@namelancer Exceptions don't break the rule in business. This isn't a natural science.
Another point is you can say "x" will be always "y", to emphasize a business-economics rule, while you mean "usually" by "always". Because when something is usual (if an event or pattern is observed more), it's a rule business. Business, as a science, dictates choosing what most likely will happen, is way different than math, physics where a single occurrence of incompatible outcome or event can break the rule . So, I still defend the rules I stated even after you showed me exceptions (eth, 8888888 ) . To break a rule in business, you should show (should logically prove) incompatible events are the majority or the effect of exceptions (amount of money involved in the exceptions ) are majority (more than 50%).
I realized my initial response left much to be desired by way of explanation. I'll now attempt to demonstrate to you whether you main premise could hold the ground if viewed from a changed perspective.
To this effect, two major shape-shifters must be isolated to identify the core weaknesses :
1. Indeed, exceptions don't break the rule understood within the context of always having the meaning of usually, e, reaching and exceeding the 50 percent threshold of observed events. However, it can not be excluded from the realm of the possible, that by some fluke of design or human nature, there couldn't be accumulation of irregularities to the extent that they, en mass, would tip the scales of the reign by majority. Again, it's not probable, nor is it entirely impossible, given that we operate within the limited range of available options, ie. the constraints of registrations are limited to 63 characters in any given extension. Historically, we have had experience where certain extensions got their market valued altered by all sorts of restrictions, as was the case with Australian country code extension where for a long time people couldn't resell the registered domains in a straight-forward fashion (the loopholes were used instead where domain purchases came bundled with acquisition of a company owing the domain to circumvent then valid rule).
Another example is the ever changing ebbs and flows in movements regulating registration of some of the most desirable single and double digit extensions, with registries first allowing registration of rarities at the dawn of internet to discontinue the practice of new ownership for drops, unless it's done by mutual consent prior to expiry, with registries lining up at potentially appropriating deleted domains (the domains who have done their life-time of service) without legacy of passing the torch forward to the next generation.
A third example would be a particular flair gaining traction for booking domains with the number of digits corresponding to postal indexes or company registration numbers, etc.
Finally, one sees the rule-bending irregularities among 5L vs 6L .coms, with the latter selling for higher sums than their lesser counterparts in the pronounceable category. We could, with computational resources, further extrapolate similar data on dictionary/invented words in adjacent locations to look for pattern there..
To sum it up, evolution or restriction of utility for particular digits could bring about deflation in values. Should the number of irregularities reach a critical mass, they would be a force to be reckoned with in overcoming the default rule as stipulated in the source post. .
2. This point will be made in the spirit of making an appeal both to the law of large numbers and infinitely small numbers respectively.
.
Currently, the maximum domain length is 63 characters, while the minimum varies according to extensions (emoji excluded). Starting with comparison of 2N.com vs 3N.com and going on not ad infinity, but stopping somewhere under the 10N.com, the rule may very well hold (except for the real or hypothesized exceptions as noted above or in case of change in circumstances with regards to fluctuation in utility). But move out of the comfort zone, and out of the existing 63 possible N-ed digits, what would be the value of, let's say, 44N.com vs 47N.com ? Well, statistically speaking, 44 N is more scarce than 47 N, and so it's going to be attributed more gravitas. But in real terms of market valuations, would there be a discernible difference in value between these two domains in so far that one is going to be valued higher ? The answer is no, because while mathematically values among the two would be barely distinguishable, since they are separated by infinitesimally small fractions of numbers, their respective (market, e.g.) values would be just as infinitesimally small to make any difference to be perceptible (unless it's an all-seeing algorithm) to the bare eye . Because if the values are close to or are around zero, in market terms they would translate into the rounding up to zero as the financial windfall, or, if we are generous enough, amounting to a registration fee in the best of cases.
Total supply of 3N domains are 10 times of 2N
Total supply of 3L domains are 26 times of 2L (number of letters in English alphabet is 26)
Statistically, randomly chosen 2L will be more expensive than 3L. This is the rule I defend. There might be more exemptions than you showed. But the exemptions don't break this rule.
Actually, in your original statement, you argued for this tendency to be observable across the whole spectrum (from 1N(L), to 2N(L), to 3N(L),, to 4N(L), to 5N(L), etc up to the upper limit, which is now set at 63N(L), or presumed to be even valid for all potential increases in the number of characters) of domains available for registration. This increase in the number of characters, be it specifically numbers or, by implication, letters, is evident from your earlier post, as per :
There are 100 2N.com's, 1,000 3N.com's, 10,000 4N.com, 100,000 5N.com and so on. It's obvious 2N.com will be always more expensive than 3N, 4N, 5N ... domains.
