Value of Domain Hacks

[xman]

Here's my question..what is the value of domain hack? I've seen some good domain hack and i was wondering about the value of it. I myself own one and i'm not sure whether or not i should get more. I haven't seen any sale of domain hack. Why do we register domain hack? Is it because the domain looks cool or because there's a potential end user who's willing to buy such domain?

 

[united123]

encoura.ge

 

[Musta.ng]

Glad to see this update,
I'm Mustang, My personal website Musta.ng

 

[nam.es]

We (DomainHacks) are looking for brokers who have experience with ccTLDs and an understanding of domain hacks and their highly collectible value.
You can DM @DomainHacks on X or write me at: [email protected]
Commission up to 20% for sales above $50K. No exclusivity (EBA) unless you can give us guarantees.

 

[nam.es]

Domain hacks rarely sell, and to be frank: they're not really needed. It can be quirky to see a redirection to youtu.be, but no one is going to type that into their browser, so there's no practical use to them.


Absolutely not, because it's a subdomain of an incomplete word.

Bullsh.it

DH has made over $1.5M in sales (many published on Namebio) and plenty of companies have used hacks as their main names incl. unicorn startups that have been acquired for billions of $. There has also been a lengthy documentation made on x.com/domainhacks domainhacks.info and nami.ng throughout the years.

 

[Andreas B.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1838560278172307856

 

[MKA]

Bullsh.it

DH has made over $1.5M in sales (many published on Namebio) and plenty of companies have used hacks as their main names incl. unicorn startups that have been acquired for billions of $. There has also been a lengthy documentation made on x.com/domainhacks domainhacks.info and nami.ng throughout the years.

I've not seen them sell to any notable extent, and I've certainly not seen anyone of note use one for their main website domain.

And I'd need some evidence to verify your claim that you've made $1.5 million off domain hacks and what that number actually means in terms of time and ROI. Because anyone can make any claim, but if they can't verify it there's no reason for anyone to trust that claim.

And your x page is an unorganized mess of retweets, announcements, and ads, I don't see any domain hacks sold there, and I likewise can't find any sales documentation on domainshacks.info.

 

[Rade Veselinovic]

Respect
What are your thoughts on the domain name
cape.skin
Greeting

 

[InMy64]

Grabbed MyB.et a few weeks ago

 

[Lega.cy]

I've not seen them sell to any notable extent, and I've certainly not seen anyone of note use one for their main website domain.

And I'd need some evidence to verify your claim that you've made $1.5 million off domain hacks and what that number actually means in terms of time and ROI. Because anyone can make any claim, but if they can't verify it there's no reason for anyone to trust that claim.

And your x page is an unorganized mess of retweets, announcements, and ads, I don't see any domain hacks sold there, and I likewise can't find any sales documentation on domainshacks.info.

"I need some evidence to verify your claims" is such a bs and entitled attitude.

How about you start with the DomainSherpa episode in 2017 and the conversastion between Michael and Max on the topic of domain hacks. This was more than 7 years ago and I believe even back then Max was way into 6-figs worth of sales.

Or, you can simply check Namebio, filter for Domain Hacks, and see yourself that DH is very prominent in the top50 sales of all times (and those are just the reported ones).

 

[MKA]

"I need some evidence to verify your claims" is such a bs and entitled attitude.

No it's not, it's standard practice when dealing with dubious claims.

I check NameBio daily, and it's exceptionally rare to find a domain hack listed in the top ten sales of the day.

How about you start with the DomainSherpa episode in 2017 and the conversastion between Michael and Max on the topic of domain hacks. This was more than 7 years ago and I believe even back then Max was way into 6-figs worth of sales.

You're not referencing any relevant statement or specific episode.

I'm not going to do days worth of detective work going through a full year's worth of podcasts just to find some unspecified statement that you've likely taken out of context or misconstrued.

Or, you can simply check Namebio, filter for Domain Hacks, and see yourself that DH is very prominent in the top50 sales of all times (and those are just the reported ones).

There's no filter for domain hacks on NameBio.

 

[King]

I use domain hacks a lot for my companies, they're very valuable.

