Bidding on your own names at NameJet...?

[webquest]

Once in awhile I see people bidding on their own domains at NJ. I would think it would be frowned upon.

Today's seems more obvious than normal. Or am I missing something here?

Airlinejobs.com owned by Andy Booth at Booth.com and high bidder is BQDNcom (James Booth).

3 bids down we see Boothcom as a bidder.

Same thing with MovieZone.com. Owned by Andy Booth in which he currently appears to be the high bidder.

High Bid: $2,475 USD by boothcom

They actually won their own domain airplanesforsale.com. Im guessing it didnt get as high as they wanted so needed to protect it.

Bidder Amount Date
bqdncom $2,001 7/17/2017 12:23 PM
boothcom $1,950 7/17/2017 12:23 PM

 

[LucidDomains]

You don't use a reserve as a "no reserve" auction brings in the buyers instead you guys go into your own auctions and manually bid up the price to a level you're comfortable selling at??

Incredible. No wonder some of top domainers are doing so well.

@NameJetGM Why does your platform even allow this practice?

 

[Jimmy Hoffa]

Come on, Andrew! You are trying to provide arguments for a federal crime that may have been committed? Really???

www[.]nyccriminallawyer[.]com/fraud-charge/auction-fraud/shill-bidding/

 

[xn--v4h.com]

In early 2016 when I was bidding for 6N Chips at NJ, I was puzzled at @MediaOptions bidding on his own names. Now I know why he did because system allowed it. Sorry to say @NameJetGM , its very unethical.

Really? Someone like me would have thought the arrangement would be something completely different. So unfair for many of us who are unaware and that's wrong.

 

[Dream Big]

Really? Someone like me would have thought the arrangement would be something completely different. So unfair for many of us who are unaware and that's wrong.

Happened to me couple of times. I am 100% sure.

 

[Name Trader]

Welcome to the free market! Yes, if you want something then you need to pay the price the market is asking. With each bid (regardless of who it is from) that price increases. That is the entire premise of an auction. Reserves and everything else just muck up the pure free market nature of an auction.

So are you saying shill bidding is OK, in your opinion?

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Looks to me Andrew's finer points are way outside of what the Booths seem to be doing.

From the evidence provided, it appears the Booths will be in the clear if they can furnish some sort of documentation proving they sold the domain to current seller and that current seller didn't change the WHOIS.

However, judging by DNS history, this may be hard to prove. (unless all domains in question sold between 2/2016 and 3/2016 when DNS changed from ParkingCrew to Bodis?)

No sales for LawTeacher, LACollege, MovieZone, MeatLoadRecipe, or WrestlingWorld on NameBio....

End this discussion by furnishing sales records. (email, escrow, ANYTHING) as this looks very suspicious to the naked eye.

Edit: It's funny that this seller is able to update WHOIS for other domains. Besides WHOIS privacy, a review of domains sold by this seller, show only two WHOIS names. Andy Booth and Oliver H (Oliver H is the presumed sellers account)

Note: The DNS changed from ParkingCrew to Bodis for all above domains between 2/1/2016 and 3/1/2016.

 

[zurc.net]

Grilled and his investigative screenshots.

 

[xn--v4h.com]

So are you saying shill bidding is OK, in your opinion?

No he's not saying he supports shill bidding. He's supports the owners being involved in the bidding without a reserve. In theory I can probably support that if I KNOW the owners are involved. Unfortunately that is so far away from what has happened here. People are bidding on domains without the knowledge of the owners being involved. The risk to owners is minimal because they only lose out on the commission fees and get most of their money back but the potential gain is HUGE because the other bidders who truly want that domain would keep on bidding higher and higher, losing more money than if the unknown owner wasn't involved. To me that's stealing.

 

[xn--v4h.com]

From the evidence provided, it appears the Booths will be in the clear if they can furnish some sort of documentation proving they sold the domain to current seller and that current seller didn't change the WHOIS.

