information .LINK binge progress

[ThatNameGuy]

Sorry to have to start another thread regarding .LINK, but i wasn't able to answer questions "if" there was a "link" of any kind in the text of the post/message I was responding to.

I was able to hand register slightly more than a thousand names with about 20 of them being "Premium" names that sold for $116 each, and one that I purchased for $478, the corresponding .com is valued at $8,800,000.

Since a host of individuals have confirmed that, ".LINK is no worse than .XYZ", I just knew .link was a good alternative to .com and a good rival for .xyz

Curious anyone? Lets have some fun

 

[Joe N]

I didn't miss the point Joe.....so you don't think someone/anyone who understands the "dollar store" business model is capable of developing an "online" site selling product for a dollar they pay just .25 to .30 cents for?

Joe....i'm sure you're not the guy to do it, but someone like Macon Brock who was labeled the Sam Walton of the dollar world certainly could. btw, here are a few more .link domains I just picked up for $2;

DollarDeal(s).link - pretty catchy, huh

DollarWine.link - Oh....did i tell you about "dollar wine" Joe?

You did miss the point. You're here promoting .link names and arguing that you could make a .link site #1 in a relevant Google search if you throw enough money at it. Well anyone can do that with any domain name, and it has no bearing on the quality or desirability of the extension.

What is relevant is that no one is throwing that kind of money behind .link names, because they are an inferior choice. If you have that kind of money, you buy a .com, or maybe settle for a ccTLD.

What you're doing here, Rich, is gambling. There's no savvy involved, no matter how much you name-drop. Maybe you'll win the lottery like a few .xyz investors did, but even if you do you'll have all these dead weight two word names that cost two dollars precisely because that's all people are willing to pay for them.

I'm not down on .link or anything. As far as new extensions go, it's fine. I just think it's ridiculous to pump its tires to this degree and talk in circles about projects that will never get off the ground.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

here's what our friend and domain analyst Bob Hawke's had to say about .link;

"I had not heard until your post that the new owners of .link had been announced, finally. Good to hear one is a successful domain investor. In my view .link was by far the most valuable of the auctioned TLDs from the former Uniregistry. I hope the new owners will manage the TLD well."

Just to place this quote in context, I do think, as it says, .link was the best of the former Uniregistry TLDs that were auctioned, simply because it is so much broader in potential applications compared to say .hiphop or .Christmas, and and many of the other auctioned TLDs, and has wider use than .click which is most similar. I personally prefer the sound of .link to .click.

Please be sure to read correctly my quotation, from a private email, not an article or analysis: a comparison with the other recently auctioned TLDs. It was not some overall endorsement of .link in general.

I hold a few .link names (less than 20), I will continue to do so. I am not increasing my holdings in .link right now. If I notice a great combination without a premium price tag, it is not a big investment to try it for a year or two.

I am glad that apparently the new registry owner has domain expertise, and I do hope the TLD will do well. We will see.

I do like the sound of many expressions with .link. I see most obvious use as trade directories, reference sites, collaborations, travel-related resources, marketplaces, etc. The only .link I sold personally ended up for a game site, however.

Probably all the legal business over eth .link of late (owner not allowed to renew while in jail, allowed to expire and auction at huge price, then legal order to return domain, and now back in use as a redirection site for decentralized domain names on web) will make people notice the TLD, although not sure overall good publicity. The issue could have arisen with any TLD, just happened to be link, but general public may not see that.

I may at some point do an analysis of .link. I have not done so up to now, other than it is one TLD I look at in my annual check.

Bob

 

[Joe N]

Joe....you're spot on While awaiting financing our "users group" is already underway. We have a "staffing organization" and a "healthcare group" as part of our team. With names like Nursing.xxxx and GreenJobs.xxxx, you may want to indulge yourself to see how much Buckley Media is asking for GreenJobs.com and then get back to me......think Risk vs. Reward Joe

In keeping with the topic of this thread I just hand registered Sharktooth™.link to compliment Sharktooth®.club. Any idea why I might do this Joe? Do you have any shark teeth in Canada

Canada's famous for its sharks, Rich. I can't believe you didn't know that.

