4 ms·

>The domain squatting problem is so bad How is the domain squatting problem so bad? You’ll need to expand on this further.

franga2000 7y ago
Not OP, but are you saying you haven't noticed the squatting problem? According to [0], there are only around 1000 single-word .COMs left. [0] https://www.domcomp.com/blog/the-last-coms.html https://www.domcomp.com/blog/the-last-coms.html
- ryanlol 7y ago
  Why is it such a big problem that you have to pay more than $7 for a single word .com? Is it just that it feels unfair to you for someone to be profiting like this? I’ve been more than happy to buy domains from these squatters, they’re usually willing to accept prices far lower than the value I can extract from said domains.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    "More than $7" is disingenuous, since $100,000 is also "more than $7".
    - ryanlol 7y ago
      Why is it a problem that some domains cost $100,000 or more?
      - StavrosK 7y ago
        Do you also find ticket scalping to be fine? If not, what's the difference with squatting?
        ryanlol 7y ago
        Of course ticket scalping is fine, many venues go out of their way to enable it. I’ve often benefited from the scalpers by being able to buy last minute tickets. Same goes for domain squatters. You think squatting is bad? Ok. What if my low-effort personal website was “doctor.com” and someone emailed me an offer of $2M for it, should I be allowed to accept that? I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction to be made there.
  - franga2000 7y ago
    I guess you're technically correct in that the several thousands of $ these domains usually go for is "more than 7$" and in fact, I don't have a problem paying a high price for something valuable to me. I have a problem paying an unpredictable unregulated price to a completely third party just because they "got there first". Buying from a squatter benefits the squatter (a 3rd party) and to some extent the providers (registries, registrars, ICANN), but harms the end consumer. To me, that is the exact opposite of how things should be done. Consumer first, companies second, random third parties last.
    - ryanlol 7y ago
      Okay so the complaint is essentially “this doesn’t feel fair!”. I guess this really does come down to envy, just as another commenter pointed out. >but harms the end consumer It doesn’t though, without the second hand market someone would be using that domain for something silly and you wouldn’t get it anyway. > Consumer first, companies second, random third parties last But companies are the primary consumers in the domain name market. Internet end users benefit from squatting because the companies doing something with value are the only ones who end up actually using the good domains.
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        > It doesn’t though, without the second hand market someone would be using that domain for something silly and you wouldn’t get it anyway. Please explain why you think this. Also, what could be more silly than doing nothing with it, except wait for a sufficiently-funded buyer?
        ryanlol 7y ago
        >Please explain why you think this. Because without the secondary market there’d be no incentive for anyone to give up a domain. At least now the domains actually end up with parties willing to pay a fair price for them.
        kerkeslager 7y ago
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > Is it just that it feels unfair to you for someone to be profiting like this? There are other reasons, but I'm a bit confused why this isn't something you find objectionable. In theory, a free market should incentivize people to create value. But here's a case where people are literally removing value which was previously available, and getting paid to do it: if there ever was a perverse incentive, this is it. From reading your comments, it seems like you think that anything that "freedom" = "anything the free market does". This is pretty fundamentally misguided, because if you don't have any rules to prevent people from amassing too much power, you just end up with rules set forth by whoever you've let take power. If you refuse to make rules, you're simply accepting the rules made by someone who doesn't refuse to make rules.

franga2000 7y ago

Not OP, but are you saying you haven't noticed the squatting problem? According to [0], there are only around 1000 single-word .COMs left. [0] https://www.domcomp.com/blog/the-last-coms.html https://www.domcomp.com/blog/the-last-coms.html

ryanlol 7y ago
Why is it such a big problem that you have to pay more than $7 for a single word .com? Is it just that it feels unfair to you for someone to be profiting like this? I’ve been more than happy to buy domains from these squatters, they’re usually willing to accept prices far lower than the value I can extract from said domains.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  "More than $7" is disingenuous, since $100,000 is also "more than $7".
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    Why is it a problem that some domains cost $100,000 or more?
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      Do you also find ticket scalping to be fine? If not, what's the difference with squatting?
      - ryanlol 7y ago
        Of course ticket scalping is fine, many venues go out of their way to enable it. I’ve often benefited from the scalpers by being able to buy last minute tickets. Same goes for domain squatters. You think squatting is bad? Ok. What if my low-effort personal website was “doctor.com” and someone emailed me an offer of $2M for it, should I be allowed to accept that? I don’t think there’s a meaningful distinction to be made there.
- franga2000 7y ago
  I guess you're technically correct in that the several thousands of $ these domains usually go for is "more than 7$" and in fact, I don't have a problem paying a high price for something valuable to me. I have a problem paying an unpredictable unregulated price to a completely third party just because they "got there first". Buying from a squatter benefits the squatter (a 3rd party) and to some extent the providers (registries, registrars, ICANN), but harms the end consumer. To me, that is the exact opposite of how things should be done. Consumer first, companies second, random third parties last.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    Okay so the complaint is essentially “this doesn’t feel fair!”. I guess this really does come down to envy, just as another commenter pointed out. >but harms the end consumer It doesn’t though, without the second hand market someone would be using that domain for something silly and you wouldn’t get it anyway. > Consumer first, companies second, random third parties last But companies are the primary consumers in the domain name market. Internet end users benefit from squatting because the companies doing something with value are the only ones who end up actually using the good domains.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > It doesn’t though, without the second hand market someone would be using that domain for something silly and you wouldn’t get it anyway. Please explain why you think this. Also, what could be more silly than doing nothing with it, except wait for a sufficiently-funded buyer?
      - ryanlol 7y ago
        >Please explain why you think this. Because without the secondary market there’d be no incentive for anyone to give up a domain. At least now the domains actually end up with parties willing to pay a fair price for them.
        kerkeslager 7y ago
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > Is it just that it feels unfair to you for someone to be profiting like this? There are other reasons, but I'm a bit confused why this isn't something you find objectionable. In theory, a free market should incentivize people to create value. But here's a case where people are literally removing value which was previously available, and getting paid to do it: if there ever was a perverse incentive, this is it. From reading your comments, it seems like you think that anything that "freedom" = "anything the free market does". This is pretty fundamentally misguided, because if you don't have any rules to prevent people from amassing too much power, you just end up with rules set forth by whoever you've let take power. If you refuse to make rules, you're simply accepting the rules made by someone who doesn't refuse to make rules.