However, judging by DNS history, this may be hard to prove. (unless all domains in question sold between 2/2016 and 3/2016 when DNS changed from ParkingCrew to Bodis?)



Show attachment 64525

Show attachment 64526

Show attachment 64527

Show attachment 64528
Show attachment 64529

Note: The DNS changed from ParkingCrew to Bodis for all above domains between 2/1/2016 and 3/1/2016.

Show attachment 64531

Do you believe the Booths and their explanation? Anyone else here who believes them? Show of hands please!

 

[xn--v4h.com]

Grilled and his investigative screenshots.

Hell he's the only one I follow on this board. He's sharp and I don't even know him.

 

[Name Trader]

No he's not saying he supports shill bidding. He's supports the owners being involved in the bidding without a reserve. In theory I can probably support that if I KNOW the owners are involved. Unfortunately that is so far away from what has happened here. People are bidding on domains without the knowledge of the owners being involved. The risk to owners is minimal because they only lose out on the commission fees and get most of their money back but the potential gain is HUGE because the other bidders who truly want that domain would keep on bidding higher and higher, losing more money than if the unknown owner wasn't involved. To me that's stealing.

to me that's shill bidding.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Do you believe the Booths and their explanation? Anyone else here who believes them? Show of hands please!

it's a stretch, but I believe they are still innocent until proven guilty. (though in the court of public opinion, it doesn't look good)

Hell he's the only one I follow on this board. He's sharp and I don't even know him.

Thanks - but I'm often wrong. I like to jump the gun, make accusations for others to investigate, and at the end see what sticks. Just as the WHOIS didn't change, DNS doesn't have to change in the transfer of domains. Just putting that info out there.

Still waiting for Mr. Booth to provide more details of the sale, including sales date.

 

[xn--v4h.com]

to me that's shill bidding.

It's not technically a shill:
"Let’s look first at the word, “shill.” Shill means basically to falsely advocate a position in attempts to entice others do follow that lead. For example, Robert opens a music store in Seattle, Washington and Robert enlists his friends and family to blog about how wonderful the service is at this new music store — even though none have even set foot in Robert’s new store."

Therefore, if you are fully aware the owner is sitting next to you bidding on his own stuff, then that's not really a shill because he's not falsely advocating anything. It's out in the open.

 

[mr-x]

I am in agreement with Rosener's point here, but it is beside the point in this case because everyone is choosing to ignore the facts presented. Despite what the 'optics' might suggest, the domain name is in new hands. If that owner chooses to list names without reserve, it's a free country. It's a new owner and has transferred from my Godaddy account to the buyer's Enom account. And yes, if myself or my brother can buy the domains formerly owned by me for a reasonable price, we will. Bidding activity is not related to this thread. If there's a deal, I'm having it.

Historical whois doesn't show the airplanesforsale.com changed ownership.

 

[xn--v4h.com]

it's a stretch, but I believe they are still innocent until proven guilty. (though in the court of public opinion, it doesn't look good)
Still waiting for Mr. Booth to provide more details of the sale, including sales date.

Yes in actuality I do wish the Booths can clear this all up with documentation and confirmation from the auction house and that this WHOLE thing is one BIG mistake. Then we can all say, wow, I guess the domaining industry ain't so crooked after all and that I was wrong.

 

[mr-x]

This isn't a new practice, it's just unethical.

3. Seller Bidding Sellers who bid at their own absolute auctions create concern in the real estate auction industry. Sellers are prohibited from bidding at their own absolute auction.154 The court in Pyles v. Goller provides an analysis of why.155 On the day of the auction, only the appellee, Goller, and an unknown bidder had registered to bid at the auction.156 However, prior to the auction, the sellers informed the auctioneer that they were considering bidding on the property themselves.157 The auctioneer later testified that “it was his understanding that ‘[at] an absolute auction, the owner does not have the ability to bid on his own property.’”158 Despite these reservations, the auctioneer allowed the sellers to bid at the auction and never announced this fact.159

https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/acrel.sit...DEA/Hammond-F08-Good_Real_Estate_Auctions.pdf

 

[domain hacks]

They bid on each other domains, they like each other posts...oh, the humanity!!

