Dynadot

information .LINK binge progress

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

ThatNameGuy

Top Member
Impact
3,243
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 :xf.wink:

Curious anyone? Lets have some fun(y)
 
1
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Like our friend Mad About Domains said, ".link does exactly the same as .com" You need only replace the the .link with .gives and you get the same result.
I repeated what you said and gave caveats to it.
 
2
•••
".hiphop does exactly the same as .link" You need only replace the the .hiphop with .link and you get the same result.
Duh:xf.rolleyes:....is that all you got Mon Frere:xf.wink:
 
0
•••
I repeated what you said and gave caveats to it.

I repeated what you said and gave caveats to it.
MAD....i can tell you're rather intrigued by all this. The FACT that you and a few more of my critics have acknowledged there's zero technical difference between .link and .com speaks volumes. Just a quick story how buying TossUp.link led me to hand registering TossUpSports(.)com and TossUpCasino(.)com. Now this might not be a big deal to you across the pond, but it's my opinion these two domains are worth six figures apiece. Last i checked there's probably more money in sports and entertainment/gambling then there is in healthcare.....what do you think MAD?
 
0
•••
I'm guessing you went to the site to see what i was referring to? I don't know what they paid for PingPong.gives, but again you missed the point Joe. Like our friend Mad About Domains said, ".link does exactly the same as .com" You need only replace the the .link with .gives and you get the same result.

I know you're doing your best to discredit me Joe, but you should know by now it's a hard job. My advice to you is to try and be a bit more open minded. Don't you just envy the opportunity I have to teach potential "end users" just how fu*ked up the domain industry truly is.....and to think I have Verisign on my side :unsure:
It's actually you who missed the point: it doesn't matter that they do the same thing. As a domain investor (which you are), all that matters is what someone will pay you for your names. I'm glad the ping pong site worked out well, but I bet that charity paid reg fee for their domain name.
 
Last edited:
3
•••
.HIPHOP is no worse than .LINK

;)

Brad
 
Last edited:
1
•••
a lot of these 2 worders are bad investments even at $2 imo.

get a refund on millennial news and those types.
 
3
•••
.link is way worse than .com

make sure your word to the left of the dot works with the word to the right of the dot.

as far as .link goes, are you using it for short for hyperlink? like you are giving someone a hyperlink to a website? .to is nicer for this.
 
2
•••
.link is way worse than .com

make sure your word to the left of the dot works with the word to the right of the dot.

as far as .link goes, are you using it for short for hyperlink? like you are giving someone a hyperlink to a website? .to is nicer for this.
Maybe you'll understand this a little better;

Link in Bio

"Perhaps the most significant opportunity for .link is to take advantage of the market for “link in bio” services. Users of many social media platforms use these services to link out to their online destinations: other social media pages, websites, etc.

It’s a big market. LinkTree, just one of many large competitors in the space, has 27 million users.

TechCrunch in an article about LinkTree’s latest funding round (valuing it at $1.3 billion), “Who would’ve thought that an entire swath of startups would spring up all because Instagram, TikTok and Twitter only let you link to one website in your bio?”

Users of these services end up with a subdomain or, worse, a subdirectory on the main domain of these services.

.Link would like to partner with link in bio services to let them offer second level .link domains instead. It also sees opportunity with link shorteners.

With .link sold exclusively through registrars, this could create an opportunity for the company’s registrars.

.Link also wants registrars to rethink the typical onboarding of customers. Today, the typical flow is that someone registers a domain to create a website. This involves a lot of work, even though website-building platforms have made it much easier in recent years. There’s a reason people decide to just create a Facebook page instead of a website.

What if registrars helped customers establish a simple web presence with a link in bio page?

“I think link in bio is going to be even bigger than websites as a whole, as a category,” Belousov said. “People thought everybody would have a blog. But instead, everybody has a Twitter account, right? Why? Because it’s way easier. And it’s kind of like a micro-level version of a blog. So the link in bio thing is, in my opinion, the same thing to websites as a Twitter account is to blogs.”

Liley pointed out that a link in bio account is a low-friction entry point for new customers. Registrars that onboard customers with a service like this could then upsell other products and services.

“In a nutshell, we would like to see .link become the de facto standard in anything link-related,” Liley said. “So that could be link in bio. It can be link shorteners and branded links.”

The company does not plan to offer competing services to link in bio and shorteners but instead to supply them with .link domains through registrars."

Link in Bio

Perhaps the most significant opportunity for .link is to take advantage of the market for “link in bio” services. Users of many social media platforms use these services to link out to their online destinations: other social media pages, websites, etc.

It’s a big market. LinkTree, just one of many large competitors in the space, has 27 million users.

TechCrunch in an article about LinkTree’s latest funding round (valuing it at $1.3 billion), “Who would’ve thought that an entire swath of startups would spring up all because Instagram, TikTok and Twitter only let you link to one website in your bio?”

Users of these services end up with a subdomain or, worse, a subdirectory on the main domain of these services.

.Link would like to partner with link in bio services to let them offer second level .link domains instead. It also sees opportunity with link shorteners.

