Phoenix 24
Even a name now carries a price.
San Francisco, October 2025.
What once was a static username has become an asset. X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, has officially confirmed the launch of a Handle Marketplace—an internal system that will allow Premium subscribers to purchase inactive usernames. The move reflects the platform’s ongoing quest to diversify revenue after advertising declines and to transform digital identity into a monetizable good.
According to internal documents shared with technology analysts, the program distinguishes between two categories of usernames. The first, called Priority Handles, will be available at no additional cost for certain tiers of paying subscribers. The second, Rare Handles, will include short, generic, or brandable names such as @music, @city, or @style. These will be auctioned or offered through fixed-price sales, with starting amounts reportedly ranging from 2 000 to 250 000 dollars depending on uniqueness, linguistic simplicity, and brand potential.
The company’s engineers describe the system as a blend between domain registration and collectible trading. Each transfer will require identity verification, escrow confirmation, and a payment channel through X’s financial-infrastructure unit, X Payments. By design, the process converts something intangible—a string of characters—into a certified digital property governed by contractual terms. Once assigned, the handle remains bound to the purchaser’s account, subject to compliance with the platform’s code of conduct and continued verification.
From a business perspective, X’s decision fits within a larger pattern of “post-advertising monetization.” The Atlantic Council has observed that major platforms are shifting toward subscription-based ecosystems where exclusivity replaces reach as the principal commodity. In this context, a rare handle operates as a badge of status, signaling authenticity and priority access. The symbolic capital of brevity—being “@John” instead of “@John47321”—translates into visibility and perceived authority.
In Europe, regulators at the European Commission’s Directorate for Digital Markets are already watching the experiment. Officials question whether selling identifiers might create new monopolies of attention, since names function as gateways to search visibility and algorithmic discovery. Legal experts warn that usernames overlap with trademarks and could lead to disputes if corporations or individuals claim identical digital identities. The Commission has requested transparency on valuation criteria and on the arbitration process for conflicting claims.
Analysts at MIT Technology Review see the marketplace as part of a broader philosophical shift: the transformation of online presence from personal expression into transactional value. They argue that X’s model mirrors the early internet’s domain-name rush of the 1990s, when simple words became speculative assets. Back then, domains such as “business.com” sold for millions; today, a handle could become its social-media equivalent.
Across Asia, digital-commerce experts at Singapore’s Lowy Institute predict a surge in secondary-market demand. Although X maintains that reselling will be prohibited, the creation of an informal gray market seems inevitable. Handles associated with global brands, influencers, or emerging trends could be traded discreetly via private agreements. Some cybersecurity consultants warn that this environment may attract fraud, phishing schemes, or identity hoarding by automated agents seeking arbitrage.
For Elon Musk, the marketplace serves two intertwined purposes. First, it reinforces X’s narrative of “platform as economy,” integrating payments, subscriptions, and now digital goods into a single ecosystem. Second, it symbolically reasserts property rights inside the network—each verified name becomes a proof of stake in X’s micro-economy. Internally, the company expects the system to generate several tens of millions of dollars within its first fiscal year, a modest but stable revenue stream compared to volatile ad income.
Critics, however, highlight ethical concerns. Turning names into commodities risks excluding lower-income users and small creators who cannot afford premium identifiers. Advocacy groups from Latin America and Africa argue that the measure contradicts the original egalitarian spirit of social media, where visibility depended on creativity, not purchasing power. The Organization of American States’ Office for Digital Rights has already requested a regional assessment on whether such practices could violate emerging norms on access to digital identity.
Within the U.S., legal scholars debate whether a username can be considered private property or merely a license contingent on corporate policy. If ownership is contractual rather than absolute, users who stop paying might lose access to assets they thought they possessed. That ambiguity could open the door to litigation over confiscated or resold handles—particularly if the names hold commercial value.
Technologically, X insists it has developed safeguards. The platform will freeze reissued usernames for a 90-day quarantine period, preventing impersonation or confusion. Each sale will include blockchain-based certification to verify authenticity and timestamp the transaction. Yet even with such mechanisms, observers caution that technical control does not equal social legitimacy: public trust depends on transparency, governance, and predictability.
Financial analysts in London view the launch as part of Musk’s broader strategy to integrate X into the global fintech sphere. By linking handle transactions to its internal payment system, the company tests new revenue routes that could later extend to digital tipping, micro-investments, or identity leasing. The interplay between reputation and liquidity—the ability to sell or transfer digital prestige—marks a new frontier in platform capitalism.
Sociologically, the implications reach further. Names are the simplest markers of identity, yet once priced, they become symbols of hierarchy. The same logic that made domain names valuable in the early web now colonizes personal identity. Economists call it the “scarcity paradox”: the less tangible the asset, the higher its perceived worth when it becomes exclusive.
Whether X’s marketplace succeeds will depend on perception. If users see it as innovation, it may inaugurate an era where digital identifiers function as currency. If they view it as exploitation, it could ignite backlash and regulatory intervention. Either way, the experiment ensures one truth: in the new economy of attention, even silence has a market price.
The visible and the hidden, in context. / Lo visible y lo oculto, en contexto.