Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

ICM has already sold $200k of premium .xxx names

Kevin Murphy, November 14, 2012, 18:40:30 (UTC), Domain Sales

Contrary to some reports, ICM Registry has in fact already seen several sales of premium names from its recently published buy-it-now price list.
Judging by the changes to the list since it was revealed three weeks ago, at least eight domains have been sold for a total of $55,755.
Two new domains — trannyporn.xxx and trannys.xxx — have been added to the list, and a handful of others have had their prices increased, by a total value of $73,820.
These are the domains we’ve managed to establish were sold, along with their original list prices:

888.xxx ($1,320)
bet.xxx ($3,465)
celebrities.xxx ($15,015)
ddd.xxx ($330)
freeliveporn.xxx ($330)
massage.xxx ($18,810)
moms.xxx ($15,000)
own.xxx ($1,485)

Some domains appear to have been repriced, adding almost $74,000 to the total value of the $7.7 million pot. For example, highdefinition.xxx is now listed at $19,000, up from $2,500.
According to ICM, not all of the sold domains have been removed from the published list yet. President Stuart Lawley said a total of over $200,000 has been taken so far.
ICM came in for a bit of criticism from one early .xxx adopter last month, when six-figure investor Mike Berkens accused the company of damaging the TLD by capping prices too early.
There are still over 1,000 available names on the list.

Tagged: , ,

Comments (4)

  1. Michael berkens says:

    Kevin
    Good for ICM
    Although 60k in reported sales is not 200k
    However still haven’t seem a secondary’s market sale in 2012 reported on Sedo or afternic
    Stand by my comment that flooding the market with 1000 additional premium domains make the sale of those who already invested in .xxx much less likely to sell

  2. Shane says:

    Thanks for sharing real information. I wouldn’t call the other blog post a report though. You have to have some credibility to change the definition from blog post to report

  3. Shane says:

    and I wasn’t talking about Berkens’ post

Add Your Comment