OnlineDomain.com Domain Name News & Opinions
New gTLDs have lost 2.3 million domain names in the past 8 weeks. There are now about 22 million new gtld domain registrations.
According to Namestat.org there have been 4.3 million domain names removed from zone files while there have been 2 million new registrations.
The domains that have been deleted were mostly from the .XYZ promotion that ran last year offering domains for as low as 1 cent. That was a promotion that was loosing money for the registry so it was far from sustainable.
Once again most of the new registrations are part of some promotion again. There were 0.5 million domains registered on June 16 and there has been a surge on new registrations in early July (350k domains registered one day and so on). Normal New gTLD registration numbers are at about 10k-20k per day.
.XYZ has lost about 2.5 million domain name since March 2017 down to 3.75 million domains.
.TOP has lost about 2 million domain name since December 2016 down to 2.6 million domains.
While most New gTLDs are loosing domains there are a few exceptions like .club that now has about 1 million domain names.
UPDATE:
.xyz lost 1.17 million domains overnight and now ranks #2.
New gTLDs now have about 20.9 million registrations in total.
OnlineDomain.com - © Copyright 2012-2024 - All Rights Reserved
I noticed .com wasn’t mentioned in this article (Namestat doesn’t seem to have a .com option) to keep it in perspective. Now, I don’t have an account at expireddomains to see how far back this list goes, but it appears to be 1 to 7 days (Maybe just 24 hours) of .com drops (Or lost .com’s): (2,015,118 Domains) https://www.expireddomains.net/deleted-com-domains/ – I’m also not sure of the accuracy of that site, however, I think that articles like this, geared to rip appart new gTLDs would have better clarity if compared to legacy gTLDs so people can see the numbers really aren’t all that different sometimes.
Ok, lets compare. .com has almost 6x the amount of regs then all the new gtlds combined, almost 128,000,000 and over time has grown. Compared to .xyz at around 3,500,000 and dropping.
Comparing legacy to a new gTLD based on it being around longer and having more registrations with a 20+ year head start over a new gTLDs isn’t very accurate either. Maybe we can find some old archived .com drop data somewhere that matches the same time frame a compared gTLD is in now, to see how they fared against each other with the same exact length/time of existence? Or would that not be fair either?
.com has never ever lost 40% of its registrations in 3 months. Except maybe when there were 10 domains and 4 dropped!
Please keep to the facts.
Another perspective, .xyz has lost about 40% of it’s regs from the high of around 6,200,000. Can you let everybody else know when .com lost 40% of it’s regs?
https://namestat.org/xyz
Geared to rip appart? Telling the truth is geared? You seem to be distorting the truth counting only drops for .com.
When did .com offered free domains and then lost 40 million registrations? That is right. Never!
Do you have old .com data to compare existence times for accuracy so we can compare the same stage against the same stage? Since the angle being used by .com enthusiasts is that nobody knows what a new gTLD is and that’s why businesses don’t want them, it should match great with old .com data since not many people knew what that was either back then, right?
Not right. I don’t have proof that people were not living on the moon 20,000 years ago. That doesn’t mean people were living there.
Fact: .com grew at its fastest pace while retail prices where still at $50 and more.
Fact: .com was never discounted to $0.99 p.a.
Fact: .com reached an ATH in registrations just 4 weeks ago. After 30 years of first availability (!)
Don’t but into any of these false narratives.
.com is king and always will be.
Nobody is questioning whether .com holds the best value, I think everyone already knows that .com is the highest valued extension in today’s markets.
While it may not have been a registry discount, there’s no denying that large registrars have provided .99 cent .com registration code for years (Not much in the last couple years, if any, though)
All time high, 4 weeks ago, after 30 years. Right, so, i wonder what some of the new gTLDs all time highs will be once they reach 30 years of existence? This is why it would be nice to see some actual data from .com when it was 2 to 3 years old, so we can compare it to a 2 to 3-year-old new gTLD and get a better picture of comparable growth at equal stages of existence.
Another myth. Verisign hasn’t done any such promotions in the past 10 years.
Yes godaddy sells .com for $1 but you have to buy the 2nd year too at $15+!! So that is like nothing.
Actually there is some data on .com and it would in no way helpful to anything. How will it help you knowing the numbers in 1988? There was no internet then.
