X may soon start selling inactive usernames to Verified Organizations starting at $10K, code reveals

Tech Crunch - Apr 3rd, 2025

X is initiating a process to generate revenue by auctioning off dormant usernames to Verified Organizations. These companies, which already pay $1,000 monthly for X subscriptions, can bid on abandoned handles with starting prices of $10,000, potentially reaching over $500,000. The process includes a 'handle inquiry' step facilitated by an automated support bot, and handle transfers occur shortly after purchase. Although the website for acquiring handles isn't public yet, the changes were noted by Nima Owji, a reverse engineer, and reported by TechCrunch.

This development under Elon Musk's ownership follows previous considerations of monetizing dormant usernames, a concept first reported by The New York Times in January 2023. By officially selling usernames, X aims to diversify its revenue streams beyond subscriptions and ads, while encouraging user activity to prevent account dormancy. The move reflects a strategic effort to engage organizations willing to invest in desirable handles, potentially leading to increased brand presence on the platform. X has not publicly commented on this initiative, nor has it made a formal announcement, but the implications could significantly impact how usernames are valued and managed on the platform.

Elon Musk X Tech Crunch Verified Organizations Dormant Usernames Revenue Streams Nima Owji Username Auctions

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-structured and timely exploration of X's plans to sell inactive usernames, supported by credible sources and historical context. It effectively communicates the potential implications for businesses and users, while maintaining a neutral and accessible tone. However, the lack of direct input from X and the limited exploration of diverse perspectives slightly weaken its overall balance and source quality. The article successfully highlights a topic of public interest with potential impact, but could benefit from deeper engagement with the ethical and privacy concerns involved. Overall, it offers valuable insights into a significant development in the social media landscape, while leaving room for further exploration and discussion.

Accuracy

The story provides a detailed account of X's plans to sell inactive usernames, aligning with previous reports and statements from the company. The claim that bids for usernames will start at $10,000 and could exceed $500,000 is consistent with the discovered FAQ details. However, the article does not provide direct quotes or official statements from X, leaving some room for verification. The historical context regarding Elon Musk's previous considerations and actions, such as purging inactive accounts, is accurately reported. The absence of a response from X when asked for comments is noted, which is an important detail that affects the story's completeness.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective of X and its potential business strategy without delving deeply into the implications for users or stakeholders. While it mentions possible benefits, such as generating revenue and encouraging user activity, it does not explore potential downsides or criticisms, such as privacy concerns or user dissatisfaction. Including perspectives from industry experts or user advocacy groups could have provided a more balanced view.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey the information. It logically progresses from the introduction of X's plans to the historical context and potential implications. The tone remains neutral and informative, making it accessible to a broad audience. However, the absence of direct quotes or official statements from X might leave some readers seeking further clarification.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources such as TechCrunch and Forbes, which are well-regarded in the tech industry. However, the lack of direct quotes from X or its representatives weakens the source quality slightly. The reliance on a reverse engineer's findings and previous reports adds credibility, but more direct input from X would strengthen the article's reliability.

Transparency

The article provides some context about X's past actions and intentions, but it lacks detailed explanations of the methodology behind the findings. The absence of a clear explanation of how the reverse engineer discovered the changes limits transparency. Additionally, the article does not discuss potential conflicts of interest or biases, which could affect reader perception.