Membership is FREE, giving all registered users unlimited access to every DNForum feature, resource, and tool! Optional membership upgrades unlock exclusive benefits like profile signatures with links, banner placements, appearances in the weekly newsletter, and much more - customized to your membership level!

Site Direct helps you monetize your domain portfolios with ease

Reply to thread

Message

I don't get how a 7% increase can harm Verisign in any way.

If you think of domain name investing, the ideal outcome is for your (1) domain to land in the hands of an end-user. Do you think $100 per year is even something that the large majority of businesses couldn't pay to renew? This is nothing for them and in almost every case is a business expense, which are writeoffs to save more profit.

I remember domain registrations in the late 90s/early 2000s being $99 for 2 years for a .com. Inflation accounted for, that would be $80 per domain renewal today ($160/2 years). This of course didn't stop investors getting into names that could very well have gone nowhere — ones regard as ultra-premium yacht-buying material. There are still even gTLDs out there that cost around there that you can own instead of the .com too.

The only people that this is going to hurt are those investors that take a shotgun quantity approach to domain name investing. That is, they fire a shotgun shell with each buckshot being a new domain in hopes that just one sold make up for the other hundred not sold.

Investors will need to eventually step back and reevaluate their approach before they quickly go broke as a quantity mindset might not be reliable for each passing year of 7% increases.

<blockquote data-quote="amplify" data-source="post: 2342741" data-attributes="member: 130638">I don't get how a 7% increase can harm Verisign in any way.If you think of domain name investing, the ideal outcome is for your (1) domain to land in the hands of an end-user. Do you think $100 per year is even something that the large majority of businesses couldn't pay to renew? This is nothing for them and in almost every case is a business expense, which are writeoffs to save more profit.I remember domain registrations in the late 90s/early 2000s being $99 for 2 years for a .com. <a href="https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/" target="_blank">Inflation accounted for</a>, that would be $80 per domain renewal today ($160/2 years). This of course didn't stop investors getting into names that could very well have gone nowhere — ones regard as ultra-premium yacht-buying material. There are still even gTLDs out there that cost around there that you can own instead of the .com too.The only people that this is going to hurt are those investors that take a shotgun quantity approach to domain name investing. That is, they fire a shotgun shell with each buckshot being a new domain in hopes that just one sold make up for the other hundred not sold.Investors will need to eventually step back and reevaluate their approach before they quickly go broke as a quantity mindset might not be reliable for each passing year of 7% increases.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="amplify, post: 2342741, member: 130638"] I don't get how a 7% increase can harm Verisign in any way. If you think of domain name investing, the ideal outcome is for your (1) domain to land in the hands of an end-user. Do you think $100 per year is even something that the large majority of businesses couldn't pay to renew? This is nothing for them and in almost every case is a business expense, which are writeoffs to save more profit. I remember domain registrations in the late 90s/early 2000s being $99 for 2 years for a .com. [URL='https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/']Inflation accounted for[/URL], that would be $80 per domain renewal today ($160/2 years). This of course didn't stop investors getting into names that could very well have gone nowhere — ones regard as ultra-premium yacht-buying material. There are still even gTLDs out there that cost around there that you can own instead of the .com too. The only people that this is going to hurt are those investors that take a shotgun quantity approach to domain name investing. That is, they fire a shotgun shell with each buckshot being a new domain in hopes that just one sold make up for the other hundred not sold. Investors will need to eventually step back and reevaluate their approach before they quickly go broke as a quantity mindset might not be reliable for each passing year of 7% increases. [/QUOTE]

Verification