How about .FAIL?

I think you’re probably a long way off the mark with your reasoning Very few new gTLD keyword domains will “compete” with earlier TLDs because it’s highly unlikely any existing entities would want or even need to move. Plus most people are risk adverse rather than innovators, so they follow what everyone else has already done rather than take a risk.

Keywords in new gTLDs effectively are one word longer because the user needs to know the TLD + the keyword, compared to an existing TLD where the TLD part is “known” because other people have been using it day in day out for years.

While type-in traffic will fund registrations and reduce possible leverage most of the value comes from the ability to build a brand for an actual business and it is unlikely any number of new gTLDs will impact on that value in either the short or medium term.

I like your Galapagos example I would guess for most of the residents it’s probably best if they are not commercially exploited, plus they seem to be managing just fine with their local .ec ccTLD Teasing aside, as with many new gTLDs I would also guess while it’s nice for crusaders to get them their own gTLD to give them “representation”, as with many likely new gTLD crusades it would prove very difficult to sustain over the long term.

I would guess what will determine the success or not of many new gTLDs will be the community they represent. If there isn’t really a community but rather a group of people with a shared interest or worse a shared interest to simply to make money then without a phenomenal marketing budget (which only the largest companies in the world are likely to be able to fund) then most new gTLDs will struggle beyond the initial defensive registrations and speculation stages.

With regards your specific need for a pure generic and not wanting to pay the price the current .com owner is asking, I would guess you are in a very small minority. Most businesses choose not to try and build on pure generics, preferring to build a brand so they can distinguish themselves from their competitors (often using a prefix + generic). Building a successful brand on a pure generic for many projects would be very expensive and the $12,000 would likely pale into insignificance compared with the total advertising and marketing spend.

I have feeling from your earlier posts you are maybe allowing your personal value system to influence a project decision. And the question you may be better asking would be is paying $12,000 the best solution for your project, rather than did the previous owner make $11,900 too easily.

I still wonder what will accelerate the bubble burst.

And it will still be a long, long time before a business would be better off going with .shop or .web at registration fee rather than buying the .com.