--

image: http://www.themobilepcguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/domain-name.jpg

     Gary Millin and his company, World Accelerator, have taken venture capitalism to a new level with their intriguing business model. In addition to offering professional aid to enterprising entrepreneurs, Millin owns millions of dollars worth of domain names, that prospective companies can lease from World Accelerator, and use for themselves.
     Millin got into the business of domain names in the early days of the internet. It all started in the mid-90s, when Millin bought the domain mail.com along with investment banker Gerald Gorman at Harvard Business School. mail.com would reach billion-dollar valuations on the Nasdaq, and Millin found himself buying portfolios of generic domain names, including usa.com, doctor.com, and many others which have sold for upwards of a million dollars.
     Though you can no longer directly purchase domains from Millin, he has stayed true to his roots of venture capitalism, and genuinely seeks to use his resources to help startups success. Millin strongly believes that a domain can boost, and in some cases define a company's public image. Though he could potentially sell some of his domains directly for substantial amounts, Millin claims that he would "rather participate in the whole growth process", explaining that "if we can bet on a company and they get successful, that's more rewarding than saying 'hey, send me a check."
     While there are some who might take issue with the way Millin is seemingly hoarding these domain names, contradicting the ideal of a 'free internet', I admire Millin's opportunism, and the way he uses his stockpile of domain names to benefit small startups and businesses, rather than just profiting off them, or leaving them to rot. Nonetheless, Millin's case certainly brings up interesting questions about the concept of ownership on the internet, and while I personally see nothing wrong with what World Accelerator is doing on the marketplace, it may not be long before more intrusive monopolies come into play, and it will be interesting to see how a not-so-generous opportunist could monetize the industry were they in Millin's position.

Read more here

Image: TechRadar

     Facebook recently announced its acquisition of Oculus VR, developer of the Oculus Rift virtual reality apparatus, for $2 billion dollars. Oculus Rift made its debut on Kickstarter, advertising itself as 'the first truly immersive virtual reality headset for video games', and raising over $2.4 million from investors, $2 million more than its initial goal. Now, in light of the acquisition by social media giant Facebook, early supporters of Oculus Rift are skeptical that Mark Zuckerburg's intentions for Oculus Rift might deviate from its original intended purposes, and are denouncing the acquisition as a sellout that does not uphold the values of the investors.
     This situation provides a unique insight into the nature of crowdfunded projects, which are growing rapidly in popularity. The investors' position is understandable, as their initial investments were made in support of a gaming company, which has apparently changed its ideals before even debuting on the market. However, this is a very recent development, and Kickstarter explicitly states that project creators keep 100% ownership of their work. In other words, investing in a project on Kickstarter isn't merely an economic contribution, investors must also invest their trust in the project team, who in this case has acknowledged the apparently incompatible nature of the acquisition, and has urged the public to consider the deal more carefully. 
     Posting on the company website, the Oculus VR team claims that they and Facebook are 'culturally aligned with a focus on innovating and hiring the best and the brightest' in an attempt to justify the merger. It seems that only time will tell whether the investors are correct in their suspicions, or if this is a blessing in disguise for the gaming fans.