> The problem with not having the .com of your name is that it signals weakness. Note to anyone who disagrees with Paul Graham on this one: he's not talking ab

> The problem with not having the .com of your name is that it signals weakness. Note to anyone who disagrees with Paul Graham on this one: he's not talking about the genuine importance of the domain name. He's talking about its perceived importance by important people —namely the investor community. That's the way it is with most status signals: they're not very important by themselves, but how they influence the people who have power over you is important. Simply put, if the investor community believes that lacking the relevant .com name is a sign of weakness, then lacking such a name signals that weakness. As such, they will be less likely to invest, making your company weaker. It doesn't matter if they're right in the first place. Their belief is sufficient. It's a self fulfilling prophecy: if investors believe you're weak, that belief can make you weak.