- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 300
- Reaction score
- 70
Do you really think the cost of a drop catch is only $13?
Expanding a domain portfolio through drop catching is one of the fastest routes. Once random character gibberish used for spam is filtered out, most dropped domains have essentially passed an initial market test and meet a fundamentally acceptable naming standard.
But here is something worth pondering: when these domains drop, why do some of them, despite having good structure, pronunciation, and length, go completely unclaimed?
Excluding those that were blacklisted, used for phishing, or involved in trademark disputes, the vast majority of these “looks good but nobody wants it” domains share the same underlying problem: limited future potential and weak market liquidity. At that point, the holding cost is no longer just the initial $13 catch fee. If a domain is held for 10 years and eventually sold cheaply, or simply allowed to expire, the real cost becomes at least $123, calculated as $13 for the first year plus $11 renewal multiplied by 10 years.
When a domain does not sell and liquidity stalls, the reasons usually fall into two main categories: a target market that is too narrow, or an outdated naming template.
If a domain is tightly tied to a specific and saturated industry, such as HR or traditional banking, offloading it becomes a waiting game. How many new companies enter these industries each year? Without sufficient new entrants, unless an end user happens to need it for their own business, a sale may be a long way off.
At the same time, the domain market moves in cycles, with specific naming templates emerging in each era. Consider the “Soft” trend of the early 2000s, or the Web3 wave with words like coin, bit, nex, and flux. At the peak of a trend, these domains are heavily pursued. Entering after the peak requires caution, as the growth potential may already be exhausted. My own MaxySoft is a straightforward example of stagnant inventory.
The same logic applies to the current wave of “AI+” or “+AI” domains. If AI becomes a baseline standard embedded across services in a few years, companies may no longer feel the need to highlight AI explicitly in their brand names. These domains would then naturally struggle to attract buyers. That is why I have reduced my AI-related holdings to just three. So far, only AiTronex has received an inquiry, and the offer was less than one tenth of my asking price.
I want to share a crucial concept in domain investing: an unsellable domain with no visible future is not an asset; it is a liability. Before hitting that catch button, ask yourself whether this $13 is being used to acquire an asset, or to take on a liability that carries ongoing annual cost.
Expanding a domain portfolio through drop catching is one of the fastest routes. Once random character gibberish used for spam is filtered out, most dropped domains have essentially passed an initial market test and meet a fundamentally acceptable naming standard.
But here is something worth pondering: when these domains drop, why do some of them, despite having good structure, pronunciation, and length, go completely unclaimed?
Excluding those that were blacklisted, used for phishing, or involved in trademark disputes, the vast majority of these “looks good but nobody wants it” domains share the same underlying problem: limited future potential and weak market liquidity. At that point, the holding cost is no longer just the initial $13 catch fee. If a domain is held for 10 years and eventually sold cheaply, or simply allowed to expire, the real cost becomes at least $123, calculated as $13 for the first year plus $11 renewal multiplied by 10 years.
When a domain does not sell and liquidity stalls, the reasons usually fall into two main categories: a target market that is too narrow, or an outdated naming template.
If a domain is tightly tied to a specific and saturated industry, such as HR or traditional banking, offloading it becomes a waiting game. How many new companies enter these industries each year? Without sufficient new entrants, unless an end user happens to need it for their own business, a sale may be a long way off.
At the same time, the domain market moves in cycles, with specific naming templates emerging in each era. Consider the “Soft” trend of the early 2000s, or the Web3 wave with words like coin, bit, nex, and flux. At the peak of a trend, these domains are heavily pursued. Entering after the peak requires caution, as the growth potential may already be exhausted. My own MaxySoft is a straightforward example of stagnant inventory.
The same logic applies to the current wave of “AI+” or “+AI” domains. If AI becomes a baseline standard embedded across services in a few years, companies may no longer feel the need to highlight AI explicitly in their brand names. These domains would then naturally struggle to attract buyers. That is why I have reduced my AI-related holdings to just three. So far, only AiTronex has received an inquiry, and the offer was less than one tenth of my asking price.
I want to share a crucial concept in domain investing: an unsellable domain with no visible future is not an asset; it is a liability. Before hitting that catch button, ask yourself whether this $13 is being used to acquire an asset, or to take on a liability that carries ongoing annual cost.