At least you aren’t denying the .99 cent .com coupons from Godaddy from 2008 to what, 2012/2013? However, for more accuracy, I don’t recall ever having to pay for 2 years when I was using those coupons (I just changed 2 yes to 1 yr at checkout). That was back in my quick flip days, where I would buy up bulk .99 cent com’s and flip them for $40 to $250 a pop. My business model changed a lot since then, but I still remember that the .99 cent registrations did not force me to buy another year. The more recent ones may have, from 2014 to current.
The data will help transparently show that all NEW extensions go through the same growth spits and hurdles. Comparing .com when it was new will shed light on the current struggle of new gTLDs. It’s much more logical to compare growth data from the same existance times than it is to simply stack a 30+-year-old legacy next to a new gTLD and claim it a failure based on the one-sided/unfair data comparison.
Registrars may be paying you to buy .com that doesn’t mean Verisign has anything to do with it.
There was no internet back then yet .com growing. How about that?
And I wouldn’t be writing this article if these registries were not selling free domains claiming to have tremendous growth. Now they have to deal with the fake numbers.
It doesn’t really matter who authorized the .99 cent or free registration does it (Registrar or Registry)? The fact that there was/are offerings of discounted/free domains effects market data the same, right? Which means both, Legacy and New gTLD’s have received the same type of discounted inflation over the years in one way or another. I don’t think we can discredit discount data based on who gave the discount. The discount still happened and there was an increase in registrations for everyone involved in said discounts at different times of their respected existence.
What? How does it not matter??? If you are crazy and you go out giving away free .com how does this have to do with the real numbers?
Sorry but what you are saying ate simply not true statements. I will not continue replying.
Are you seriously implying that if a Registry discounts a New gTLD, it creates artificial inflation and the data is no longer accurate (Can’t be used), but if a registrar discounts a .com, there is no artificial inflation and the data can accurately be used against New gTLD data (Without the same respected discounted data to compare it to)?
So I must reiterate, it doesn’t matter who inflated the registrations (registrar or registry) for any extension, however, all inflated data should be treated equally (Regardless who offered the discounted registrations) and fairly since a discount did take place which inflated registrations, spiking the data over the years for various extensions.
Spiking what data? Are you listening to yourself? .com never lost 40% of registrations. Please no more bs.
If your only focus to prove new gTLD’s are a failure is based on a single 40% fluctuation in data, then I’m not sure there is much more to say since you keep repeating this 40% as the primary factor to an extensions failure, regardless of other indicators.
We’ll just have to respectively agree to disagree.
I genuinely appreciate your articles and enjoy reading them.
With the small business owner in mind though, I have to stand next to the start-ups and new business ventures looking to compete in a saturated market, where the ideal .com is out of their budget or their competitor already owns it and refuses to sell. I would NEVER tell a small business they will fail if they don’t cough up 6 or 7 figures for the .com or that they shouldn’t go into business if someone already owns and uses the ideal .com. I would suggest an alternative to compete like any good businessman would do and remind them that once they generate enough revenue, they can then buy the .com or acquire the company after they earn enough market shares.
We should be helping businesses succeed, not telling them that if they don’t have a .com, they will never be successful in business. Which is basically what a lot the one-sided .com publications from influencers holding large .com portfolio’s are doing (Calling businesses failures out of the gate that don’t own the .com, which is not true. Lot’s of businesses thrive without the .com.)
Where did I say failure? You said it and you are right. Most of the New gTLDs are failing. Some are doing ok.
The small business you just keep defending can buy a longer .com with $10 or simply buy the .com for $3,000. They will end up paying less than the new gtld as all good ones are worth a fortune.
These were cheapie top/xyz registrations. Everyone knew they would be dropped as soon as the sales hit, including those who registered them.
For the record, this is how growth looks like.
http://www.registrarstats.com/GeneratedFiles/DundasImages/TLDHistory1_ddc9b6c2-50f9-48fb-b41a-a53e99dbc785.png?5903b941-d1d0-466f-89b1-93a76e5a6101
This data is for a 30+-year-old legacy .com and shows no accuracy compared to a 2 to 3-year-old new gTLD. This is why it would be nice to see some actual data from .com when it was 2 to 3 years old, so we can compare it to a 2 to 3-year-old new gTLD and get a better picture of comparable growth at equal stages of existence.
Sorry but you’re delusional, and you have no clue what you’re talking about.