 

[MKA]

I use domain hacks a lot for my companies, they're very valuable.

What do you mean with "they're very valuable?" If you're using them then you're not selling them, so with "valuable" you have to refer to the value they produce for your businesses and if so, how? Moreover, how do you use them?

Anyone can throw around claims. But claims without any specification are worthless.

You might as well say "I have a .top domain, it gets so much more traffic than my .com." The implication here would be that the .top is more better than the .com (which is wrong), but the statement itself is unfalsifiable. There's not enough detail there to figure out if what's said is true or not, and if there are any external factors that are being omitted.

 

[Lega.cy]

No it's not, it's standard practice when dealing with dubious claims.

I check NameBio daily, and it's exceptionally rare to find a domain hack listed in the top ten sales of the day.


You're not referencing any relevant statement or specific episode.

I'm not going to do days worth of detective work going through a full year's worth of podcasts just to find some unspecified statement that you've likely taken out of context or misconstrued.


There's no filter for domain hacks on NameBio.

Rather than accusing me of misunderstanding things, and of "making up a Namebio filter", it would take less time than typing your reply, to:

1) copy and Google this one sentence where I referenced the exact episode: "DomainSherpa episode in 2017 and the conversastion between Michael and Max on the topic of domain hacks."

And you'd get the link to the full 60 min + episode purely on domain hacks

2) go to Namebio, filter for Category: Niche, Subcategory: Domain Hacks (yes, you can filter in Namebio for DH)

The fact that you'd rather spew nonsense tells me you're either completely clueless, or trolling.

Neither of which is someone I'd want to continue to engage with.

Happy with this exchange tho, as it showcases to people that you're not someone looking to engage in a productive discussion.

gl hf

 

[MKA]

Rather than accusing me of misunderstanding things, and of "making up a Namebio filter", it would take less time than typing your reply, to:

1) copy and Google this one sentence where I referenced the exact episode: "DomainSherpa episode in 2017 and the conversastion between Michael and Max on the topic of domain hacks."

And you'd get the link to the full 60 min + episode purely on domain hacks

If you found the link, why don't you post it with the appropriate timestamp?

You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

2) go to Namebio, filter for Category: Niche, Subcategory: Domain Hacks (yes, you can filter in Namebio for DH)

So it was hidden in a subcategory of a specific category. Fair enough.

So let's look at the most recent sales.

Seems to have a sales velocity of 4 domains per month with prices ranging from low three figures to mid five figures over a period of three months.

Statistically this a worse investment than .org, .net, .io, .ai., or even .tv.

The fact that you'd rather spew nonsense tells me you're either completely clueless, or trolling.

Neither of which is someone I'd want to continue to engage with.

Happy with this exchange tho, as it showcases to people that you're not someone looking to engage in a productive discussion.

Ironic. You equated a request for evidence with entitlement, and regardless of your gotcha-moment you've repeatedly dodged all my requests for evidence.

You don't have to engage with me, and you don't need any justification for doing so. But it's awfully convenient that you're storming out after a few requests for evidence.

That said, I will still engage with you at my leisure. So if you continue to provide what I perceive to be misinformation then I'll continue to correct you.

 

[Lega.cy]

If you found the link, why don't you post it with the appropriate timestamp?

You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.


So it was hidden in a subcategory of a specific category. Fair enough.

So let's look at the most recent sales.

Show attachment 264244

Seems to have a sales velocity of 4 domains per month with prices ranging from low three figures to mid five figures over a period of three months.

Statistically this a worse investment than .org, .net, .io, .ai., or even .tv.


Ironic. You equated a request for evidence with entitlement, and regardless of your gotcha-moment you've repeatedly dodged all my requests for evidence.

You don't have to engage with me, and you don't need any justification for doing so. But it's awfully convenient that you're storming out after a few requests for evidence.

That said, I will still engage with you at my leisure. So if you continue to misinform people I'll continue to correct you.

1) "You're not referencing any relevant statement or specific episode. I'm not going to do days worth of detective work going through a full year's worth of podcasts just to find some unspecified statement that you've likely taken out of context or misconstrued."

I have in fact referenced a specific episode, and given you the exact search term to look for. This would have taken you 5 secs, not "days worth of detective work going through a full year's worth of podcast"

2) "There's no filter for domain hacks on NameBio."

Actually, there is

3) "Accusing Max of fudging numbers and "dubious claims"

The correct way would actually be sorting by price, you can easily (altho probably not so easy for you) sum up DH sales, and see there's at least half a mil in reported sales by him.

As far as who's sharing misinformation - here's some you've presented (in addition to above):

- "there's no value, noone is selling these to a notable extent" - enough to sort on Namebio to see people are actually selling these, for considerable sums

- "noone is using these" - Li.me, Ani.me, Pep.si, Swoo.sh, Mo.Ma, Ta.co, Targ.et, Youtu.be, Instagr.am, Emirat.es, Wi.se, just to name a few. I literally have a list of hundreds of domain hacks in active use by startups, individuals or coporations.

Overall, you're coming in, done no due dilligence, screaming fake news, and keep moving goal posts once information and evidence is presented to you.

Enjoy

 

[MKA]

I have in fact referenced a specific episode, and given you the exact search term to look for. This would have taken you 5 secs, not "days worth of detective work going through a full year's worth of podcast"

Post the link and the timestamp.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you fail to substantiate your claim that's a concession by failure to adhere to the burden of the rejoinder.

Actually, there is

Yeah, I already conceded to that in my previous post.

3) "Accusing Max of fudging numbers and "dubious claims"

I didn't accuse Max of anything, since I haven't seen the video. Since you don't want to post it.

The "dubious claims" were directed at the claims you made concerning the sales rate of these domains.

The correct way would actually be sorting by price, you can easily (altho probably not so easy for you) sum up DH sales, and see there's at least half a mil in reported sales by him.

It's not, since listing by price (high or low) gives a skewed picture of the market.

By listing by date you can see the frequency of sales. This is known as the sales velocity, and it's a key metric to investors when determining the value. Another benefit is that you're seeing a random distribution of (recent) sales that are not skewed by outliers.

As far as who's sharing misinformation - here's some you've presented (in addition to above):

- "there's no value, noone is selling these to a notable extent" - enough to sort on Namebio to see people are actually selling these, for considerable sums

Note the use of the phrase "notable extent."

.tv sells better than domain hacks, and I don't consider .tv to sell to any notable extent either.

- "noone is using these"

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

I never said that, and I never would. In fact I made it clear in my very first post that YouTube is using one for their shorthand. But that doesn't mean that there's a much of market for it.

Overall, you're coming in, done no due dilligence, screaming fake news, and keep moving goal posts once information and evidence is presented to you.

Uh-huh.

 

[Lega.cy]

Post the link and the timestamp.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you fail to substantiate your claim that's a concession by failure to adhere to the burden of the rejoinder.


Yeah, I already conceded to that in my previous post.


I didn't accuse Max of anything, since I haven't seen the video. Since you don't want to post it.

The "dubious claims" were directed at the claims you made concerning the sales rate of these domains.


It's not, since listing by price (high or low) gives a skewed picture of the market.

By listing by date you can see the frequency of sales. This is known as the sales velocity, and it's a key metric to investors when determining the value. Another benefit is that you're seeing a random distribution of (recent) sales that are not skewed by outliers.


Note the use of the phrase "notable extent."

.tv sells better than domain hacks, and I don't consider .tv to sell to any notable extent either.


Why are you putting words in my mouth?

I never said that, and I never would. In fact I made it clear in my very first post that YouTube is using one for their shorthand. But that doesn't mean that there's a much of market for it.


Uh-huh.

You can't even keep up with your bs.

"And I'd need some evidence to verify your claim that you've made $1.5 million off domain hacks and what that number actually means in terms of time and ROI. Because anyone can make any claim, but if they can't verify it there's no reason for anyone to trust that claim."

After I called you out on being entitled to see proofs, you said "No it's not, it's standard practice when dealing with dubious claims."

So that's actually where you've accusing Max of making dubious claims.

Seeing that I haven't made any claims concerning the sales rate of domain hacks, you don't really have any reason to direct "dumious claims" at me.