Well done creating that users group! Even if no one on NP has ever seen it, I'm sure it exists.

 

[Joe N]

Now the real work begins starting with building a few websites like DomainMarketplace.link and NameShop.link, and bringing on a partner who can help blowout .LINK like it deserves. Again, thanks for your kind words.

There's that partner talk again... We all know that's code for "someone to do the work for me for free".

If you believe in what you're selling, and you have the money to invest in thousands of domains, just pay someone to build you a quality site.

It takes money to make money, Rich. Business 101. But you know that.

 

[bmugford]

Please be sure to read correctly my quotation, from a private email, not an article or analysis: a comparison with the other recently auctioned TLDs. It was not some overall endorsement of .link in general.

I assumed you stated this publicly somewhere.

To use something that was said privately in an email as a public endorsement is kind of messed up.

Brad

 

[biggie]

Please be sure to read correctly my quotation, from a private email, not an article or analysis: a comparison with the other recently auctioned TLDs. It was not some overall endorsement of .link in general.

Hi
Thank You for clarifying that your private email was not an endorsement.
as the same quote, word for word, was posted 8/19 on another forum implying that you were.
additionally, you were mentioned in a post on 6/3, in which your name was used in association with this subject.

the real always exposes itself, so i waited until it manifested.

of course i know the deal, but those who half-read and don't or will not question... will consume and therefore assume.


imo...

 

[bmugford]

That's where you're wrong Broth, "the average consumer" relates more to "link" in that's it's actually a "keyword" and "com", "org" "IO" and "XYZ" aren't even words

Isn't it about time you start making your pitch to end users?

Instead you waste time here pitching .link to other domain investors.

Isn't your mantra "make something happen"? So do it already.

Brad

 

[D Haynes]

I feel like you could just write Bulloney's posts with an AI script at this point.

Start with a little name dropping.

Mix in how you are so great with some accomplishments from decades ago, all of which are irrelevant to domain investing.

Throw in a few catch phrases like "Stay tuned. ", or "much to your chagrin", "Au Contriare Mon Frere", ".link is no worse than .com", etc.

Then you are all set.

Brad

At this point I have to wonder if we're all being had by a boss level troll. I mean if he's not a troll he should be cos he has a strong game!

 

[enterscope]

Chain.Link is a fun one.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

That's because .LINK is no worse than .com

I'm not seeing any good reasons for buying these names, but I wish you luck anyway

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Do you even know what a "users group" is or represents? How about $2.19? (speaking of wallet restraint)

If you don't know I'd suggest you learn, or at least be open minded enough to say that you don't know.

Here are a few more i'll be registering later today;

QHomes.link
QBoats.link
MyApology.link

in case you weren't aware the "Q" stands for quality as in "Quality Homes"

ps. most of the really good single word .link domains have already been registered, but many two word domains are still available.

When you have to explain what a domain means, it's a problem for me.

 

[Joe N]

Do you know how many nursing schools and nurses there are in the world?....how about just Canada?

In Canada? A lot less than there used to be!

I know you won't check it out, but it's pretty damn important if you're to play in my game

The game of a multi-national, rain-making domain tycoon? That's but a pipe dream for me, Rich.

No... my meagre skills and paltry imagination have condemned me to a life of mediocrity that carries over into my domaining career. Alas, I must settle for but a few sales per year, and nary an opportunity to change the domain industry for the betterment of mankind. I leave that to the doers... the dreamers... dare I say, the Domain Heroes (TM, patent pending, all rights reserved).

 

[bmugford]

"One does not have any influence over the other" - Oh contraire mon fraire....did i say .link and .com are "worth the same"? A buddy of mine drives a Bentley that cost him 250K and i drive a Ford Escape that i paid 30K for. We both use our vehicles for "transportation", and as close as i can tell they both accomplish the same mission. MAD, and you're telling me one does not have any influence over the other

Rolex is a watch brand.
Timex is a watch brand.