First of all, when .com was launched there was no “Internet” as we know it today. It certainly wasn’t about commerce back in the 80’s. So to compare the growth of .com with anything from the nTLD program is not “nice” but just pointless. We have a highly saturated market today, not only in .com but across all country codes as well.
One more thing: You said “it would be nice to see some actual data from .com when it was 2 to 3 years old” Well that data actually exists and it is available to anyone that is able to use Google. I can’t believe you’re running Namepros but just don’t know that it took .com almost 6 years to get over 1000 registrations.
If you’re interested to educate yourself here is a link to a list with the first 500 .com registrations. http://blog.goldnames.com/?p=23925
While I do appreciate your condescending opinion and passion for .com, which retains the highest values (Hands down, and I think everyone including me agrees on that), you’ve just inadvertently admitted that the new gTLD’s are on a faster track in their short time of existence than .com was during its comparable time of existence. Which was the whole point of the debate to begin with.
Thanks for acknowledging the accuracy and importance of comparable launch/2-3 year phase data.
Now that we have that out of the way, we can start moving towards how, as industry professionals, we can help new businesses establish themselves in an online business world where the ideal .com is already owned and the owner has no intentions of selling it to their competition. Thus, leaving the small business with a variety of other options to develop on to compete.
As I’ve stated before, I know that as industry professionals, we aren’t implying that a new business has no chance of success unless they own the .com. That would be ludicrous and goes against any logical competitive business practices.
As domain resellers, one should be trying to actually help small businesses compete with limited budgets or no way to acquire the perfect .com (Already owned and in use by their competition). All successful business models actually provide solutions (Or alternative solutions) to everyday problems, so why should the domain industry be any different? Online start-up businesses need solutions too. Which is why there are more creative extensions available for them today.
Again, nobody is saying new gTLD’s are better than or more valuable than .com. What is being said is that they provide creative solutions to businesses that can’t afford or unable to attain the perfect .com and still need a domain to compete online (Creatively).
Thanks again for your thoughts. All I ask is that people keep an open mind and start thinking more about the struggling businesses looking to compete in today’s online business world, without telling them they are screwed if they don’t own the .com they can’t afford or is already in use by a competitor.
There was no debate here. New gTLDs offered free domains to hype the market. These domains expired and now they are silent or trying to sell more free domains. End of story.
You created your own debate based on some non-existent data trying to prove the unprovable. I still have no idea what you trying to say.
What matters is actual usage. Is end user usage increasing?
Matters to who?
To the audience of this blog.
Sorry but I didn’t get your point. Probably Richard didn’t too.
Eric Lyon is completely right that this, and these sorts of, article(s) is/are designed to rip apart the gTLDs.
Some of them definitely are worthless, and yes, we all know (ad nauseam) that dot-Com is king. Got it.
But the larger story isn’t how many gTLDs have churned lately – which pretty much everyone expected, given the $0.01 offers: The real story is what’s happening to the value of premium dot-coms, such as NNN.coms.
Newbies aren’t going to lose their house by hand-registering 50 or 100 of the gTLDs (unless they play with .cars), but they COULD be in foreclosure by now if they took many of the seasoned-experts’ advice over the past few years by “buying some high-quality dot-coms” (like NNNs).
That hasn’t worked out as planned, obviously [http://domaingang.com/domain-news/mid-summer-doldrums-as-lll-com-prices-plummet/ ].
So where’s the Mea Culpa from all the experts who have convinced the unsuspecting amateurs to bet the ranch on these guaranteed investments — and in many cases were the sellers of these names, at the top of the market?
Designed? Oh my god… And so what if I wanted to rip apart .xyz and .top? They flooded the market, hyped the numbers, helped all spammers and scammers in the world, and now they just sit there while all registries are taking a hit because of this bubble.
Where exactly did I talked about .com in my article?
So now we can talk about those NNN.coms. How many people bought NNN.com outside of China? 5 maybe? If you are paying half a million then you better know what you are doing.
If someone sold their house to buy an NNN.com then I have nothing more to say….
Actually this is how the market works. Prices go up and down. NNN.com still have value and traffic. The main problem is money being throw to worthless domains that will never be sold even if the market picks up.
So maybe your advise is that people should not buy domain names at all? Where the prices high? Maybe yes. But domain were really being sold. I made money selling to the Chinese. Am I sorry that 4-letter .com prices are down???