The reason I was referencing and suggesting you look up on Namebio, sort by highest price, look at venue, is that you'd would be able to see that Max' DomainHacks.com has made and reported at least over half a mil in sales.

But seems like you don't really even take that as evidence.

Note the use of the phrase "notable extent."
If someone makes over $1.5m in domain hacks sales, and it's not "notable extent" then I can't really help you.

I don't even know what timestamp you're on about, since it's a full hour of discussion mentioning domain hacks that were sold. You can also look up evidence of his sales on Namebio, and don't need to watch the episode if you don't want to.

There's evidence of some of largest companies and startups in the world own and use domain hacks - whether for redirect, or as a main brand. (to add more, B.MW, Lam.bo, Booki.ng, Asa.na, Dai.ly, Googl.e, Itun.es, Mur.al, Oran.ge, Starli.ng, Stri.pe, Virg.in)

And if you're claiming that that "there isn't much market for it" then by your own words you should be able to substantiate your claim.

Whether hundreds of companies using domain hacks is good enough for you or not, does not change the reality that they are used (as evidenced), are being sold (as evidence by reported sales on Namebio), and there is a market for them (as evidenced by both being in use and being sold).

 

[MKA]

You can't even keep up with your bs.

"And I'd need some evidence to verify your claim that you've made $1.5 million off domain hacks and what that number actually means in terms of time and ROI. Because anyone can make any claim, but if they can't verify it there's no reason for anyone to trust that claim."

After I called you out on being entitled to see proofs, you said "No it's not, it's standard practice when dealing with dubious claims."

So that's actually where you've accusing Max of making dubious claims.

Why are you quoting me out of context?

This never had anything to do with Max.

Like I said, why would I even comment on claims I haven't even heard?

The reason I was referencing and suggesting you look up on Namebio, sort by highest price, look at venue, is that you'd would be able to see that Max' DomainHacks.com has made and reported at least over half a mil in sales.

There's no venue option for domainhacks.com to filter by.

Highest domain hack sale made domainhacks.com according to NameBio was b.et for $100,000. Which isn't bad, but it's notably less than for example: bet.bet that sold for $600,000.

But none of this matters, because the sales velocity is terrible.

In the last three months there's been 13 domain hacks sales. In that same time there's been:

• 28,183 .com sales
• 3,267 .org sales
• 1,170 .net sales
• 858 .ai sales
• 532 .io sales
• 133 .info sale
• 58 .tv sales

Think about that, .tv sold over 4 times as many domains as every domain hack combined in the last three months.

But seems like you don't really even take that as evidence.

No, because it's not readily available.

Note the use of the phrase "notable extent."
If someone makes over $1.5m in domain hacks sales, and it's not "notable extent" then I can't really help you.

Not only have you repeatedly failed to substantiate this claim, but you're taking my quote out of context.

I don't even know what timestamp you're on about, since it's a full hour of discussion mentioning domain hacks that were sold. You can also look up evidence of his sales on Namebio, and don't need to watch the episode if you don't want to.

The timestamp where the relevant points are made.

There's evidence of some of largest companies and startups in the world own and use domain hacks - whether for redirect, or as a main brand. (to add more, B.MW, Lam.bo, Booki.ng, Asa.na, Dai.ly, Googl.e, Itun.es, Mur.al, Oran.ge, Starli.ng, Stri.pe, Virg.in)

It's not uncommon for companies like these have hundreds of domains, some that are used and some that aren't, brand protection and all of that, that doesn't make them valuable.

And I'm not sure if you're running this through AI because googl.e isn't a domain, and neither is goog.le, and they don't own googl.ee either.

And if you're claiming that that "there isn't much market for it" then by your own words you should be able to substantiate your claim.

I did. NameBio, filter: category: niche, subcategory: domain hacks, date: past three months.

13 domain hacks sold.

Whether hundreds of companies using domain hacks is good enough for you or not, does not change the reality that they are used (as evidenced), are being sold (as evidence by reported sales on Namebio), and there is a market for them (as evidenced by both being in use and being sold).

I'm not sure if any of the corporate domains you mentioned did ever sell.

But the NameBio data is very clear.

 

[Lega.cy]

Why are you quoting me out of context?

Show attachment 264257

This never had anything to do with Max.

Like I said, why would I even comment on claims I haven't even heard?


There's no venue option for domainhacks.com to filter by.

Highest domain hack sale made domainhacks.com according to NameBio was b.et for $100,000. Which isn't bad, but it's notably less than for example: bet.bet that sold for $600,000.

But none of this matters, because the sales velocity is terrible.

In the last three months there's been 13 domain hacks sales. In that same time there's been:

• 28,183 .com sales
• 3,267 .org sales
• 1,170 .net sales
• 858 .ai sales
• 532 .io sales
• 133 .info sale
• 58 .tv sales

Think about that, .tv sold over 4 times as many domains as every domain hack combined in the last three months.


No, because it's not readily available.


Not only have you repeatedly failed to substantiate this claim, but you're taking my quote out of context.



The timestamp where the relevant points are made.


It's not uncommon for companies like these have hundreds of domains, some that are used and some that aren't, brand protection and all of that, that doesn't make them valuable.

And I'm not sure if you're running this through AI because googl.e isn't a domain, and neither is goog.le, and they don't own googl.ee either.


I did. NameBio, filter: category: niche, subcategory: domain hacks, date: past three months.

13 domain hacks sold.


I'm not sure if any of the corporate domains you mentioned did ever sell.

But the NameBio data is very clear.

1. I'm actually quoting you in the exact context as you mentioned it, and not taking it out of context.

2. You're not willing to review the DS interview, you're complaining about there not being a filter in Namebio (even tho with some manual work it can easily be done, you just don't want to). The data is there, if you're too lazy to do the analysis, that's on you, not on me.

3. Saying "b.et for $100k is great, but bet.bet for $600k is better" is lol argument

4. I've put the wrong dot, it's goo.gle

5. Comparing to .tv is also baseless, there's almost infinitely more .tv domains than there is of true domain hacks - where left of the dot and right of the dot combined makes single dictionary word, so of course there will be less domain hacks sales.

6. "It's not uncommon for companies like these have hundreds of domains, some that are used and some that aren't, brand protection and all of that, that doesn't make them valuable." / "I'm not sure if any of the corporate domains you mentioned did ever sell."

It's funny, there's evidence they are being used, they are being sold, and you just keep moving the goal post to fit your narrative.

 

[MKA]

1. I'm actually quoting you in the exact context as you mentioned it, and not taking it out of context.

I provided the full context with a picture of the quote.

In fact I'll post it again for you here:

Max isn't part of the conversation.

In fact I even use "your" (second person) so how could that possibly refer to Max (third person).

2. You're not willing to review the DS interview,

Because you're not providing the video with timestamps like I requested.

I'm not going look up a video for you to then to sit through an hour (or whatever it is) podcast while having no idea what you're actually referring to. You have to substantiate your own arguments. That's how debates work.

3. Saying "b.et for $100k is great, but bet.bet for $600k is better" is lol argument

No. It proves how vapid cherry-picking outlier sales are.

5. Comparing to .tv is also baseless, there's almost infinitely more .tv domains than there is of true domain hacks - where left of the dot and right of the dot combined makes single dictionary word, so of course there will be less domain hacks sales.

You seem to be confused as to what I just proved.

We're not talking about the any .tv domain or any domain hack, we're talking about good (domains that sell) .tv domains and good domain hacks, good .tv domains are safer investments than good domain hacks.

Why? Because an investor would not pick up panemedia.tv when pane.tv is available.

6. "It's not uncommon for companies like these have hundreds of domains, some that are used and some that aren't, brand protection and all of that, that doesn't make them valuable." / "I'm not sure if any of the corporate domains you mentioned did ever sell."

It's funny, there's evidence they are being used, they are being sold, and you just keep moving the goal post to fit your narrative.

What's with these strawman arguments? I never said that they weren't used, and I never said that they never sold. Putting words in my mouth (which you've done throughout the debate) only serve to prove how disconnected you are from the actual debate.

Look. I've already proven that they don't sell in any notable capacity. A total of 1 sale/week is not an investment, it's a lottery ticket.