- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,210
- Reaction score
- 1
Hey gang,
I was hoping to have a healthy discussion on the above-referenced topic. In other words, which do you think is better in terms of long term value?
I'll start it off with my own thoughts... I think over the long term, CVCV.com's will hold their values and continue to increase in value. Over the short term, I think we are seeing this already. We have tula.com on namejet already over $4,500 and foxo.com selling yesterday for over $3K on sedo. The LLL.com market apppears to be in a downward spiral at the moment, but I think it will certainly rebound in the near future.
The value of random LLL.coms is driven by their limited supply (I think). It's hard to imagine how something like xqv.com would ever be used by an end-user. By contast, almost any CVCV.com can be used by ANY company, because even if it does not stand for the abbreviation of that particular company name, it has the protential to be the brand name of a product for that company. I think there is something inherently sexy about CVCV.coms. In sum, I'll note the following two points:
(1) There exist less CVCV.coms than there are LLL.coms. It's a matter of mathematics:
CVCV (not counting "y") = 21 x 5 x 21 x 5 = 11,025
LLL = 26 x 26 x 26 = 17,576
(2) The chances of finding an end user that utilizes the three exact letters you own is very limited. However, with a CVCV, which is clearly the easiest to pronounce of the LLLL.coms, while there may be a lesser likelihood that it will be used as an acronym for a company name, there are much greater chances that a company or product will utilize the name (unless it is a pronounceable LLL.com, which I think will always remain golden). Afterall, if I'm thinking of a name for a company or product, I'll more than likely opt for something like Gata than for Tyq.
By the way (here's my disclaimer), while I do own lots of CVCV.coms, I also own lots of LLL.coms. So I hope that both of them skyrocket in price, as I have a vested interested in both.
I look forward to your thoughts.
Thanks.
I was hoping to have a healthy discussion on the above-referenced topic. In other words, which do you think is better in terms of long term value?
I'll start it off with my own thoughts... I think over the long term, CVCV.com's will hold their values and continue to increase in value. Over the short term, I think we are seeing this already. We have tula.com on namejet already over $4,500 and foxo.com selling yesterday for over $3K on sedo. The LLL.com market apppears to be in a downward spiral at the moment, but I think it will certainly rebound in the near future.
The value of random LLL.coms is driven by their limited supply (I think). It's hard to imagine how something like xqv.com would ever be used by an end-user. By contast, almost any CVCV.com can be used by ANY company, because even if it does not stand for the abbreviation of that particular company name, it has the protential to be the brand name of a product for that company. I think there is something inherently sexy about CVCV.coms. In sum, I'll note the following two points:
(1) There exist less CVCV.coms than there are LLL.coms. It's a matter of mathematics:
CVCV (not counting "y") = 21 x 5 x 21 x 5 = 11,025
LLL = 26 x 26 x 26 = 17,576
(2) The chances of finding an end user that utilizes the three exact letters you own is very limited. However, with a CVCV, which is clearly the easiest to pronounce of the LLLL.coms, while there may be a lesser likelihood that it will be used as an acronym for a company name, there are much greater chances that a company or product will utilize the name (unless it is a pronounceable LLL.com, which I think will always remain golden). Afterall, if I'm thinking of a name for a company or product, I'll more than likely opt for something like Gata than for Tyq.
By the way (here's my disclaimer), while I do own lots of CVCV.coms, I also own lots of LLL.coms. So I hope that both of them skyrocket in price, as I have a vested interested in both.
I look forward to your thoughts.
Thanks.
Last edited:
