Live data from Hacker News

The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

blogs.harvard.edu

91–100 of 189 posts

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#91

I wonder what the level of awareness of this is in the nonprofit community itself. Something like the National Council of Nonprofits would seem to be in a good position to file a suit or at least raise awareness among its members who might be interested in forming a class. While a major charity like the Salvation Army certainly doesn’t care if a single, sub-$100 annual expense doubles or even goes up by a factor of t…

Former member of the worker coop that bid to run .org when ISOC won here.

Technically .org is not just for American style "non profits", I it was and should be any thing else that doesn't fit the other big 5 eg jwz.org.

That was the problem a lot of shady stuff goes on in the Charity world ("but its for charity") notorious for bullying often much worse than the behaviour of wall street or city bankers and traders.

I feel that a more sensible approach such as ours would have been better served - as coop members tend to be stroppy bastards and would have stood up for the common good - a lot of our ISP side in Manchester where members of alt 2600 .

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#92

I don’t know if it is allowed but it sure would be amusing if ICANN decided to grant .org to someone else now, leaving Ethos with a worthless carcass.

Anyone know anyone with a spine at ICANN I am sure that I could find people who might be interested Ivan Pope for one.

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#93

The reason it sold at half it's valuation is because the valuation was bullshit. It's like some guy claiming his classic car is worth 25,000 dollars. If nobody is offering 25k for it then it's not worth 25k. Period, end of story.

the valuation was bullshit

Valuation of a cashflow is a very well understood thing. There is literally a button on my calculator that just does it. And a built-in function in Excel.

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/NPV-function-8672CB...

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#94

If this is really the case, someone(s) very possibly took and gave bribes, and we're going to see Federal scrutiny all over this.

This!

I can't believe ANY possible explanation (not even incompetency in this case) except direct or indirect bribery.

Really sad to see more and more of theses cases where Non-Profits sell out (e.g. OpenAI), I wonder whether this is a byproduct of people sozialized in the age of hyper-capitalism and consumerism...

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#95
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to look at it - is there a downside to locking in the current price for 10 years? It doesn't _seem_ if Ethos do end up with it that the prices will go anywhere but up. I renewed my .org for 10 years.

You are supporting a broken system. Chances are it won't get fixed. The better option may be to support a new, decentralized name system instead. I'm hoping this incident will provide new energy to these efforts.

The option you're talking about isn't available.

In the meantime those of us with an .org domain have to look after ourselves. I have an .org domain since 2008 and my whole online identity is tied to it. In other words I'm a stakeholder.

Are you suggesting that I should give it up and support ... what exactly?

So yes, I'll be renewing for the maximum limit as well.

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#96
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.org is .org, and they have a lot more pricing power than almost all of the gTLDs (generic top level domains). Their customers, if you think about it, are perhaps more likely to value what the domain stands for. Meanwhile the annual price is currently absolutely trivial versus the expenses of most organisations from higher GDP countries.

Their customers, if you think about it, are perhaps more likely to value what the domain stands for. Some of their customers perhaps. If you go back and look at what companies were doing with domains 20 years ago most medium and large enterprises bought .com, .org, .net and some country code tld domain because that's what everyone recommended "in case someone cybersquatted". I think behaviour has stopped now there ar…

.org customers are not businesses, it's the non-profit

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#97
post #66
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thats a very US-centric view. not everything is monetary, certain things are simply setup with intent of management and responsibility in a global world. DNS is one of those things, GPS another. do note that neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use. even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the r…

DNS is one of those things, False. do note that neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, False. but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use. False. The US has no responsibility, they own it. even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the rest of us choose to. And until other countries choose to, they get to deal with the consequences of the…

> False. The US has no responsibility, they own it.

The USA is responsible because they own it, as every owner is.

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#98
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to look at it - is there a downside to locking in the current price for 10 years? It doesn't _seem_ if Ethos do end up with it that the prices will go anywhere but up. I renewed my .org for 10 years.

You are supporting a broken system. Chances are it won't get fixed. The better option may be to support a new, decentralized name system instead. I'm hoping this incident will provide new energy to these efforts.

The whole reason people are upset about this deal is because it's not possible to just "switch" to an alternative name system without breaking the whole internet. What you're suggesting is unrealistic.