With .link sold exclusively through registrars, this could create an opportunity for the company’s registrars.

.Link also wants registrars to rethink the typical onboarding of customers. Today, the typical flow is that someone registers a domain to create a website. This involves a lot of work, even though website-building platforms have made it much easier in recent years. There’s a reason people decide to just create a Facebook page instead of a website.

What if registrars helped customers establish a simple web presence with a link in bio page?

“I think link in bio is going to be even bigger than websites as a whole, as a category,” Belousov said. “People thought everybody would have a blog. But instead, everybody has a Twitter account, right? Why? Because it’s way easier. And it’s kind of like a micro-level version of a blog. So the link in bio thing is, in my opinion, the same thing to websites as a Twitter account is to blogs.”

Liley pointed out that a link in bio account is a low-friction entry point for new customers. Registrars that onboard customers with a service like this could then upsell other products and services.

“In a nutshell, we would like to see .link become the de facto standard in anything link-related,” Liley said. “So that could be link in bio. It can be link shorteners and branded links.”

The company does not plan to offer competing services to link in bio and shorteners but instead to supply them with .link domains through registrars.
 
0
•••
It's actually you who missed the point: it doesn't matter that they do the same thing. As a domain investor (which you are), all that matters is what someone will pay you for your names. I'm glad the ping pong site worked out well, but I bet that charity paid reg fee for their domain name.
Joe....regardless of who missed the point, "end users" could give a rats arse what you think, and so could i :xf.rolleyes:

I get it....you'd opt for yourself or recommend to your client to pay $75,000 for DomainConsulting.com instead of $750 to $7,500 for DomainConsulting.link that according to you and everyone else in the domain industry does the exact same thing:xf.rolleyes:
 
0
•••
MAD....i can tell you're rather intrigued by all this. The FACT that you and a few more of my critics have acknowledged there's zero technical difference between .link and .com speaks volumes. Just a quick story how buying TossUp.link led me to hand registering TossUpSports(.)com and TossUpCasino(.)com. Now this might not be a big deal to you across the pond, but it's my opinion these two domains are worth six figures apiece. Last i checked there's probably more money in sports and entertainment/gambling then there is in healthcare.....what do you think MAD?
Unfortunately "toss" has negative connotations here across the pond. It's essentially rude... We call people tosspots, tossers so it wouldn't be my first choice, even if tossup is a flip of a coin. It would end up being called tossersports or something once people start losing their hard earned money.
 
1
•••
Joe....regardless of who missed the point, "end users" could give a rats arse what you think, and so could i :xf.rolleyes:

I get it....you'd opt for yourself or recommend to your client to pay $75,000 for DomainConsulting.com instead of $750 to $7,500 for DomainConsulting.link that according to you and everyone else in the domain industry does the exact same thing:xf.rolleyes:
Actually, I'd recommend that they either:
  1. Pay up for the .com to secure the organic traffic, the brand protection, and the authority; or
  2. Pay less for the ccTLD to get the same as the above on a smaller scale; or
  3. Pay registration fee for one of the dozens of new generic TLDs that work with the name, because they all do the exact same thing.
Get it now?
 
0
•••
The FACT that you and a few more of my critics have acknowledged there's zero technical difference between .link and .com speaks volumes.
Rich, everyone acknowledges that. It's a commonly known fact. Stop beating the poor straw man dead horse.

What's incomprehensible to me is that after 5 years doing this, you still haven't figured out why .com sells more volume for higher prices, and why only premium (usually short, single-word) terms have any value in new TLD extensions.
 
3
•••
Regarding link in bio, it's an idea but I would think that for it to have any significance it would need to be a well known domain that screams "this is a site containing many links". People recognise that linktr.ee and others are a link to other links in a consistent format.

So the circumstance that we need is that people either recognise a single .link domain or a the entire extension as the source for useful grouped links (links.link or .links for it to make more sense). The former, fine, the latter... Less likely because everyone would need to create their own site, or pay for hosting or have some technical know-how to point their domain to a service that provides the service simply.

The whole beauty of linktr.ee is it's consistency and ease of creation... I feel It wouldn't have succeeded if it weren't for these key ingredients.

You're right that it is a phenomenon born out of restrictions of other services but the ship had sailed imho.
 
0
•••
I have not read this whole thread.

Richard... you seriously need to STOP buying domains and purchase a NameBio subscription.

You can also read through Reported Domain Sales thread or see DNJournal.
 
2
•••
I have not read this whole thread.

Richard... you seriously need to STOP buying domains and purchase a NameBio subscription.

You can also read through a domain sales thread or see DNJournal.
Oh sir....I've had a Namebio subscription for years and i also follow domain sales. My real strength is being able to read between the lines :xf.wink:
 
0
•••
Regarding link in bio, it's an idea but I would think that for it to have any significance it would need to be a well known domain that screams "this is a site containing many links". People recognise that linktr.ee and others are a link to other links in a consistent format.

