X is launching a Handles Marketplace that will put inactive usernames up for grabs, but only to paying subscribers. The largest social network walks away from one of its most chronic pain points—coveted handles locked behind inactive accounts—to turn it into a premium feature for its ever-growing subscription layers. The company provided the key details to PCMag, as summarized by the outlet, with the program mostly splitting handles for free and paid requesters. Unwanted or long-winded handles will still be available for free to Premium accounts, labeled under ‘priority’, while short, highly desired ‘rare’ ones will command a fee for premier drops and invite releases.
It can only be accessed by paying subscribers, introducing a paywall around both free requests and premium-release auctions. All free applicants will be asked to submit an application and then wait to be approved, all at X’s discretion, and on X’s timing.
The occasional paid drops are meant to resemble scarcity events: public runs around publicly watched handles, and private sales around those that brands, creators, and organizations might want. X has added a note that no handles can be resold or transferred, to deter flipping or tempting gray-market activity.
Pricing, scarcity, and access in the new marketplace
- Pricing will not be uniform. A company support page referenced by PCMag suggests starting prices are around $2,500, with top-tier handles reaching into seven figures depending on demand and uniqueness. That bracket effectively turns short, generic words—think common nouns or three-character strings—into digital real estate.
The non-transfer rule is notable. Historically, the most valuable handles have fueled an underground economy, from quiet broker deals to account takeovers. By tying ownership to a specific subscriber and prohibiting transfers, X is signaling it wants revenue to flow through the platform rather than off-platform brokers.
Risks of impersonation, fraud, and account security
Opening the formal market for dormant names raises clear abuse concerns. Security researchers and digital rights groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have long warned that high-profile handles can be magnets for impersonation and phishing when they change hands, especially if visual signals of authenticity are inconsistent.
Law enforcement and industry reports have linked handle theft to SIM swapping and social engineering for years, particularly around so-called “OG” usernames. If the marketplace triggers new bidding wars, X will need robust safeguards—from identity checks to audit trails—to prevent fraud and recover names hijacked during or after allocation.
Brand, trademark, and legal considerations for buyers
For brands and public figures, the marketplace may finally make clean naming available. But it also raises trademark headaches. Disputes over usernames are already informally handled on platforms; with processes such as the World Intellectual Property Organization’s dispute mechanisms and ICANN’s UDRP providing models, but social handles occupy a gray zone next to domain names.
X will be pressured to publish clear criteria about conflicts, especially when a paid bidder who is in the auction collides with a trademark owner or long-standing parody account. In the US and EU, Digital Services Act approaches support the emphasis of platform responsibility for identity abuse and impersonation—which reinforces the priority of visibility into AP&T workflows.
How X’s approach compares to other social platforms
Social media companies have struggled with name scarcity in other ways. Instagram will occasionally reclaim unused handles but draws the line at auctions. Telegram tested out auctions for usernames and channels as collectible assets. Domain registries provide a closer analogy with trademark holder ‘sunrise periods’ and premium pricing for ‘short’ names.
X’s approach mixes features of all three—a recovery funnel for inactivity, premium pricing for scarcity, and a walled garden for subscribers. How effectively it deters black‑market trading or merely channels it around paid tiers will depend on enforcement and the effectiveness of anti-impersonation measures.
Key questions and risks to watch as the marketplace rolls out
Several key questions in this scenario remain.
- How would X define “inactive”?
- Would the platform notify prior owners before reclaiming their name?
- Would there be a verified chain of custody so that followers could see the handle’s ownership change?
- If a rare handle got sold to the wrong people, could legitimate claimants like newsrooms or public agencies escalate disputes quickly enough?
Made with caution, a marketplace might actually reduce username squatting, giving paying users a clear shot at better branding.
Mishandled means increased confusion for everybody, fraud, and a new wave of handle-led security incidents.
How well it balances revenue, safety, and trust is what determines whether selling inactive usernames or usernames themselves is a fix or a fresh fracture in its identity system.