Agree Konstantinos. What most domain owners do not realize is that there is currently no sustainable market in the new gTLDs “IF” you are trying to sell to endusers. Many are playing the domain game like its Vegas. If we buy new gTLDs, and develop a website that offers something of value, then we would not be having this argument. This industry is feeding on itself because of a get-rich-quick mentality. That is not going to happen. Stick with a gTL domain name and make it worth something yourself. That is where the future money is.
What are you talking about? What noob could afford a NNN.com there are not that many that trade hands in the first place. Most new gtlds are garbage, but the world needs garbage men, so enjoy.
@Eric Lyon, you sound like a paid lobbyist for the new gtld industry. Who are you to tell people you don’t even know they should be looking out for the so-called “struggling” small business owner? How do we know they are struggling? What field are they in? Ecommerce, they are going to get their ass kicked by Amazon no matter their domain so when you talk to them, tell them to forget that project.
And your cheap shot at publications slanting at .com, bottom line guys like Schwartz,Mann, Costello would tell businesses they are screwed without a .com. Does that mean they can’t have a place on the net? NO! but they are screwed operating on Cool.site vs having a solid .com.
lol … I can assure you, I am not a paid lobbyist. It’s a funny thought though.
You’re right, nobody has to look out for the struggling small business owner in a cut-throat environment of salesmen, however, it’s generally good business practice/ethics to help stimulate the economy and encourage jobs by supporting small businesses (Online and offline). However, nobody’s forcing you to support them. I choose to support them, but that’s my personal choice.
This industry is big enough for everyone (Big corporations, fortune 100’s, joint ventures, partnerships, sole proprietorships, mom & pops, freelancers, etc.). I think the industry is reaching a size that it needs to be restructured a little, to compensate for increased business development. Brick-n-mortar businesses already went through restructuring many times over before the internet came into the picture. Just like with those expansions, online businesses are now starting to boom and it’s only going to get bigger.
No cheap shots needed, anyone can watch the videos or read the articles, tweets, blog posts, social shares, etc. where some of the legacy franchises have made those types of statements. And thanks for verifying my point, new businesses have options now and are not forced to pay 6 to 7 digits for a .com to build on they can’t afford at their start-up level or be discouraged not to pursue their business dream because a big Corp already owns the .com and won’t sell it. Obviously, your example of Cool.site isn’t the only option they would have to go with. Depending on their niche, there is now ample (Creative) cost effective options to choose from that would fit their business better than Cool.site. 😉
Who knows, maybe they will generate enough revenue to buy the .com some day or acquire a brand with the .com attached and enter into the world of premium .com pricing. For now, though, the small businesses need help getting started. Like with any good business model, solutions (And alternatives) are needed that fix/solve their problems so they can compete, thrive, and eventually expand, like everyone else.
As you said though, it’s not anyone’s responsibility to assist small businesses in their ventures. It’s a personal choice that each industry professional must make for themselves.
There were always options and yes there were new companies before the new gtlds arrived. They have not magically rejuvenated the economy.
Nobody was waiting for .xyz to launch just to start of their company! And new business owners don’t need help from us like they didn’t need help 3 years ago.
There are different dynamics at work in the legacy and new gTLDs, Eric,
Some of the same speculative (Chinese Bubble) dynamics hit both legacy and new gTLDs. The XYZ 1c promotion is having a major effect on new gTLD deletions but this was expected. The approximate exposure for XYZ is about 3.37 million domains. With discounting promotions, a 5% renewal rate is not unusual. The low cost of the XYZ promotion domains may result in a lower renewal rate than a typical discounting promotion. There still new domain names being registered in the legacy and new gTLDs despite the deletions. However, most of the focus is on deletions due to the .INFO boom and bust cycles created in new gTLDs by discounting and promotions.
