New Namesilo Marketplace

[cocaseco]

Just saw this and the 7.5% commissions stood out!. Nice to have another option.

https://www.namesilo.com/Support/Marketplace

 

[Arca]

GoDaddy Auctions used to be abused in the same way (though it was nowhere near as widespread as it is at NameSilo) by domain owners who let their domains expire for the purpose of letting domainers bid on them, and get a "free valuation", and then renew those domains. As a response to this GoDaddy have changed the way their expired domain auctions work in an attempt to address this issue. It has gone from being a fairly common occurrence for GoDaddy registered domains, to being practically a non-issue for such domains. It still affects some third party registered domains, but for in house registered domains, which represents the vast majority of expiring domains at GoDaddy Auctions, they’ve pretty much gotten rid of the issue. NameSilo only has in house domains to deal with, so if GoDaddy can fix this problem for in house domains, NameSilo can too.

Name.com has zero issue with this as they start Dutch auction for domains after they can guarantee delivery. Once you hit buy it now, you get the domain. No wasting time on domain owners playing games.

DynaDot used to face widespread abuse of their expired domain system (almost as bad as at NameSilo), and they responded by making changes to how their expired auctions work in order to prevent it. I haven’t been bidding there for some time so I don’t know how successful it has been, but at least they made some big changes in an attempt to address it.

Once auctions start, domains getting renewed is not a major issue at NameJet and SnapNames.

In contrast, at NameSilo, close to 100% of the domains I bid on get renewed, sometimes within hours of me placing a bid at BIN (the renewal often comes as a response you emailing the owner about me placing the winning bid). Something is wrong with the the way the system is set up to work if not even a single domain out of dozens won gets delivered. Your expired domains marketplace clearly invites and encourages abuse by domain owners. And the issue is far more widespread at NameSilo than it has been anywhere else, and it just seems to get worse as more and more people seem to be doing it (the people who got burned on won domains getting renewed start letting their own domains expire for the same purpose - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em...).

You are the only expired domains marketplace in the industry with such systematic abuse of expired auctions by people who use the auctions to gauge interest/detect value, and let domains expire for the purpose of renewing them based on the action they get in the auctions. I think you should totally give domain owners a fair chance to renew their expired domains, but that is not the same as maintaining a system that facilitates widespread abuse of the expired domains pre-release process. The domains going through the expired auction marketplaces I mentioned above comes from registrar pool containing tens of millions of domains that represent the majority of legacy tld domains registered out there. If they all can find a way to give registrants a chance to renew expired domains, while at the same time successfully running expired auctions without the kind of systematic abuse we're seeing in NS expire auctions, you too can take steps to strike the same balance as they have.

 

[Haris]

I recommend what Dynadot has been doing, give the domain owners a limited time, say 30 days where they can renew the domain for standard fee and don't put the domain at auction before those 30 days, start the auction on the 31st day and if the owner wants to renew the domain after that, charge $10 extra. There has been instances where domains still got renewed at Dynadot but it is much better than before. Who wants to pay $20 renewal fee?

 

[bee]

@namesilo

Can you please add the option where buyer pays fees in addition to the agreed price or the fees is split between the buyer and seller, like Escrow.com. It will be very useful for me. Because when I use Escrow.com, and the buyer and I agree to a price, say $2000, I just let him know he will have to pay additional escrow fees but when using namesilo marketplace, I feel it's awkward to ask them to pay $2060 when we agreed at a price of $2000.

At Escrow.com, it's also clear to the buyer that if he wants to pay less fees, he needs to use wire transfer instead of PayPal/CC but at NameSilo, the buyer will probably use the easy method of paying via PayPal/CC and 7.5% fees will get deducted from the sale price. So I will have to specifically tell the buyer that he must pay via wire.

Not a big deal but will help.

Thanks a lot!

That is a good idea.

 

[bee]

** Big Announcement - Lower Fees!**

As part of our continuing effort to offer the lowest possible fees, we are happy to announce that we have lowered our standard 7.5% fee for Marketplace sales to just 3% for sales paid for via wire transfer (any other methods of payment are still 7.5%). While this lower fee applies to any sale paid for via wire, since our system requires a wire for sales over $5,000, this means that all sales over $5,000 will have just a 3% fee applied.

We have also removed the $15 fee for receiving your commission proceeds via wire. And, as is already the case, any sales paid via wire transfer (or Bitcoin or AliPay) qualify for immediate payout.

