I agree with you for the most part and it is possible-- quite likely even, that I am saying my example is the exception to the rule, <i>but generally</i> it is not the case. However, I am not domain squatting and the economnics aren&#x27;t there to do that anyway, it was to illustrate the larger point that <i>some</i> domains, like real estate assets and &quot;tech&quot; companies are very valuable while apparently similar substitutes are <i>not</i> value and actually quite dangerous.<p>Currently, subtle differences make a big impact on metrics(growth, value, price) &amp; the market is beginning to price these in. If you have seen the big short, it is a great movie, but the opening line is something like:<p>It ain&#x27;t what you don&#x27;t know that gets you into trouble. It&#x27;s what you know for sure that just ain&#x27;t so.<p>So try to check myself when I think about something like this, although it is obviously difficult. In this current framing, certainly one or both of us, is wrong and it is sort of a matter of timing.<p>I think we are in 1993 and you think(I don&#x27;t want to put words in your mouth) are in 98&#x27;. Either way, if you were in 93 or 98 and knew what to look for you could have made a lot of money, and you yourself may have because you were fundamentally correct when others weren&#x27;t.<p>So on balance, I think you are totally correct and I do not disagree with you. However, my estimation is that many people are making the mistake of grouping unrelated things together and drawin g a conclusion, when I think that in fact, the opposite could be true currently.