.COM figures ompared with first day of previous month:
01 Jan 2017 New: 2,639,905 Deleted: 3,877,421
01 Feb 2017 New: 2,836,343 Deleted: 2,429,825
01 Mar 2017 New: 2,803,347 Deleted: 2,192,518
01 Apr 2017 New: 3,238,490 Deleted: 2,922,627
01 May 2017 New: 2,824,292 Deleted: 2,989,733
01 Jun 2017 New: 2,961,565 Deleted: 2,512,594
01 Jul 2017 New: 2,805,109 Deleted: 2,531,582
Rough cumulatives for the new gTLDs:
01 Jan 2017 New: 1,498,458 Deleted: 1,380,736
01 Feb 2017 New: 1,164,548 Deleted: 864,254
01 Mar 2017 New: 1,414,918 Deleted: 1,109,196
01 Apr 2017 New: 1,898,585 Deleted: 2,685,492
01 May 2017 New: 1,284,639 Deleted: 1,821,231
01 Jun 2017 New: 1,055,397 Deleted: 1,125,337
01 Jul 2017 New: 955,533 Deleted: 1,597,015
Excellent information John! The 2017 data you provided shows a higher retention in new gTLDs than .com. Obviously with more .com’s registered than nTLDs there will be a higher number of drops, so it’s not really a level playing field to base anything firm on, however, it does indicate that nTLDs are on a faster track than legacy .com was back in the day. Speculation? Sure, we can call it that. The landscape is changing with or without us. Expanding to compensate for more demand and competitive options (creativity) for new businesses in a growing online business world that must compete with .com franchises refusing to sell.
Where exactly is the higher retention? Please do explain.
Some of the new gTLDs are remarkably sticky in terms of renewals, Eric,
They are actually better than .COM on one year renewals but there are some different dynamics at work. Some of the new gTLDs have gone the .INFO route with boom and bust discounting but others have not. It is definitely not the same market as for the early .COM. It also is not the same kind of market as the .EU/MOBI/TEL/ASIA/CO either as they were all launched with a limited number of new TLDs launching at the same time. ICANN decided to make the registries launch in a very small timeframe and this meant that new gTLDs found it difficult to get established before another launched.
The domain landscape is very complex in that TLDs don’t exist in isolation. While domaining is a part of the domain ecology, the real struggle for new gTLDs is in gaining registrants who will develop websites and grow the TLD’s visibility. There is speculative activity in the new gTLDs and these domains tend to drop after a year. The successful new gTLDs are the ones that are developing communities and usage. The renewals on some of the larger new gTLDs for Q1 2016 are bad but some of this is due to the Chinese Bubble. The Chinese Bubble also hit the .COM (and NET/ORG/INFO) but the general public didn’t even realise that the .COM went negative. The first few years of any new TLD’s operation are always unusual. The new gTLDs have different launch dates and some of them are at different phases in their evolution. The cumulative figures hide a wealth of information. The .COM/ccTLD axis in most country level markets occupies about 80% of the market. The new gTLDs are competing with the legacy gTLDs (NET/ORG/BIZ/INFO/MOBI/ASIA) and adjacent ccTLDs.
The renewal rate for .COM on one year regs is about 51 to 56% depending on the month. The renewal rates on the new gTLDs varies from around 70% to 6%, again depending on the gTLD and the month.
.Info almost destroyed itself with that idiotic promotion. The spam going out was enough to ban the whole TLD. Just like what I have done with .xyz, .top, .party, .science and other ridiculous tlds.
Several years later and it seems that more lessons need to be taught.
Yes John…
“While domaining is a part of the domain ecology, the real struggle for new gTLDs is in gaining registrants who will develop websites and grow the TLD’s visibility. The successful new gTLDs are the ones that are developing communities and usage.” – John McCormac
I like eric and believe hes a smart guy, BUT when he said he was able to get .com’s for .99 he fails to mention that the coupon is good for 1 domain name only. im sure he found a way around it as well as others and got a few, BUT people didnt have a limit with most new g’s. Some people spent a $100 bucks and registered 10,000 domains! Just to find out even with 10,000 chances they failed to sell even one and eventually let them drop. A $100 is chea for a lesson learned by experience.
P.s. I love np:)
This blog seems to be 1 of the few left that is honest and unbiased.
If advertisers would have thrown money at this blog id’ guess youd still be honest but somewhat watch what you say as to not offend them.
And 10k or 20k registered .com at .99 were be like a drop in the ocean.
@Lotion – Ya, I had family and friends (A network of registrants) register a bunch for me and push to my account back in those days. I never had to drop any of the ones I regged back then though. They either sold for $50 to $250 individually or sold in a batch/bulk lot so I could recoup any minimal costs on them.That type of business model still works to an extent getting started in the industry as a reseller, however, eventually, a reseller decides to start their own business ventures and become more niche targeted in their investments with better research and tools.
Not everyone follows the same path. There are just way too many different business models that can sprout from this industry.
I wish everyone success regardless which they choose.