 

[Rick Schwartz]

This is TOTAL BULLSHIT!!
These are scams not auctions.
If you want to set up a system for owners to bid, then do it in the light of day!
Namejet should shut this down immediately AND a complete audit should be done!!
Bidders should have the option to walk away from tainted deals!

 

[xn--v4h.com]

This is TOTAL BULLsh*t!!
These are scams not auctions.
If you want to set up a system for owners to bid, then do it in the light of day!
Namejet should shut this down immediately AND a complete audit should be done!!
Bidders should have the option to walk away from tainted deals!

I'm not your biggest fan but you made good points here.

 

[betthelot]

This risk is the opportunity cost. I really am surprised nobody understands that!!!!!!

If i put xyz.com in auction and its about to sell for $10,000 and I bid $10,100 then i have made the decision that i rather have the domain name xyz.com than the $10,000 (minus auction commission). If I rather have $10,000 then i let someone else win.

Free market capitalism 101.

Hi Andrew, I understand your theory that allowing the owner to bid on a no reserve auction creates the most perfectly priced market. It's clear you have given this a lot of thought.
What is against your model is that in an auction environment a major piece of information that bidders use to assess the value of an asset is 'DO OTHERS THINK THE SAME'.
It helps to validate or give confidence for them to bid higher. Now if the other bidder is the owner most would feel they are being duped, because owners often over value their own assets and therefore winning against the owner means you have more chance of falling prey to the winner's curse i.e. paying over market value because of incomplete information.
There is no doubt, owners bidding incognito achieves the highest auction prices. Does that truly mean perfectly priced market? No, and here is why: you sacrifice the good will of the auction platform once it becomes clear the auction house is allowing owners to bid and therefore long term, bidders lose confidence and stop bidding in fear they are bidding against the owner. Initially, prices fetched will be higher but as soon as the full information is known to other bidders they will be more circumspect in fear of the winners curse and loss of trust in the auction house.

 

[urlurl]

This is TOTAL BULLsh*t!!
These are scams not auctions.
If you want to set up a system for owners to bid, then do it in the light of day!
Namejet should shut this down immediately AND a complete audit should be done!!
Bidders should have the option to walk away from tainted deals!

Yes 110% agree...or the winning bidders should at least have the option of buying the names after subtracting all the suspected bids.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

They bid on each other domains, they like each other posts...oh, the humanity!!

ShillBrothers.com and ShillDomains.com available for handreg.

If no evidence is provided, the Booths may want to reg these domains for broker protection. Brokered by the ShillBrothers, I mean BoothBrothers...

 

[mr-x]

Unless Both Bros. can prove they didn't own these names, they should be awarded to the last good faith bid.




What does state law say about the seller bidding? First, almost all state law says that if the seller may only bid at a “with reserve” type auction. Secondly, that if the seller wants to reserve the right to bid, that such must be disclosed to the other bidders. Third, that if the seller bids without such disclosure, that the high bidder on property on which the seller bid can take the property at the last good faith bid prior to the seller bidding.

This is TOTAL BULLsh*t!!
These are scams not auctions.
If you want to set up a system for owners to bid, then do it in the light of day!
Namejet should shut this down immediately AND a complete audit should be done!!
Bidders should have the option to walk away from tainted deals!

 

[mr-x]

Hi all - Thanks for the heads-up. We are currently investigating this matter. We obviously do not condone any kind of shill bidding on NameJet, so we take this very seriously. I will post an update when I have one. Thanks again.

-JT

Unless Booth can prove they didn't own these names, they should be awarded to the last legit bidder.

 

[hookbox]

If Namejet actually enforces their own rules and ends this bullshit then names are going to get real cheap, real fast.

I would love to know how many auctions I got fucked on!