They both tell time.

One costs tens of thousands of dollars.
The other cost tens of dollars.

It is not just about "function".

If that was true then .hiphop or .horse is just as good as .link. They function the same way afterall.

Rolex = .com
Timex = .link

Brad

 

[Joe N]

You're finally catching on Brad.....what you fail to realize is there's a HUGE market for fake Rolex's, and who better to sell fake Rolex's than

The very very important difference is that with domain names, people can get their own "fake rolex's" for the exact same price that you're paying for them. Why would they pay you a mark-up for your piece of crap when they can get their own piece of crap for the same $2 you paid?

 

[Shackleton]

Do you even know what a "users group" is or represents? How about $2.19? (speaking of wallet restraint)

If you don't know I'd suggest you learn, or at least be open minded enough to say that you don't know.

Here are a few more i'll be registering later today;

QHomes.link
QBoats.link
MyApology.link

in case you weren't aware the "Q" stands for quality as in "Quality Homes"

ps. most of the really good single word .link domains have already been registered, but many two word domains are still available.

Hey @ThatNameGuy. Quick! Hurry! MHome.link and MBoat.link are still available.

In case you weren't aware the "M" stands for "My", as in "My Home" and "My Boat".

 

[DrJacoby]

Rich, much to your chagrin, .horse is no worse than .link.

Have you heard about horses Rich? It's a multi-billion dollar industry, mon frere.

When end users find out about .horse, .link (and .com) is dead in the water. Time for another binge-buying spree Rich?

 

[MadAboutDomains]

At this point I have to wonder if we're all being had by a boss level troll. I mean if he's not a troll he should be cos he has a strong game!

The only hole I can see in the theory is that AI would be intelligent enough based on the available data not to risk much capital on .link though.

 

[SuperBrander]

Too bad there isn't a .guy extension. First of all, owning thatname.guy would be cool. And second of all, do you know how many guys there are in the world? A lot! And combined they have a ridiculous amount of money. Ooh, I have an even better idea. A .face extension. Everybody has a face so there's even more untapped money there. Have you ever heard of Facebook?

On a more serious note... people who read your threads hopefully understand that what you've been doing these past few years isn't domain investing. There are domains and money involved but the "logic" you apply is based on misconceptions and the false notion that your previous business experience has anything to do with investing wisely in domains. The money you're paying for domains is providing you with entertainment and endless material to post/talk about. That's it. All in all, it's a great investment for you. Having so much fun, having a sense of purpose late in life and having an excuse to rehash stories about your life and discuss new worthless domains and their immense potential on a daily basis, both online and offline (including to some poor people you run into who know little about domains so they mistakenly think you actually know what you're talking about), is clearly worth a few thousands bucks a year to you.

You wrote that your .link domains have considerable value on paper. Says who? You? Based on what? Your naming experience that includes... naming your own companies and buying thousands of .online and .whatever just to drop them? That .link extension though. This one's gonna be the one. Because... hmmm... someone said that it isn't worse than .xyz. And hmmm... it's cheap (risk/reward!). And... hmmm... LinkedIn. And... hmm... (insert industry name here)'s a billion dollar industry. To the moon!

Glad I could contribute a bit and make your .link investment a little bit more worthwhile with this engagement.

p.s. Chagrin.com is available for $18,800. You're truly the perfect end user.

 

[SuperBrander]

By the way @ThatNameGuy, I'd be happy to eat my words in the future if .link rises. Hell, .xyz ended up surprising everyone. But IMO because you seem to only operate based on instincts rather than taking the time to learn and understand the kinds of names that are worth investing in, many of your .link domains will be worthless even if the extension reinvents itself and becomes popular. You might have some winners (likely some of the premium ones you're buying), but if you'd study sales in other extensions and be more open to the possibility that every day is an opportunity to learn, you'll probably make better decisions that'll better position you in the event .link starts producing significant sales on a regular basis.