One year registrations estimated renewals:
COM/NET/ORG/BIZ/INFO/MOBI/ASIA (AMBIONIC) July 2015 to March 2016 monthly (start of month)
AMBIONIC
56.65% 56.53% 57.56% 57.90% 57.11% 52.50% 38.17% 53.51% 52.96% 48.90%
COM
56.65% 56.73% 57.81% 58.73% 58.44% 53.26% 41.44% 55.69% 56.60% 49.94%
MOBI
57.13% 56.28% 56.38% 57.74% 57.74% 24.33% 49.08% 43.03% 7.13%
NGT
31.47% 44.21% 51.76% 31.71% 45.94% 49.04% 28.40% 22.75% 21.81% 9.09%
BERLIN
85.75% 84.79% 82.54% 85.49% 85.30% 90.03% 82.42% 90.19% 85.31%
The new gTLDs when taken as a whole tend to be overwhelmed by the boom and bust activity in larger new gTLDs. There’s a set of NGTs that are quite normal and not really subject to the same trends in the larger NGTs. The Chinese Bubble hit the COM, legacy gTLDs and the new gTLDs.
What happened with .INFO was a case of playing the odds, Konstantinos,
There will always be some level of renewal in a discounting promotion. Some of it is down to auto-renewal at the registrars and some will be down to registrants developing a website on the domain name. A domain name with a developed website is less likely to drop than one with no such investment. What XYZ and some of the other registries have done is to play the same game. In doing so, they’ve locked their gTLDs into the same kind of Boom and Bust cycle that happens continually in .INFO gTLD. I wouldn’t group XYZ with SCIENCE and PARTY as there is genuine development in .XYZ gTLD. The .TOP gTLD may seem odd but once you remember that it is a Chinese market dominated gTLD it makes sense. The Chinese domain market has a lot more speculation than Western gTLDs and there are more affiliate landers in some of the Chinese gTLDs than would be seen in Western gTLDs.
Odds yes but at the same time showing that you have no respect for your current registrants.
A lot of Chinese gtlds have a lot of nothing on their landers as well.
It was a very cynical move but it paid off. The interesting thing about Chinese landers is that there’s a lot of gambling affiliates and lotto results. PPC is there but the mix of lander types is more diverse than other gTLDs. The downside of the Boom and Bust strategy is that the registry is always trying to deals with registrars to keep the new regs ahead of the deletions.
You mean secret renewal payoffs done by a very well know registry?
No. I mean that it kickstarted the .INFO registration volume in a way that would not have been possible without discounting and free registrations. Once a TLD reaches a threshold of about 1.5 million or so domains, it begins to develop a kind of momentum of large numbers. The problem with heavy discounting is that if the registry uses it like a hammer to solve all problems, then it locks the registry into a boom and bust cycle from which it is very difficult to escape. Discounting, done well, can grow a TLD in a sustainable manner. The NYC registry did a study (they covered it at the Copenhagen ICANN meeting) on it and found a pricing sweetspot where the renewal rates tend to be the best. Heavy discounting in most gTLDs tends to produce one year wonders moreso than renewing domains.
It’s all over for new tlds. Following years of failed extensions even *releasing every extension imaginable* failed to make a dent.
The biggest flop of them all are the .brand’s with the regular ntlds going down the toilet nearly as fas, good luck to anyone still hanging on.
“It’s all over for new tlds.”
What numbers you got for end user usage? An increase or decrease? Stats please.
Anyone can hate on the 1 cent promo drops. The general public doesn’t even know they are taking place.
Show me them end user stats.
From 0 you can only go up.
GTLD’s do not work, due to to many greedy operators, with their own rules in place, premiums killed it, the fine print is a liability, nobody wants to build on them. Sure for $1.99 some punk will try, but the .com will get their traffic.
K owns more GTLD’s than the average person, I am sure he would hope they didn’t tank, but they are, just the truth.
In the race to the bottom which will be first?
.whoswho or .protection or .web all with less than 100 registrations and heading downwards.
correction .wed (not .web)
.XYZ lost another 1.1 million registrations yesterday! No longer number one newTLD. 30% of registrations lost on a single day! It’s over. Not even Eric Lyon will find a way to spin this, lol.
https://namestat.org/
There have been lots of .com deletions.
http://www.hosterstats.com/blog/2014/09/23/over-160-million-deleted-com-domains/
Let’s be honest nobody is going to go out and register these 3 – 4 million dropping .XYZ domains.