4 ms·

I've consider this before and thought of a similar solution. Like you I think there would need to be strict identification and rules that a person whose name ho

I've consider this before and thought of a similar solution. Like you I think there would need to be strict identification and rules that a person whose name holds a domain owns it irrelevant of other previous agreements (to stop people holding domains for others). This way if a domain became valuable the person that requested someone to hold the domain carries moral risk and would limit their ability to hold domains. Then I would put exponentially increasing pricing on multiple domains per individual. Make it affordable to hold a small number of domains, but to hold many means it is very expensive and likely additional domains must return increasingly high value to justify holding.

insoluble 11y ago
Excellent point about gradual increases in price for additional concurrent domains. That's an elegant solution requiring very little human interaction or machine intelligence. I'm a little bit confused though by your first suggestion.
- Gustomaximus 11y ago
  On the first point, I'm trying to create an environment where a business cant hire many people to hold a small number of domains. So if you made a rule that holding a domain both grants ownership and negates any other deals about transfer of ownership, this would mean that if someone could only ask me to hold a domain via a trust relationship. That might be fine for a few family members and friends but it would never scale to large amounts. Thinking a bit more on it you'd likely have to split individual vs corporate domain ownership to protect business interest. Charge corporate a x100 multiple for holding domains to avoid someone setting up huge amounts of shelf companies, but companies can also own a small number of domains but at a price where squatting is hard.
  - insoluble 11y ago
    Okay. I see what you meant now. For the most part, domains would be non-transferable, hence directly linked to an entity's identity. In other words, buying a domain would be acquiring a licence to use said domain. 100x sounds a bit harsh. I think that would hurt small businesses (LLCs). Perhaps something more reasonable, like 20x would be sufficient.

insoluble 11y ago

Excellent point about gradual increases in price for additional concurrent domains. That's an elegant solution requiring very little human interaction or machine intelligence. I'm a little bit confused though by your first suggestion.

Gustomaximus 11y ago
On the first point, I'm trying to create an environment where a business cant hire many people to hold a small number of domains. So if you made a rule that holding a domain both grants ownership and negates any other deals about transfer of ownership, this would mean that if someone could only ask me to hold a domain via a trust relationship. That might be fine for a few family members and friends but it would never scale to large amounts. Thinking a bit more on it you'd likely have to split individual vs corporate domain ownership to protect business interest. Charge corporate a x100 multiple for holding domains to avoid someone setting up huge amounts of shelf companies, but companies can also own a small number of domains but at a price where squatting is hard.
- insoluble 11y ago
  Okay. I see what you meant now. For the most part, domains would be non-transferable, hence directly linked to an entity's identity. In other words, buying a domain would be acquiring a licence to use said domain. 100x sounds a bit harsh. I think that would hurt small businesses (LLCs). Perhaps something more reasonable, like 20x would be sufficient.