So the circumstance that we need is that people either recognise a single .link domain or a the entire extension as the source for useful grouped links (links.link or .links for it to make more sense). The former, fine, the latter... Less likely because everyone would need to create their own site, or pay for hosting or have some technical know-how to point their domain to a service that provides the service simply.

The whole beauty of linktr.ee is it's consistency and ease of creation... I feel It wouldn't have succeeded if it weren't for these key ingredients.

You're right that it is a phenomenon born out of restrictions of other services but the ship had sailed imho.
MAD....this is an excellent response to the new owners plan(s) for "Link In Bio". Some of my very best investments have been in "people" who are smarter than me who I trust. The new owners of .LINK have been working very hard behind the scenes to bring their ideas to fruition, and I have it from a reliable source their plans will be unveiled in the next 30 days. Thanks again MAD(y)
 
0
•••
Rich, everyone acknowledges that. It's a commonly known fact. Stop beating the poor straw man dead horse.

What's incomprehensible to me is that after 5 years doing this, you still haven't figured out why .com sells more volume for higher prices, and why only premium (usually short, single-word) terms have any value in new TLD extensions.
But Joe.....it's NOT a fact among end users, and "everyone acknowledges that". WOW, this really has gone over your head:xf.wink:
 
0
•••
Unfortunately "toss" has negative connotations here across the pond. It's essentially rude... We call people tosspots, tossers so it wouldn't be my first choice, even if tossup is a flip of a coin. It would end up being called tossersports or something once people start losing their hard earned money.
"Unfortunately toss has negative connotations here across the pond" MAD, i wasn't aware of that at all. If anyone here in America says "this game is a TossUp", it means it can go either way, and it's a common phrase understood by sports fans. It's because so many sportsfans are also gamblers that I registered TossUpCasino.com to go with TossUpSports.

Thanks for your input MAD, it's well meaning and it puts a slight damper on my plans, but ever so slight:xf.smile:
 
0
•••
But Joe.....it's NOT a fact among end users, and "everyone acknowledges that". WOW, this really has gone over your head:xf.wink:
So you think the primary reason end users aren't buying .link is because they don't think they can use it like a domain name...?
 
2
•••
MAD....this is an excellent response to the new owners plan(s) for "Link In Bio". Some of my very best investments have been in "people" who are smarter than me who I trust. The new owners of .LINK have been working very hard behind the scenes to bring their ideas to fruition, and I have it from a reliable source their plans will be unveiled in the next 30 days. Thanks again MAD(y)
Oh good. Where should I look for the updates so I can look out for it and identify them.
 
0
•••
Oh good. Where should I look for the updates so I can look out for it and identify them.
MAD....i'll do my best to keep you and this MB apprised of updates when they become available. To give you and others a little something to chew on....think of the possibilities behind a name like Nursing.link, especially considering there are over 27M nurses worldwide.
 
0
•••
So you think the primary reason end users aren't buying .link is because they don't think they can use it like a domain name...?
Joe...."end users" aren't buying .link YET, but i think you and Brad are starting to catch on especially with regards to "Link in Bio" Your thoughts on Nursing.link? How about CellTherapy.link? ......how does this compare to TCRtherapy.com....give it your best shot Mon Frere:xf.smile:
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Joe...."end users" aren't buying .link YET, but i think you and Brad are starting to catch on especially with regards to "Link in Bio" Your thoughts on Nursing.link? How about CellTherapy.link? ......how does this compare to TCRtherapy....give it your best shot Mon Frere:xf.smile:
Looks like we're changing topics. So in summary, your primary reason for valuing .link is because it can be used the same as any other domain names, but end users are not aware of this. Your opinion is that when end users are properly educated, they will prefer .link over .com for cheaper (albeit still inflated) prices.

Nursing is a decent keyword. I think that name is worth hanging onto as an investment as long as the renewal is not premium.

CellTherapy is not good with .link. It's not a high value term, and as a two word new TLD it's unlikely to sell for anything more than reg fee.

My TCRtherapy name is extremely speculative, but I do like owning the authoritative term for that developing medical technology in .com.
 
2
•••
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?
 
Last edited:
5
•••
Looks like we're changing topics. So in summary, your primary reason for valuing .link is because it can be used the same as any other domain names, but end users are not aware of this. Your opinion is that when end users are properly educated, they will prefer .link over .com for cheaper (albeit still inflated) prices.

Nursing is a decent keyword. I think that name is worth hanging onto as an investment as long as the renewal is not premium.

CellTherapy is not good with .link. It's not a high value term, and as a two word new TLD it's unlikely to sell for anything more than reg fee.

My TCRtherapy name is extremely speculative, but I do like owning the authoritative term for that developing medical technology in .com.
My TCRtherapy name is extremely speculative as well, but i see where you're asking $150,000 for yours @ DAN. As you may recall I'm pretty well connected to the medical services industry, and in particular psychiatric health.

You said, "Your opinion is that when end users are properly educated, they will prefer .link over .com for cheaper (albeit still inflated) prices." That's a LIE Joe and you know it....i said that .link is a "viable alternative" to .com for a variety of reasons. And Joe...what about "Link in Bio"....what's wrong, cat got your tongue:xf.cool:
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back