[giancarlostoro]

> While it makes sense in theory, I think there are some practical problems that would have to be addressed before such a system could be put into use. For example, what stops a company with a large bankroll from squashing competitors by purchasing their domain?

They don't have to sell if the offer sucks.

[prickledpear]

The idea is that if I'm a startup that owns google-disruptor.com, I have to declare a value for that domain name (let's say $100,000), and pay a percentage of that value as a tax. I'm then obligated to sell the domain to anyone who is willing to pay $100,000. This prevents me from undervaluing the domain.

Since Google has a much larger bankroll than me, they can purchase the domain for $100,000, and revalue the domain at $500,000 -- out of my price range.

[GilbertErik]

Since Google has a much larger bankroll than you, if they decided that they wanted prickledpear.com, wouldn't you have to sell it to them, or any other party with deep enough pockets?

[prickledpear]

Yes, that is the problem I mentioned in the original comment that I'm not sure how to solve :)

[lolsal]

So as a competitor to Google with $1000 in my pocket, Google could domain-snipe me out of existence, legally, for $1001 dollars?

[bo1024]

To clarify, under the scheme being proposed, they actually do have to sell. Otherwise you would just declare your domain has zero value, you'd pay no tax, and then if anyone offered to buy it, you'd say the offer sucks and refuse to sell. So declaring a value is a commitment to sell and pay the tax.

[giancarlostoro]

> To clarify, under the scheme being proposed, they actually do have to sell.

That just sounds broken to me. If I buy a domain, I should own it. Someone who wants it should offer what they are willing to pay for it, if I don't like their offer, they can find another domain.

[bo1024]

It's definitely a strange idea especially the first time you hear it. I don't know if I like it for domain names.