Therefore, as an example, if you sold a domain for $10,000 it would mean:

• $300 in fess (you get $9,700)
• The buyer gets the domain immediately upon receipt of the wire
• You can withdraw your $9,700 in earnings immediately upon payment receipt
• If you withdraw via wire, Bitcoin, check (available only to US residents currently) or to your account funds, you receive the full $9,700 without any other fees

You can get more information at

Hello
Does wire have transfer charges ?

 

[bee]

How about this landing page.

Payment Options
Please select how you would like to pay for this order:

Wire transfer:...........................$955
Other methods of payment:......$1000..............PayPlan: XXX
(clearly－marked prices)
End


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hide
...........................................3% ................................7.5%
Set price: .........................$1000.............................$1000
payout amount: ...............$925(1000*7.5%)............$925(1000*7.5%)
payment amount: .............$955(925+1000*3%)......$1000(925+1000*7.5%)

The seller gives the profit to the buyer, buyer can choose

 

[richtrading]

Hi there
We've noticed that our domain "push" to another account gets rejected with an ambiguous error. Have other people seen this? After some trial and error, we figured out we need to manually unlock it first - would be nice if the "push" allowed seamless unlock if that really was necessary. Or at least a note that 'we will unlock it to allow push'

 

[richtrading]

We'd love to list our names on Namesilo Marketsite, am I correct in thinking that it can only support listing domains on Namesilo though?

 

[namesilo]

How about this landing page.

Payment Options
Please select how you would like to pay for this order:

Wire transfer:...........................$955
Other methods of payment:......$1000..............PayPlan: XXX
(clearly－marked prices)
End


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hide
...........................................3% ................................7.5%
Set price: .........................$1000.............................$1000
payout amount: ...............$925(1000*7.5%)............$925(1000*7.5%)
payment amount: .............$955(925+1000*3%)......$1000(925+1000*7.5%)

The seller gives the profit to the buyer, buyer can choose

This is a very interesting idea and we've considered options to have Buyer's pay for commissions and/or set different pricing based upon method of payment. This is a topic that is still very much alive in our planning.

 

[namesilo]

We'd love to list our names on Namesilo Marketsite, am I correct in thinking that it can only support listing domains on Namesilo though?

MarketSites can be used with domains from any registrar.

Only domains registered with us can currently be sold on our Marketplace.

 

[golan]

At NameSilo, among domains I bid on, it's about 98%.

Interesting, i get maybe 10-15%. But ain't playing there much.

DynaDot used to face widespread abuse of their expired domain system (almost as bad as at NameSilo), and they responded by making changes to how their expired auctions work in order to prevent it. I haven’t been bidding there for some time so I don’t know how successful it has been, but at least they made some big changes in an attempt to address it.

Which changes are you talking about - the ones that @Haris talks below, with raising the renewal price?

 

[bee]

This is a very interesting idea and we've considered options to have Buyer's pay for commissions and/or set different pricing based upon method of payment. This is a topic that is still very much alive in our planning.

 

[Keith]

@namesilo your maximum on expired auction used to be about $1600, I see that now $32,000 on a domain (Blazon.com):

https://www.namesilo.com/Auctions?auction=ZmRmZGZ4ZmtmZQZ1ZmZ=s0npr69srn3044o73015r0ono0648op7

That's a drastic change from pricing CryptoFund.com @ $75 to pricing Blazon.com @ $32,000.

What all changes have you guys implemented in expired domain auctions?
Are you doing it manual now as compared to programmatic pricing?

The idea of a max bid system is simply poor business. Why would you put a cap on what someone can bid when the end result is more money for the company? That’s like me selling x.com and saying I’m only willing to accept $100 when people will likely pay $1 million.

My GoDaddy rep was in awe today as we talked about the auction process of namesilo. He has read this thread and can’t believe the process. It’s not logical.

 

[tonyk2000]

@namesilo - should you elect to offer different pricing based on payment method, please make this feature optional. Because:

- Higher price for credit card payment method (regardless of how it is called, "premium service" maybe, or discount for wires/bitcoins) is still a surcharge for the credit card. Which is illegal in some states and countries (even if it is allowed in U.S. state of Arizona where NameSilo is based). Moreover, visa/amex/mc tend to prohibit this themselves regardless of merchants location.

