Dynadot

What If You Could Own a Piece of a Premium Domain?

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Tingarova

Established Member
Impact
11
Howdy everyone,

I’ve been thinking a lot about the value of premium domain names lately. We all know how much they’re worth—some sell for millions (like Crypto.com for 12M or Voice.com for 30M). But here’s a question: What if you didn’t have to buy the whole domain to own a piece of it?

Imagine this:
  • A premium domain is fractionalized into smaller, tradable shares.
  • You could buy a share for a fraction of the cost and still benefit from its value appreciation.
  • The domain owner raises capital without selling the entire asset, and investors get access to a high-value digital asset they couldn’t afford otherwise.
Would you go for something like this?

I’m curious to hear your thoughts:
  1. As a domain owner, would you consider fractionalizing your premium domain to unlock its value?
  2. As an investor, would you buy shares in a premium domain if it meant owning a piece of a high-value digital asset?
  3. What concerns or questions would you have about this idea?
Let’s discuss! I think this could be a game-changer for domain owners and investors alike, but I’d love to hear your perspectives.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
2
•••
Seems RallyRd is doing it already

Yes, they are. Very complicated though. IPOs etc. I was thinking more in the lines of simplicity. Escrow a name. Issue tokens against it. Let people buy, sell and trade. It might bring liquidity to otherwise stagnant market to domains of value. Community driven decentralized effort.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
u will find like 50 posts on this on np

plus at least one site doing it

my main concern is of course me and others sending u money to buy name and then name sitting in register after u buy it under your name and password.

why is that a concern. well because I dont know u. and therefore my trust level in u is zero.
 
2
•••
No one is sending anyone money. It's a trustless system. Has to be. I agree with you. I would not send anyone money either. Simply put, the asset has to be locked by a standard trustable entity like an escrow or vault. Then the tokens are issued by a decentralized smart contract that holds the funds. If the community decides that they want to keep control of the rules then a DAO is created and the stakeholders decide which way to go.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
I'm sure its doable with crypto and blockchain. I'm just not sure if now or in 5 years. and if now then what is the level of difficulty to implement it. at what cost and who would cover that cost.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Reads like a massive disagreement in the making to me. Complex to set-up, complex to administer, complex going forward.
Seems like you want to see shared domain ownership as akin to Company SHARE ownership. where all the financial T&C's are clearly established. I'm sure there are some individuals out there that pool resources etc, but that's hardly likely to be in a form of a legally binding entity.
I suppose you could set-up a Company that held only domain name assets, then offered company shares. but the cost of purchase of domains would already have been met
 
Last edited:
3
•••
Centralized entities like companies are the problem. Administration and legal. Decentralized entities are run by Smart Contracts with predefined rules. What you see is what you get. You can't argue with code. And the code won't go on a vacation with your money either. Officers of companies often do.

Code is law. It's all binding. What you call share, is a token. If you have the token you are in the game. You decide to get out, you sell. You decide to get back in, you buy it back in the open market.

No courts, no lawyer, no prissy CEO to deal with. The main advantage is now you have a liquid asset.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Purchasing parts of a domain name or keywords can reduce costs and increase flexibility, especially for entrepreneurs and small companies. However, this method may bring the risk of insufficient control and loss of usage rights. In general, although it provides flexibility, it also comes with certain instability and risks.
 
0
•••
that's basically impossible to code.

registrars dont even allow for this. they need one owner and one password to login.

u would need to open your own decentralized register or something and I dont mean for .eth or other such useless shit
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Nothing is impossible to code, at least not this. Eth is not useless. Eth made all these things possible. Now, there are others but ETH is still OG.

There are a million ways of registering etc. There are decentralized registrars too but that's not a bottleneck. And since this is not a discussion about AI agents, I will just say that it's not an issue with or without AI.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Fractional ownership is terrible, because you don't have control of it.

It's going to be listed on auction and it's going to undersell, because on one side you have a thousand owners and on the other you have one buyer.

Not to mention that someone would only establish fractional ownership if they weren't confident they could sell it for the the desired amount.

Also you'd need to hire a lawyer to go through the whitepaper figure out whether or not it's a scam.
 
Last edited:
5
•••
Nothing is impossible to code, at least not this. Eth is not useless. Eth made all these things possible. Now, there are others but ETH is still OG.

There are a million ways of registering etc. There are decentralized registrars too but that's not a bottleneck. And since this is not a discussion about AI agents, I will just say that it's not an issue with or without AI.

.eth and such as just money grabs.. like nfts

so are all all crypto except stable coins. just a trade game where most lose. like casinos.

bitcoin was never intended for trading. but at least we got stablecoins out of all this shit mess.

as for your idea well if u say a million ways to split ownership of a com right at register level then how about u list a couple.

otherwise if u own hotel.com on godaddy then u will need one name..
one address..
one password.

ie.. one owner.
 
0
•••
I agree with you on the money grab part. If the POTUS can launch NFTs and memecoins and reach a market cap that's more than Microstrategy and Target, in 3 days, then I surmise that it's legit moneygrab, at least for 4 more years. The question is if you are happy with everyone else grabbing the money.

