Good points @Seneca. I think we are going to struggle to understand the behaviours of either system on SAFE.
Risks Of An Untried Scheme
Your scheme sets up possibilities for attacks that don’t yet exist, and commercial practices that could well be more damaging than squatting.
I think it’s impossible to predict how often domains will be taken over.
One way to approach these unknowns this is to ask if a similar approach has been used in any other area. If so, what happens, if not, why not?
I can’t think of any situations where once an asset has been secured, anyone can take it off you without your consent just by paying more for it than you did. It’s like an auction that never ends, where you don’t actually have control over the asset, you just get to hold it until someone else, someone richer than you, wants to take it off you.
The nearest I can think of is a hostile takeover, but here it is only the minority stake that is “bought out”. A majority of the owners have to have sold out first. So it’s not the same, but might give some clues as to how this might work out.
Can anyone think of a situation that uses @Seneca’s approach?
There are risks in devising a new scheme, so I think the aim needs to be evaluated more fully to see if change is needed, and if the risks are worthwhile.
Access For Everyone
As I already mentioned, it seems out of step with trying to make SAFE accessible to all. Your proposal gives wealthy people the ability to take from poorer people, simply because they can afford it, and no compensation. The loser is left with nothing!
Make Squatting Harder
If instead we just make squatting very hard, we can have all the benefits without these risks.
The obvious way to do this is to limit the number of names per account (as already planned), and to make it hard to create or maintain multiple accounts. This would be useful for other reasons (making it hard to attack the network) so extra points if we achieve it.
Both are hard problems, over to you @divine 