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got the causality backwards. It isn't "the whole word uses this, so we decided to put two US state courts in charge of it". It was "only two US state courts are in charge of it but the whole world decided to start using it anyway". No one forced anyone to use the US DNS system. They all knew what they were signing up for when they joined the public internet in the 80s and 90s and haven't spend any time or mone…

> They all knew what they were signing up [..] Really? Knew as in "ticked a box" or as in "informed consent"?

You should not tick boxes if you are not informed as to what they do.

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#100
post #63
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anywhere else have legal power to? .org doesn't sell domains directly to consumers, and ICANN is intentionally centralized, up until a few years ago being owned by the US government. US-owned US-created top-level domains are hardly an international affair. You could argue that DNS is broken, and that ICANN is bad, but there's no legal argument for .org being subject to foreign governments.

thats a very US-centric view. not everything is monetary, certain things are simply setup with intent of management and responsibility in a global world. DNS is one of those things, GPS another. do note that neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use. even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the r…

> even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the rest of us choose to.

No, you have this all backwards. Let's take a hypothetical country -- Fredonia with it's Fredonian Franc. The government of Fredonia decides "I want to be a global reserve currency!". How would they go about accomplishing that?

First, let's define what it means to be a global reserve currency. What it means is that other reserve banks use your currency as their reserve. That means other reserve banks need to accumulate Fredonian Francs, and in large amounts.

Of course banks don't warehouse currencies, they would be holding Fredonian Government Bonds (FGB), which must be bought with Fredonian Francs. So how would they get their hands on large numbers of FGBs? By running trade surpluses against Fredonia.

In other words, to be a reserve currency means you have to allow the rest of the world to run large trade surpluses against you, which means you have to allow your currency to be permanently overvalued relative to the rest of the world -- relative to what it would be valued if there was no global investment demand for Fredonian Francs.

Now, all of a sudden, it's not looking like such a great proposition for the Fredonians, as this means that their own production is disadvantaged in global markets more or less permanently and their financial system has to be huge and swollen. It distorts the Fredonian economy and hurts workers. That would require a very resilient economy and a population willing to tolerate the employment hit to running persistent trade deficits vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

Next, Fredonia would need to develop deep and liquid capital markets, so that the rest of the world would be confident in storing their wealth there. That means a long tradition of rule of law, large turnover at low prices, and huge bond markets. Big enough to absorb the surplus of the entire world. It also means that your interest rates are going to be permanently lower than they would be if there was no excess global demand for FGBs. This means your economy is going to be subject to asset bubbles and financialization -- we're talking huge bond markets that risk dominating the country.

So the economy of Fredonia has to be big, be investor friendly, have strong property protections and rule of law, a grotesquely bloated and powerful bond market, and be willing to run permanent trade deficits vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

Not many nations qualify on all of these accounts, right? China is big enough, but no rule of law, and since their entire economy is based on running trade surpluses instead of trade deficits, they are suited to be the accumulator of global reserves rather than the issuer of global reserves. Saudi Arabia? Nope. The EU? Nope. Simply no one else is both able and willing to pay the price to be a global reserve currency, and that's why it's going to remain the USD. Not only is this not a "fickle" thing, the rest of the world should be grateful that the US is willing to sacrifice the interests of its own workers and production base in order to make sure the rest of the world has a steady supply of USG bonds.

Rather, the real question is how long will the US be willing to bear this burden? When the US was 40% of global GDP, and global trade was tiny relative to global GDP, it didn't seem like a very big burden. But today, when the US economy doesn't dominate the rest of the world and trade is huge, the price of being a global reserve currency is devastating. It means de-industrialization, collapsing cities in the rust belt, rising death rates and a shrinking US middle class, as well as rising Federal deficits.

I can very easily see a future in which the US starts imposing more and more capital controls that prevent foreigners from purchasing dollar assets similar to protections that other nations have, at which point guess what -- there will be no global reserve currency. The free ride, for the rest of the world's producers, will be over.

Trade agreements will need to go back to being settled either bilaterally, or with some kind of specie (gold? silver? bitcoin?). This would be a great thing in some respects, because it would force each nation to not overproduce, but it would cause a huge contraction in international trade, corresponding to a contraction in global GDP and well being, and especially to those economies that rely on running persistent trade surpluses in order to employ their workers -- nations such as Germany, China, Japan will take big hits should they lose the ability to persistently run surpluses.

Post reply on HN