You are also thinking about current business models and their downside. You don't have to play by their rules. Find a crypto friendly registrar, or just buy it and transfer it to a Wyoming DAO LLC. No code needed.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Fractional ownership is terrible, because you don't have control of it.

1) Fractional ownership is terrible. Just ask all the shareholders of Apple, Google etc. People spend a bunch of money and they don't even return your call. Ok Joking. However it's true, hence the term activist investor.

It's going to be listed on auction and it's going to undersell, because on one side you have a thousand owners and on the other you have one buyer.

2) Look at it this way. When you have a thousand stakeholders you also have the collective wisdom of a thousand people aligned with the outcome that you desire. Crowdsourced wisdom is nothing to sneeze at. Polymarket predicted the last US election correctly, days earlier than most traditional outlets. Maybe the strategy you are employing now could do with an upgrade otherwise what are you doing chatting with some random dude called Tinga.

You can't be sure it's not going to be another collective who would be the bidder, plus there's nothing wrong with a solo bidders.

Not to mention that someone would only establish fractional ownership if they weren't confident they could sell it for the the desired amount.

3) There are no guarantees in life but there's something in the wisdom of a collective that has experience and have a stake in the outcome.

Also you'd need to hire a lawyer to go through the whitepaper figure out whether or not it's a scam.

If you are a part of the collective, then you are also writing the whitepaper. It's not someone else's whitepaper. It's yours. However, if you have trouble understanding any whitepaper, then may I suggest that you paste it into the free version of ChatGPT for a summary and send me half of whatever your lawyer would have charged :)
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Purchasing parts of a domain name or keywords can reduce costs and increase flexibility, especially for entrepreneurs and small companies. However, this method may bring the risk of insufficient control and loss of usage rights. In general, although it provides flexibility, it also comes with certain instability and risks.
While fractional ownership is cool and all, there might be more to pooling assets with a DAO.

Issue NFTs for ownership of the domain. Then stake those NFTs to generate "governence" tokens that can be traded by anyone. I am sure someone is training a LLM to do evaluation for similar suff somewhere.

After some rest, I was reading my previous posts and a couple of them felt a bit snarky. Sorry about that. I was trying to be funny. No disrespect meant.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Fractional ownership is terrible. Just ask all the shareholders of Apple, Google etc. People spend a bunch of money and they don't even return your call. Ok Joking. However it's true, hence the term activist investor.
The stock market is tested and heavily regulated.

But when it comes to something like a fractional ownership of a domain there are no rules. Those would have to be outlined separately by the holder of the domain. So you'd have to hire a lawyer to go through the whitepaper just to figure out whether or not there's a risk of you getting scammed.

You can't be sure it's not going to be another collective who would be the bidder, plus there's nothing wrong with a solo bidders.
You're telling me that a group of people would create a legal entity so they could bid on a domain?

It's going to be individuals that bid, and they're going to pay wholesale value. Which means that everyone but the original owner who sold his "shares" is going to lose money. That's just how auctions work.

End-user value requires an end-user, and for an ultrapremium domain that can take decades. Which again, makes the scamming process so much easier. But even if it's 100% legitimate, and the domain sells for $1.2 million, and you bought 0.1% of the shares for $1,000, you only make $200 (ignoring taxes).

At that point you're better off buying and reselling regular premium domains.

3) There are no guarantees in life but there's something in the wisdom of a collective that has experience and have a stake in the outcome.
There's no collective experience involved in this process. If it's auctioned off, then you're looking at wholesale value. If there's no scheduled auction then whoever makes the decisions (likely the original owner, or the majority holder) is going to screw over the little guys.

If you are a part of the collective, then you are also writing the whitepaper. It's not someone else's whitepaper. It's yours. However, if you have trouble understanding any whitepaper, then may I suggest that you paste it into the free version of ChatGPT for a summary and send me half of whatever your lawyer would have charged :)
What are you talking about? The whitepaper will have to be written by the original owner before selling his domain shares. The people who buy shares of the domain would do so agreeing to its terms.

ChatGPT is not qualified to give you professional legal advice, and can't be held liable for misguiding you.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
ROI is lower the higher quality you go. So it doesn't really make sense to put $500 into a Tier 1 domain when you can put $500 into a Tier 2 domain and get 20-50X instead of 2-5X.
 
1
•••
3
•••
“If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.”
― Satoshi Nakamoto
 
0
•••
Thanks for the lively discussion. I came here to evaluate and sell a domain. Back to the grind. Cheers folks.
 
0
•••
"In your opening post, you mentioned being curious about others' perspectives. However, it seems now that your intent was to convince us of something."

― Future Sensors
 
2
•••
0
•••
Thanks for the lively discussion. I came here to evaluate and sell a domain. Back to the grind. Cheers folks.
Figures. Only a scammer would be interested in peddling fractional ownership of domains.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
"In your opening post, you mentioned being curious about others' perspectives. However, it seems now that your intent was to convince us of something."

― Future Sensors
I did get some perspective. Thanks for that. Blockchain is complicated. Well my intent was to see whether a community could be motivated to experiment with a radically different concept.
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back