- Aftermarket domain purchases are sometimes impulsive. It is easier to pay online using credit card. With a publicly offered discount for wire transfer, which the buyer may elect to use (also impulsively), the buyer may need to visit their bank, fill in wire transfer form (and find extra wire charges in case of non-U.S. bank especially), etc. All this requires extra time and efforts, and the buyer may change their opinion in the meantime.... would not be an "impulsive" purchase anymore, so he may decide not to purchase at all.

 

[Arca]

Please select how you would like to pay for this order:

Wire transfer:...........................$955
Other methods of payment:......$1000..............PayPlan: XXX
(clearly－marked prices)

Keep in mind that international wire transfers are not free. They incur a number of fees at certain banks, as opposed to no buyer fees if you pay through PayPal or CC.

Outbound international wire transfer fees amount to more than $50 in many countries, so paying $955 via an international wire would be more expensive than paying via PP or CC for many overseas buyers for smaller amounts such as this one.

Personally I don’t really see the use of complicating the pricing structure of what is an arbitrary price set by us. It never made sense to me that some sellers want to add on certain fees to their BIN price, i.e. asking buyer to cover the escrow fee, or in this case, or in the scenario you have suggested, create the notion that paying via CC or PP incurs a PP/CC fee. You need to provide buyers the path of least resistance, as many buyers are extremely fickle and easy get cold feet/buyers remorse prior to making the payment. Added fees, or the illusion thereof, just serve as another obstacle for many buyers.

Also, the vast majority of end user buyers at NameSilo, in my personal experience at least, do not pay through wire transfer. For the average buyer, seeing $955 juxtaposed with $1000 for their preferred payment method is going to look like added $45 PP/CC fee, more so than a $55 wire discount off $1000 imo.

Instead of complicating things with differentiated pricing for various payment methods, I’d say if you want to give a $45 discount, just lower your listed BINs, or if you want $45 more for a name, just add that to your BINs. Our buy it now prices are really just random amounts set by us at will, not objective fixed prices set in stone, so instead of complicating things for buyers, just discount/price in whatever discounts you have in mind into your listed BIN price.

edit: Also, payments over $5000 have to be paid via wire transfer. With the pricing structure suggested you'd be giving them an unneeded wire transfer discount for paying through the mandatory payment method on all such sales.

 

[Arca]

The idea of a max bid system is simply poor business. Why would you put a cap on what someone can bid when the end result is more money for the company? That’s like me selling x.com and saying I’m only willing to accept $100 when people will likely pay $1 million.

My GoDaddy rep was in awe today as we talked about the auction process of namesilo. He has read this thread and can’t believe the process. It’s not logical.

Cryptofund.com got renewed, like virtually all worthwhile domains that expire and go through the max bid auction system at NameSilo. You didn't miss out on a thing, so why are you still harping on it? The owner was playing games with you, and considering how you still can't stop complaining about a domain that was renewed, you clearly fell for it hook, line and sinker, just as he intended. He was just playing with you (and others; how do you think the guy who placed the $75 bid felt when it got renewed just before auction end!?).

You're acting like the domain really expired, somebody got it for $75, and you actually missed out on a chance to buy it for $XX,XXX or whatever you would have been willing to pay in a no bid limit auction... It was going to get renewed regardless of the max bid system. Even if there was no max bid cap, and you'd placed a $1,000,000 bid, you still wouldn't have gotten the name as an expired auction win. The name got renewed as it was always intended to by the owner who was just abusing NameSilo's expired auction system, so let your purely hypothetical loss go already!

 

[bee]

Keep in mind that international wire transfers are not free. They incur a number of fees at certain banks, as opposed to no buyer fees if you pay through PayPal or CC.

Outbound international wire transfer fees amount to more than $50 in many countries, so paying $955 via an international wire would be more expensive than paying via PP or CC for many overseas buyers for smaller amounts such as this one.

Personally I don’t really see the use of complicating the pricing structure of what is an arbitrary price set by us. It never made sense to me that some sellers want to add on certain fees to their BIN price, i.e. asking buyer to cover the escrow fee, or in this case, or in the scenario you have suggested, create the notion that paying via CC or PP incurs a PP/CC fee. You need to provide buyers the path of least resistance, as many buyers are extremely fickle and easy get cold feet/buyers remorse prior to making the payment. Added fees, or the illusion thereof, just serve as another obstacle for many buyers.

Also, the vast majority of end user buyers at NameSilo, in my personal experience at least, do not pay through wire transfer. For the average buyer, seeing $955 juxtaposed with $1000 for their preferred payment method is going to look like added $45 PP/CC fee, more so than a $55 wire discount off $1000 imo.

Instead of complicating things with differentiated pricing for various payment methods, I’d say if you want to give a $45 discount, just lower your listed BINs, or if you want $45 more for a name, just add that to your BINs. Our buy it now prices are really just random amounts set by us at will, not objective fixed prices set in stone, so instead of complicating things for buyers, just discount/price in whatever discounts you have in mind into your listed BIN price.

edit: Also, payments over $5000 have to be paid via wire transfer. With the pricing structure suggested you'd be giving them an unneeded wire transfer discount for paying through the mandatory payment method on all such sales.

Thank you for your help, you are right. I didn't notice wire transfer fees.
You're very good at analyzing, may I ask you a question? Does Payoneer Escrow has wire transfer fees(seller), if buyer pay the escrow fee
buyer pay: $1000 + escrow fee
seller received: $1000 - wire transfer fees?

 

[Keith]

Cryptofund.com got renewed, like virtually all worthwhile domains that expire and go through the max bid auction system at NameSilo. You didn't miss out on a thing, so why are you still harping on it? The owner was playing games with you, and considering how you still can't stop complaining about a domain that was renewed, you clearly fell for it hook, line and sinker, just as he intended. He was just playing with you (and others; how do you think the guy who placed the $75 bid felt when it got renewed just before auction end!?).

You're acting like the domain really expired, somebody got it for $75, and you actually missed out on a chance to buy it for $XX,XXX or whatever you would have been willing to pay in a no bid limit auction... It was going to get renewed regardless of the max bid system. Even if there was no max bid cap, and you'd placed a $1,000,000 bid, you still wouldn't have gotten the name as an expired auction win. The name got renewed as it was always intended to by the owner who was just abusing NameSilo's expired auction system, so let your purely hypothetical loss go already!

Your rant has nothing to do with what I said. The system is a poor one and should be changed to a real, running auction process. It’s good for customers and good for the company.

 

[golan]

The system is a poor one and should be changed to a real, running auction process.

With all respect, I'm not sure you are in position for giving companies such directives.

 

[Keith]

With all respect, I'm not sure you are in position for giving companies such directives.

I’m in the best position possible since my money is spent on platforms like namesilo. The idea is for a company to do what’s best for the customer while maximizing profits.

 

[richtrading]

The idea of a max bid system is simply poor business. Why would you put a cap on what someone can bid when the end result is more money for the company? That’s like me selling x.com and saying I’m only willing to accept $100 when people will likely pay $1 million.

My GoDaddy rep was in awe today as we talked about the auction process of namesilo. He has read this thread and can’t believe the process. It’s not logical.

That link says "Invalid Selection". Did the auction finish? Would be clearer if Namesilo said on the page what it had finished, if the auction did finish.

 

[richtrading]

Your rant has nothing to do with what I said. The system is a poor one and should be changed to a real, running auction process. It’s good for customers and good for the company.

How much did the auction of Cryptofund.com finish at BTW?

We've got another crypto domain available CryptoEmail.com

 

[Keith]

How much did the auction of Cryptofund.com finish at BTW?

We've got another crypto domain available CryptoEmail.com

$75 - only 1 person was allowed to “bid”.

 

[richtrading]

$75 - only 1 person was allowed to “bid”.

hmm, very small number. I've not heard of only one person being allowed to bid on an auction before in other industries...

 

[Keith]

hmm, very small number. I've not heard of only one person being allowed to bid on an auction before in other industries...

Strange thing isnt it?! But that’s how their process works.

 

[namesilo]

Strange thing isnt it?! But that’s how their process works.

@Keith - with all due respect, you have made your opinions abundantly clear in this and many other responses in this thread. You have made it very clear that you do not like our current expired domain auction system, you have accused us entirely falsely of fraud and you continue to voice your ongoing displeasure. Anybody who reads can easily understand your viewpoint and opinion, so it is unclear why you continue posting here. If you do not like our system, with all due respect, you are not required to use it or any of the services we offer. If you spend the time to read this thread and several others on NamePros and elsewhere regrading our company, you will see that we are very open to constructive criticism and frequently add to or adjust our systems based upon feedback. However, continuing to raise the same points you have made many, many times is really not helping and seems only to disparage and harm our company. We would ask that you please stop posting the same displeasure that you have already made very clear. We have responded to your feedback and the feedback of others already and will continue to assess this and other topics to help in our effort to provide the best systems possible for all of our users. Thanks.