Unstoppable Domains — Expired Auctions

discuss Being lazy can cost you money

SpaceshipSpaceship
Watch
Impact
4,658
4
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
AfternicAfternic
This isn't lazy, it's questioning your gut. Had @equity78 never questioned his gut, I'm positive that he'd be out a lot more than ~$9000.

For the most part, you only succeed by going with your gut, ie, not purchasing a name. This article is misleading in the fact had you always followed your gut, or never been lazy as so put, you'd be rolling in the dough. This is simply not true.
 
0
•••
missionmark.com is now some site to help contractors get bids in on gov jobs.
 
0
•••
This isn't lazy, it's questioning your gut. Had @equity78 never questioned his gut, I'm positive that he'd be out a lot more than ~$9000.

For the most part, you only succeed by going with your gut, ie, not purchasing a name. This article is misleading in the fact had you always followed your gut, or never been lazy as so put, you'd be rolling in the dough. This is simply not true.

That wasn't what I said in anyway and not quite sure where the hell you got $9,000 ? Lazy cost me money on Texting.io and MissionMark.com. Had nothing to do with gut. Texting.io the place to sell was Flippa not Namepros it was just laziness on my part. No one talked about rolling in any dough, two examples that were not about rolling they were about laziness on my part.
 
Last edited:
4
•••
That wasn't what I said in anyway and not quite sure where the hell you got $9,000
Sorry, that's the message I got when you said you passed over multiple opportunities, not being lazy.

And, I got the ~$9000 through quick math on mobile (hard to multitask and add correctly) adding up what the domains ultimately sold for
 
0
•••
Sorry, that's the message I got when you said you passed over multiple opportunities, not being lazy.

And, I got the ~$9000 through quick math on mobile (hard to multitask and add correctly) adding up what the domains ultimately sold for

XLmedia.com sold for $6,000 that was not about being lazy I did not see that drop that was more about consistency. I had not checked the normal things I do for about a week. I would have bid that up as I have gone after every LLmedia.com I have seen at auction if I was around during the auction.

MissionMark.com was lazy because I just procrastinated each day looking for the name to go lower.
 
1
•••
MissionMark.com was lazy because I just procrastinated each day looking for the name to go lower.
Again, to reiterate, that's not the message I got. It was you questioning whether it was worth $20, $15, $10, etc., eg, going with your gut and not pulling the trigger.

Going with your gut, in this scenario, cost you... but, to many, it'll cost them by always following their gut and buying.
 
0
•••
Again, to reiterate, that's not the message I got. It was you questioning whether it was worth $20, $15, $10, etc., eg, going with your gut and not pulling the trigger.

Going with your gut, in this scenario, cost you... but, to many, it'll cost them by always following their gut and buying.

Fair enough, but no on MissionMark.com if it was alone and a buy it now thread for $50. I would have purchased, the complacency was looking at the thread, doing other things at the same time, seeing so many names and thinking no one will pick my name. It was just laziness on my part. I ended up taking the 50 at salvage because I knew I could get that money back right away. At $15 you are right you can't do that all the time I would not have paid $1,000 or $750. If you have 100 gut feelings on random names then that can cost you some money.
 
1
•••
But hey, maybe we're both saying the same thing, and I'm misunderstanding: procrastination (lazy, as you put) can cost you both ways, lost opportunity and financially if your gut was wrong.

Being lazy, in my opinion, is one way to make money. Not to get into politics or anything, but, it's easier to collect a paycheck being lazy.

I think the message was lost when you used lazy, as you see, there are stronger definitions for that.

Procrastination to get a better price, as put earlier, would've been better... but still arguable as one should never impulse buy. Or in other words, they should procrastinate a little – to a degree – to get a better picture of what they're getting themselves into.
 
0
•••
Well yes sometimes we get lazy I guess, other times we are just busy. And sometimes we just have better things to do. No problem with losing some money.
 
2
•••
Well yes sometimes we get lazy I guess, other times we are just busy. And sometimes we just have better things to do. No problem with losing some money.

Absolutely, and that is why I did not mention anyone else other than myself. You can be out, or doing other things. Not listing Texting.io on Flippa was laziness on my part I was not out saving the world or having a good time. Same thing with MissionMark.com I was not on the fence I knew I wanted the domain, I just procrastinated too long.
 
1
•••
I am reading the chart on DNBolt.com last month and I see MissionMark.com sold for what I think was $2,195 I don’t remember the exact but that’s close. I thought damn, you lazy idiot, all you had to do was post sold at $15.

I literally laughed about myself on that part.

Anyways, thanks for that read. You just reminded us why big numbers for 90% will be only tale stories -- just because of the simple reason they do not get up their arses.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Well yes sometimes we get lazy I guess, other times we are just busy. And sometimes we just have better things to do. No problem with losing some money.
Agree with you @Asfas1000
 
0
•••
The keyword here is consistency. Can't emphasize this enough.
Consistency.
 
0
•••
Thank you! Good read. This article just puts you in a conundrum that every domainer faces:

Impulse Buy vs Patience Buy
 
0
•••
CatchedCatched

We're social

Escrow.com
Spaceship
Rexus Domain
CryptoExchange.com
Domain Recover
CatchDoms
DomainEasy — Live Options
DomDB
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back