5 ms·

The glaring hole in the alternative you proposed has nothing to do with the existing system being well established.

• hnbad 3y ago
  Sorry, I must have missed the part where you pointed out a glaring hole because all I read was an explanation of how it's hard to change things after the fact (which I agree with) and some gesturing at human nature (which is contextual, i.e. it's human nature to act a certain way within a given environment but that doesn't mean it's not also human nature to act differently within a different environment). As others have pointed out, domain names didn't start out as a highly valued commodity. Arguably they only became that during the dot-com boom when domains functioned as brands. I'd even go as far as saying they largely lost most of their value from that time period in the Web 2.0 days when startups started slapping random syllables together and dropping letters and have instead become more of a speculative asset, especially with the flood of new TLDs nobody can keep up with. In fact, there are market restrictions enforced by various registrars like requiring legal presence in a given country for ccTLDs or providing content in Catalano and/or information about Catalonian culture for dot-cat domains. Of course there are workarounds for most of these but as I said these are just bandaids bolted on after the fact, just like premium pricing tiers.
  • ahepp 3y ago
    If we're going to discuss this, I'd like to keep things on point. My specific question was, how do you propose paying for this system of allocation when the entire premise is to eliminate non-trivial domain fees. As a brief example: mycattest123.com: $17.75 plus $23.99/y mycattest123.cat: $13.00 plus $49.99/y
    • hnbad 3y ago
      I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about market incentive structures not alternative funding schemes.