, yes.

Regardless if that's the truth or just another publicity stunt, he at the very least doesn't mention Elon Musk. While the article quite explicitly does.

The article is clearly written to capitalize on popular keywords. That's why Musk's name is in there. But that's not particularly relevant.

What is relevant is whether Twitter is offering unused handles for exorbitant fees.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

I don't even need to check the link but I know this is a domainwang article.

It's clear that MicroAcquiredeserves to own the handle

By what measure? There are loads of companies that use that name.

I have seen the acquire.com guy replying to every tweet that comes down the track with pointless stuff trying to get his attention. He should get a life. It's an X handle, move on. He should have chosen a brandable name instead of something so generic imho then he'd have had more of a chance of getting the handle via a TM claim.

 

[pb]

What is relevant is whether Twitter is offering unused handles for exorbitant fees.

Ultimately, yes. But we still don't know that, it's just alleged, and depends on the word of a guy who has publicly lied about a similar matter before and has skin in the game. I'll wait for an official confirmation, doesn't even have to be from Musk.