No need to insult to make a point, the elephant in the room is alleged companies paying $100k+ for an xyz domain that is super unknown and uncommon, I don't see the justification for that and neither do Tiptop domainers like Mike Mann , yet here we have you Mr.alienbaba have it all figured out. That is why they had "Swetha" verify "her" "sales", it is not clear to anyone what's going on.
Sorry for the insults. I was channeling my inner domain king Rick persona..
The company that paid Mike Mann $300,000 for digitalartists.com in 2021 is the same type of company paying 5 figures for .xyz & .eth domains, or buying monkey jpegs & fidenzas for 6 figures, or trading millions on dog coins. Hope that answers your question..
So your argument is that because a "tiptop domainer" like Mike or Rick make up some theories, it's true? And you'll just believe it rather than doing your own investigation?
Mike and Rick have a right to their opinion about .xyz being ugly or whatever, and they have been very vocal about their hate for anything that is not .com. But they did not bother to research into the typical end user buying Swetha's .xyz names for these prices before leading the witchhunt of saying the sales are fake..
The argument against Swetha initially was "I think .xyz is ugly/spam, so it is 100% impossible for anyone to pay 5 figures for an xyz".
When shown 5 figure sales from companies like twitter, paramount etc they changed to "Yeah some sales might be real but most are fake and didn't actually happen".
When Swetha let namebio login to her afternic to verify ALL reported sale transactions actually happened they changed to "Swetha doesn't actually exist. An indian woman couldn't have written in English like this. It is Daniel Negari in disguise buying from himself".
When shown developed sites they changed to "Yeah some sales are real and Daniel Negari actually used his massive influence to trick rich crypto investors into buying .xyz"
When told that even some of Mike Mann's .com reported 5 figure sales haven't been developed and it's actually a common thing, their argument turns to crickets..
The more evidence is shown, the more deranged the arguments get..