4 ms·
Agreed. hicover.com is $3.7k on Namecheap. They could have had 821k in the bank and just as good a domain name. They raised $8M on their series A according to
by iooi 8y ago
Agreed. hicover.com is $3.7k on Namecheap. They could have had 821k in the bank and just as good a domain name. They raised $8M on their series A according to Crunchbase, of which they spent _10%_ on a domain name. Say they sold 20% equity in that round, that's 2% of the company on a .com. That $820k could have gone a long way to delaying the need to raise a B (which they did 14 months later for another $16M), and get more favorable terms/valuation when the time came.
- evanweaver 8y agoCorrect, presumably the domain name is a capital asset that preserves its basis, so the real cost is the opportunity cost of not spending the money elsewhere. We don't really know this cost.
- sqrt17 8y ago> presumably the domain name is a capital asset that preserves its basis the domain name doesn't have an inherent value or basis, it's (presumably) unlikely that the next Cover Inc would be willing the same amount within a short timeframe of them wanting to disinvest from the name. Illiquid assets have to pay for liquidity in such cases.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoHistory--so far--shows that good, .com, names do keep their value. Granted you may overpay and cannot sell at the bought price but cover.com is a name that can be used by many types of businesses. So if they go kaput, they have an asset :)
- iooi 8y ago*The VCs/creditors would have an asset.