More Fraudulent Bidding Activity at DropCatch.com

[Arca]

DropCatch.com just can't get rid of fraudulent bidding activity on their platform. Fraudulent bidders bid up prices, don’t pay when they win, and then the names are re-auctioned again and again until a legit bidder wins.

It is a win-win system for DropCatch. If the fraudulent bidders bid up a legit bidder, DC cash out even more thanks to the fraudulent bidder driving up the price beyond where it would have gone with only legit bidders. If the fraudulent bidder wins, they simply hold and re-auction the name over and over until they get a legit bidder that pays. It's a problematic system for regular bidders, because before these fraudulent bid handles get suspended, they bid up legit bidders in various auctions.

DropCatch's system enables them to get paid for names even with so many fraudulent non-paying bidders on their platform. But even with this auction restarting system in place, there are simply so many fraudulent bidders that they sometimes struggle to find a legit winner, despite multipe re-auctions. Take CannaMarket.com. The domain has already been won by THREE DIFFERENT fraudulent bidders. The first winner, in the original auction, was fraudulent. The name was re-auctioned. The second winner was fraudulent. The name was re-auctioned. The third winner was fraudulent (he bid the name up to $4K). When a name can score a triple fraudulent bidder combo streak on their platform, with no legit winner in sight, it’s clear that there is something wrong with how their system works. They are currently holding cannamarket.com in a dropcatch.com holding account, and I wonder whether they will try to re-auction the name a fourth time, or just let it drop since this is obviously a bad look for them when three out of three attempts of auctioning off the name ended up with fraudulent bidding activity (and who is going to be brave enough to bid against all the fraudulent bidders in a fourth auction? This name is apparently a fraud magnet).

Then there was this auction for lumeo.com recently (it was bid up to $14K by a bidder that most likely is fraudulent, and the winner has not yet paid, and the payment deadline passed a few days ago). How long until this name gets re-auctioned due to fraudulent bidding activity?

I often get emails from dropcatch saying "due to complications involving potentially fraudulent activity, the following auctions you had participated in are being restarted". A quick search shows an inbox full of emails notifying me of fraudulent bidding activity and auctions being restarted:

I just received another one today. It contained another SEVEN auction names that closed recently with fraudulent bidding activity:

cybercorp.com - Sold for $1251
sefin.com - Sold for $665
devlog.com - Sold for $343
thermair.com - Sold for $457
simplypretty.com - Sold for $515
finte.com - Sold for $350
kinovo.com - Sold for $330

All these auctions involved fraudulent bidding, and have now been restarted (you can go to dropcatch.com and bid on them right now). A quick visit to the dropcatch.com website shows a other restarted auctions as well, such as for evinite.com (sold for $142) and acercloud.com (sold for $370). Will legit bidders win these restarted auctions this time around?

DropCatch.com is very much like a game of hot potato, where fraudulent bidders bid up auctions and don't pay when they come out winning. There is a significant amount of auctions being restarted due to winners not paying up, when compared with other expired domains auctions platforms. The result is that legit bidders have to pay, literally, for the presence of so many fraudulent bidders on this platform that bid up the prices for legit bidders. Just an advice for everyone to be aware of this issue when participating in auctions at dropcatch.com.

 

[Arca]

No. We will not be altering our reauction process. We understand the frustration of some users, however we will not be altering the process or intervening in the reauction of domains. Domains that are not paid for by the winning bidder will return to auction and the winning bidder of the original auction will be indefinitely suspended from our platform.

If your statement is true, then why are you not sending cannamarket.com to auction for a fourth time? The third time this auction ended, it was won at $4383 and the winner did not pay. Since then you have held the domain in you dropcatch.com account.

So you are saying that "Domains that are not paid for by the winning bidder will return to auction" and that you "will not be altering our reauction process". Except in this case you have obviously altered your reauction process by blocking the domain from being reauctioned despite non-payment by the winner.

You said that "Domains that are not paid for by the winning bidder will return to auction". But since you are now blocking this from happening you statement is false. This demonstrates how you actually do have flexibility with altering how this system operates in situations where it suits you.

 

[wwwweb]

Two more auctions cancelled and restarted due to non-paying bidders at DropCatch

skypop.com - sold for $344 on 22 October - Winner did not pay. Auction has now been restarted.

The auction for menuto.com has also been restarted today. The domain was originally caught on Oct 19 and the auction closed on Oct 22. What is notable about this auction is that it only has one bidder (for a domain to go to a public auction it needs to have two or more backorders in place). I assume the other person who had the other backorder for this name won it, didn't pay, and now the auction has been restarted with the bid of the remaining original backorder holder.

Do you happen to have bidder handles for the deadbeats of such auctions, I guess we need to police Dropcatch just to make sure they are blocking these bidders from bidding again. Or to see if they are creating similar usernames.

Good point on the two backorders, Dropcatch is once again profiting from deadbeat bidders, and not treating their customers fairly in the bid process if there is only the single remaining bidder left.

 

[wwwweb]

If your statement is true, then why are you not sending cannamarket.com to auction for a fourth time? The third time this auction ended, it was won at $4383 and the winner did not pay. Since then you have held the domain in you dropcatch.com account.

So you are saying that "Domains that are not paid for by the winning bidder will return to auction" and that you "will not be altering our reauction process". Except in this case you have obviously altered your reauction process by blocking the domain from being reauctioned despite non-payment by the winner.

You said that "Domains that are not paid for by the winning bidder will return to auction". But since you are now blocking this from happening you statement is false. This demonstrates how you actually do have flexibility with altering how this system operates in situations where it suits you.

They basically discredited their own points, that they are doing something, but they are really not doing anything.

When a domain that sold on Aug 6th, which is indexed in Namebio, now as D Trump would say is a FAKE SALE, for that to happen two additional times, and take us into November shows that Dropcatch does not take due care, or concern as they stated in their cut, and paste response.

If this can be manipulated 3 times over, imagine what else can be. To be honest, I would say about 8 active users win 50 percent of the stuff on dropcatch on a daily basis, and they are very territorial when it comes to letting anyone else win.

 

[tonyk2000]

if there is only the single remaining bidder left.

I had a couple of cases @ snapnames where myself and somebody else were just 2 bidders, and another bidder won but did not pay. In these cases, snapnames offered me an _option_ to pay min. $69 (or whatever was min. bid at that time) amount of default bid and have the domain. By option I mean that they also bothered to ask me - "do you still want this domain?". This was fair.

 

[Arca]

Do you happen to have bidder handles for the deadbeats of such auctions, I guess we need to police Dropcatch just in case they are blocking these bidders from bidding again. Or to see if they are creating similar usernames.

Good point on the two backorders, Dropcatch is once again profiting from deadbeat bidders, and not treating their customers fairly in the bid process if there is only the single remaining bidder left.

I don't have a list of bidders that have been (or should have been) banned.

While we are able to see all past auction history in our accounts, dropcatch.com immediately erases all auction history where fraudulent bidding activity/non-payments have taken place. So when auctions are restarted due to fraudulent auction activity, there is no way to go back and look at the auction activity for these auctions anymore.

So order to keep track of which bid handles get suspended due to fraudulent bidding activity you would have to screenshot every single completed auction bidding history prior to the winning bidder being deemed fraudulent. There is no way to obtain this info "after the fact".

If DropCatch left the history of fraudulent bidding activity up in the records in our accounts that would obviously be better for transparency and for building trust (since we could then go back and examine the fraudulent bidding activity and also feel certain that the suspended bid handles are actually suspended and are never seen again in future auctions).

 

[wwwweb]

I had a couple of cases @ snapnames where myself and somebody else were just 2 bidders, and another bidder won but did not pay. In these cases, snapnames offered me an _option_ to pay min. $69 (or whatever was min. bid at that time) amount of default bid and have the domain. By option I mean that they also bothered to ask me - "do you still want this domain?". This was fair.

I agree that is a fair, and honest play policy, and you rightfully had an opportunity to pay, or decline their offer to you.

More transparent, but I guess Snapnames had to learn that the hard way. Dropcatch support is a bit more arrogant when it comes to that process at this point.

 

[wwwweb]

So about 3 years to this date at Dropcatch I remember seeing lasvegaslimousine.com close at $11,xxx, obviously it was not paid for, and it resold for $4,000, that is almost a 3X margin in price difference.

The same bidder who won the second time around still owns it, he kinda runs a home made lead generation business for limos. That same bidder was one bid away from paying $11,000 for that domain had that deadbeat bidder backed off, or gotten distracted.

This is where the danger lies for the consumer, but the polar opposite for the house, as that is pure profit, provided by a bidder who can disappear just like a ghost if they feel the need not to follow thru, and pay.

 

[Arca]

The Curious Case of CannaMarket.com: Three Non-Paying Auction Winners + Inexplicable Fourth Auction Obstruction by DropCatch

It’s probably useful for this discussion on fraudulent bidding at DropCatch.com to add some more detail about this now infamous dropped name. It’s unique in that it was won by three different winners in three different auctions that were all deemed fraudulent. Three winners won but none of them paid. They have still not managed to get a legit winning bidder for this name, but DropCatch.com is now blocking the domain from being restarted and sent to auction a fourth time.

The domain was dropcaught by them on July 7, 2017.

In the original auction at DropCatch it sold for $5,101 on July 10. The winning bidder did not pay, was deemed fraudulent, and the domain was restarted.

The restarted auction ended on July 24, where the domain sold for $5,070. Again, the winning bidder did not pay, due to "fraudulent bidding activity," and the domain auction was restarted.

The third auction ended on August 6, where the domain sold for $4,383. The winner this time also did not pay. DropCatch.com is now blocking the domain from being sent to auction a fourth time, even though they have adamantly stated that "domains that are not paid for by the winning bidder will return to auction". They claim to stand so firmly behind the system they have in place that they cannot make any changes based on the suggestions provided in this thread. But this example shows that they are actually quite flexible with how they run their system, as they decided to not return it to auction a fourth time, against their own rules.

The first two auction rounds have been deleted from the namebio.com database, but deleted sales are not deleted from their daily market reports series. Here are the reports containing the sales numbers I have provided above:

CannaMarket.com Auction 1 - July 10 - $5,101 (non-paying winner)
CannaMarket.com Auction 2 - July 24 - $5,070 (non-paying winner)
CannaMarket.com Auction 3 - August 06- $4,383 (non-paying winner)
CannaMarket.com Auction 4 - not yet announced, even though nearly 3 months have passed.

 

[wwwweb]

The Curious Case of CannaMarket.com: Three Non-Paying Auction Winners + Inexplicable Fourth Auction Obstruction by DropCatch

It’s probably useful for this discussion on fraudulent bidding at DropCatch.com to add some more detail about this now infamous dropped name. It’s unique in that it was won by three different winners in three different auctions that were all deemed fraudulent. Three winners won but none of them paid. They have still not managed to get a legit winning bidder for this name, but DropCatch.com is now blocking the domain from being restarted and sent to auction a fourth time.

The domain was dropcaught by them on July 7, 2017.

In the original auction at DropCatch it sold for $5,101 on July 10. The winning bidder did not pay, was deemed fraudulent, and the domain was restarted.

The restarted auction ended on July 24, where the domain sold for $5,070. Again, the winning bidder did not pay, due to "fraudulent bidding activity," and the domain auction was restarted.

The third auction ended on August 6, where the domain sold for $4,383. The winner this time also did not pay. DropCatch.com is now blocking the domain from being sent to auction a fourth time, even though they have adamantly stated that "domains that are not paid for by the winning bidder will return to auction". They claim to stand so firmly behind the system they have in place that they cannot make any changes based on the suggestions provided in this thread. But this example shows that they are actually quite flexible with how they run their system, as they decided to not return it to auction a fourth time, against their own rules.

The first two auction rounds have been deleted from the namebio.com database, but deleted sales are not deleted from their daily market reports series. Here are the reports containing the sales numbers I have provided above:

CannaMarket.com Auction 1 - July 10 - $5,101 (non-paying winner)
CannaMarket.com Auction 2 - July 24 - $5,070 (non-paying winner)
CannaMarket.com Auction 3 - August 06- $4,383 (non-paying winner)
CannaMarket.com Auction 4 - not yet announced, even though nearly 3 months have passed.

So this will follow the same fate as the streamcast.com saga.

Another reason they maybe decided not to return it could be to save the shame of having to auction it off for a 5th, or 6th time as they have no control over the wacky non paying bidders infiltrated within their platform. Then again maybe they do, and decide to look the other way, as we all know deadbeat bidders are good for business, fake bids, mixed with real bids, equals more profit for dropcatch which is all that matters at the end of the day.

 

[tonyk2000]

Since the cosmetic changes DropCatch is announcing would likely not fix the problem even partially (as the problem appears to be with the system design - open auctions without obligatory accounts pre-funding), it is likely that they will stop re-auctions instead. Which opens the question - what will happen with the domains in question from legal/ownership/auctions TOS point of view.

 

[Arca]

as they have no control over the wacky non paying bidders infiltrated within their platform.

They have chosen to have no control over this by deciding to not implement changes that would prevent it.

If bidding higher $ amounts had to be backed by pre-funded account funds they would practically eliminate the non-paying bidders issue.

If they ran private auctions they would largely eliminate the frontrunning issue. Their main competitors, NameJet and SnapNames, run private auctions. Why can't they? DropCatch is the first dropcatching platform to use open auctions. All this fraudulent activity on their platform by latecomers who are able to join as a result of their open auction system demonstrates why this system is less than ideal. Take Lumeo.com. Fraudulent winning bidder "golumeo" started bidding when the price was in the $3XX range. If this had been a close auction he would not have been able to attempt frontrunning, as he would not have been able to bid, and the domain might have been won by a legit winner instead.

But on the other hand, golumeo bid up a legit bidder to $14K (wasn't the second highest bidder w a r l o r d?), and if golumeo had stopped bidding just a moment earlier, that bidder would have won and might have paid for the name. In that case they would have achieved a significant monetary gain thanks to fraudulent bidder "golumeo". Just an example of how this fraudulent activity in many cases can lead to significant monetary gain for DropCatch.

 

[wwwweb]

They have chosen to have no control over this by deciding to not implement changes that would prevent it.

If bidding higher $ amounts had to be backed by pre-funded account funds they would practically eliminate the non-paying bidders issue.

If they ran private auctions they would largely eliminate the frontrunning issue. Their main competitors, NameJet and SnapNames, run private auctions. Why can't they? DropCatch is the first dropcatching platform to use open auctions. All this fraudulent activity on their platform by latecomers who are able to join as a result of their open auction system demonstrates why this system is less than ideal. Take Lumeo.com. Fraudulent winning bidder "golumeo" started bidding when the price was in the $3XX range. If this had been a close auction he would not have been able to attempt frontrunning, as he would not have been able to bid, and the domain might have been won by a legit winner instead.



But on the other hand, golumeo bid up a legit bidder to $14K (wasn't the second highest bidder w a r l o r d?), and if golumeo had stopped bidding just a moment earlier, that bidder would have won and might have paid for the name. In that case they would have achieved a significant monetary gain thanks to fraudulent bidder "golumeo". Just an example of how this fraudulent activity in many cases can lead to significant monetary gain for DropCatch.

Great insight, but why would dropcatch change any of this, to profit tens of thousands of dollars by having lax rules, on someone else's dime, why not leave it status quo, who wouldn't want to make an easy $10K everyday just by having lax internal controls. Time after time, their customers only suffer, they continue to profit, and grow.

When it comes to Dropcatch you have to play defense first, then offense, since the platform is not willing to protect you against such shill activity, you need to protect your money first. Otherwise you should just set up direct deposit into Dropcatchs bank account.

The Lumeo domain is tainted so to speak, who knows what that front runner would have done in terms of sending emails to mark holders, big liability.

 

[tonyk2000]

DropCatch stopped answering in this thread. Isn't it a public holiday today in U.S.? I think it is not.

Why remain silent? To have this thread go down and die?

Great insights posted here. DropCatch (or any other domainer-servicing business) should always remember that domainers are great investigators, it is the daily job , and not an easy job.
As Mark Twain said, "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

 

[wwwweb]

Could it be said that WITTYNUT of CannaMarket.com deadbeat fame really wanted the domain, and kept making the fake accounts until he came up with the $$$ to buy the domain, just buying time, for this to happen 3X over is bad. The problem is in the crossfire this person bidded up other names that probably caught his eye, but did not win, but cost other auctions hundreds, and overall thousands of dollars in bids.

If we can figure out such patterns, why can't dropcatch see this, why keep adding new same day signup bidders to the auction, in the hopes of a legit bidder wanting it more?

Maybe it is time for regulation for some of these operators, they seem to be operating in the wild west a bit, if someone really wanted to they could really take their customers to the bank. Money makes people do bad things we see this everyday, some people have a conscious, and others don't.

Dropcatch I leave you with this:

Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction. ...

 

[anantj]

This would certainly eliminate non-paying bidders. All these fraudulent $5,000, $10,000, etc. bids would be history if they made this change. Implementing this seems like an easy decision, and considering their terrible track record with fraudulent bidding and non-paying bidders, they should really take this simple step to strengthen the credibility of their platform.

How would bidders pre-fund their accounts to that level post auction start (which lasts for 3 days)? For amounts that large (at least larger than 5K), Wire transfer is the most viable option but that can take up to 5 days itself.

 

[wwwweb]

How would bidders pre-fund their accounts to that level post auction start (which lasts for 3 days)? For amounts that large (at least larger than 5K), Wire transfer is the most viable option but that can take up to 5 days itself.

I agree, I wouldn't want these guys holding large sums of deposits.

I would say maybe you 5X your deposit amount, and failing to fund within 7 days forfeits your deposit.

These are just big IF's, Dropcatch knows what is up, and they are ok with the status quo, as this is the most profitable route for them, you think they are truly concerned about their customers?

The tone of their cookie cutter email said it all.

You just have to be aware on their platform, and if you are getting baited, or you feel a crazy bidder is at bay, dump the domain on them.

 

[Arca]

Amagen.com was bid up to $669 on October 23. The winner did not pay and the auction has now been restarted.

 

[wwwweb]

Amagen.com was bid up to $669 on October 23. The winner did not pay and the auction has now been restarted.

Probably another stupid front runner who think he could score from amgen.

Another one that got passed the eagle eye support at dropcatch, as concerned as they are. I am sure they are twiddling their fingers while scouring tmz in a productive manner, given all their action happens 15 mins in a single day.

 

[Brandstead]

Couldn't they just preauth the credit cards on file to ensure the user has at least some funds available, and include in the terms that non auction payment results in a fine to discourage this? I've been in a few of the auctions mentioned, and seeing the crazy bidding and constant re-auctions makes it hard to trust at all

 

[wwwweb]

Couldn't they just preauth the credit cards on file to ensure the user has at least some funds available, and include in the terms that non auction payment results in a fine to discourage this? I've been in a few of the auctions mentioned, and seeing the crazy bidding and constant re-auctions makes it hard to trust at all

Good advice, if only we were playing with monopoly money the current methods might work for some. If your not careful you can get fleeced to the tune of 4-5 figures very quickly on there.

 

[Arca]

These domains were not paid for by the winners and the auctions were restarted. The restarted auctions have ended, and one domain went for more, the other for less, this time around.

October 19 results (fraudulent winning bidders):
WeForce.com - Sold for $665
FoodBall.com - Sold for $760

November 1 restarted auctions results:
WeForce.com - Sold for $750
FoodBall.com - Sold for $554

 

[Arca]

More fraudulent bidding @ DropCatch.com

Hardly a day goes by without any new fraudulent bidding at DropCatch news. Here's the latest auction to involve a fraudulent bidder who, fortunately for bidder #2, won the auction:

The domain avenew.com sold for $2,270 on October 24. However, the winner did not pay, and the auction has now been restarted.

Frontrunning or just a winner who got buyers remorse? Will the second highest bidder be able to get the domain for a cheaper price with the fraudulent bidder out of the picture? Or will the domain perhaps fetch $3,XXX this time around?

 

[wwwweb]

More fraudulent bidding @ DropCatch.com

Hardly a day goes by without any new fraudulent bidding at DropCatch news. Here's the latest auction to involve a fraudulent bidder who, fortunately for bidder #2, won the auction:

The domain avenew.com sold for $2,270 on October 24. However, the winner did not pay, and the auction has now been restarted.

Frontrunning or just a winner who got buyers remorse? Will the second highest bidder be able to get the domain for a cheaper price with the fraudulent bidder out of the picture? Or will the domain perhaps fetch $3,XXX this time around?

I guess the 4 end users didn't bite to the tune of $5K, which is the min. they would need to make it worth their while.

One again Position bidder #2 was left vunerable for fraud by dropcatch management inability to stop fraud on their platform. Considering their platform has probably less than 100 active bidders on any given day, that they cannot isolate such activity is quite patheic indeed.

 

[Arca]

I guess the 4 end users didn't bite to the tune of $5K, which is the min. they would need to make it worth their while.

One again Position bidder #2 was left vunerable for fraud by dropcatch management inability to stop fraud on their platform. Considering their platform has probably less than 100 active bidders on any given day, that they cannot isolate such activity is quite patheic indeed.

Would be interesting to know the ratio between established bidders and brand new accounts among non-paying winners.

 

[wwwweb]

What a difference a shill bidder makes, an $11K difference by taking the shill bidder out of the lumeo.com auction.