 

[D Haynes]

Whenever an extension is a single word it limits the domains logical use cases unless it's generic.

So a .link obvious use case is some kind of link portal or directory maybe or as a contact/get in touch page. There's probably a few brandable hacks that could be used as a more generic use case as well.

I'd say there are quite a few other extensions with more use cases than link but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[ThatNameGuy]

I like .link, which changed its owner this year, I think it is an extension in line with the spirit of the Internet. Earlier this year, we confirmed the large amount transaction about link.link, which is encouraging.

Although according the information of namepros, the trading volume of link has not increased significantly, and the registration volume is also very stable. I choose to invest in .link and .xyz. I think they both have opportunities in the future.

Thanks DN.....probably the biggest reason I'm binge buying .link domains is because of the change of ownership. The other reason is that I've been able to buy "Premium" domains like Comedy.xxxx and Invest.xxxx for just $116, and single word domains that are almost "Premium" for just $2.39. It boggles my mind that these domains are even available, and it feels as though I've discovered gold

I see where you own VIP.link that makes for an excellent domain, especially when SAW appraises VIP.com for $2,700,000 and you learn where the .com takes you. It's this sort of information that makes VIP.link a lot more valuable imo.

I have more info about the new owners of .link I'd like to share with you, but I have to run. Thanks again DN.

 

[Zanok]

so what do you think is happening with the new registry that owns .LINK?

"mums" been the word ever since i announced i was binging on .LINK domains? Of the 1,200 domains i own, most of them had been registered by by Schilling and his minions in 2014 and dropped by 2017. As an example, check out Hollywood.link @Hosterstats where you'll find Uniregistry registered it in April 2017 and it was "deleted" in August of 2017 not to be registered again until today.

jim h.....i can't help but think there's a HUGE opportunity here and that's why I've been accumulating .LINK. What do you think? Thanks,

I would agree if there would be public data such as reported sales and total registrations that clearly shows there's a demand for .link domains.

You may close deals here and there, but you will inevitably lose money in the long run due to the fact that .link sales are possible, but very unlikely to happen.

Sad truth is that this extension is just not desirable enough to be sustainable from an investment standpoint.

 

[Joe N]

obviously you know nothing about the concept of risk vs. reward much less the naming of businesses. To show you just how screwed/fucked up this industry is you need to go no further than when Go Daddy sold me the domain Reservations.online for $5 (for which i have a receipt), then they took/stole it back from me and turned around and tried to sell it back to me for $500,000

And this isn't the only instance where similar things have happened.....Verisign, the monopoly that controls .com let the cat out of the bag a few years ago when they called out the secondary market for all their nefarious activities.

Fortunately Verisign is headquarted in my home state of Virginia/USA, and now that some of my legislators are in charge (Youngkin/Winsome/Miyaris), just maybe this industry can be called on the carpet to pay for their illegal and immoral and unethical behavior. What do you think?

That all seems relevant to me. Well done Rich. I think you have another home run on your hands.

 

[bmugford]

Just to place this quote in context, I do think, as it says, .link was the best of the former Uniregistry TLDs that were auctioned, simply because it is so much broader in potential applications compared to say .hiphop or .Christmas, and and many of the other auctioned TLDs, and has wider use than .click which is most similar. I personally prefer the sound of .link to .click.

Please be sure to read correctly my quotation, from a private email, not an article or analysis: a comparison with the other recently auctioned TLDs. It was not some overall endorsement of .link in general.

Yes, that is a pretty low bar.

Many, if not most, of the Uniregistry TLDs were niche like the ones Bob mentioned as well as .guitars, .tattoo, .blackfriday, etc.

Being the best of those is not some ringing endorsement.

Brad

 

[Joe N]

When you have to explain what a domain means, it's a problem for me.

What do you mean? People love non-intuitive brands! They're super accessible and desirable.

We can all hash it out in the new user group which is definitely being created. When Rich says he's going to do something, he does it! No false starts here, just 100% pure follow-through.