Bidding on your own names at NameJet...?

webquest · Jul 18, 2017

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

jeffoverman · Jul 19, 2017

not going get involved in this but if you take a look into these issues:

1. When you doing transfers (, enom, godaddy, etc) its all one big cluster f u c k
2. We are customers of them, its there duty to fix this and I been on godaddy for years to fix this but guess what they havent.
3. Wake up and smell the coffee enom. you guys cost me a lot of money and lost a bulk buyer of mine due to this issue last year. Thanks so much
4. Where the f u c k is ICANN into this matter and they should be fining these companies each day when a simple transfer to a buyer still shows previous owner. I know its not like ICANN needs more cash but something has to be done into this matter. Because enom, godaddy etc do not give a f u c k about this and they all think its up to us in fixing each whois per domain when doing transfers.

Just my 2 cents.

xn--v4h.com · Jul 19, 2017

zurc.net said:
Why am I not surprised? Why am I not surprised by anything anymore in this industry... especially after a self-proclaimed liar was being praised just a few weeks before on here.

What are you referring to?

OnlineBusiness.com · Jul 19, 2017

xn--v4h.com said:
Those are strong words that would need stronger evidence to be convincing unfortunately.

Sure, I could provide that but I'm done here. I know all I need to know. I will be staying off NJ to buy names and will be advising all my colleagues to do the same.

zurc.net · Jul 19, 2017

xn--v4h.com said:
What are you referring to?

Not gonna derail this thread.

Beezy · Jul 19, 2017

?

Beezy · Jul 19, 2017

LarryDomain said:
NICE!!

MovieZone.com and Airlinejobs.com just both went to private registration. Good way to try to cover up.

A bit late, no?

Definitely what innocent people do. ::sarcasm emoji::

Ategy · Jul 19, 2017

Seriously everyone .. despite my current neutrality, this is a very important discussion .. anyone with off topic comments should go back and delete them if they can.

*I will delete this comment myself in 29 minutes*

*29 minutes later*: Crap .. I can only edit .. not delete! Mods feel free to delete this post!

MediaOptions · Jul 19, 2017

Haris said:
Shill bidder protecting a shill bidder.

I'm not protecting anyone. In fact I stated right up front that my intention was simply to discuss the practice itself and have a contructive conversation about it because its a topic that I have thought about a lot.

What is interesting is that it is completely normal and standard with other auction industries.

Here is an excerpt about Sotheby's (Christies is even MORE pervasive with their owner and insider bidding. In fact it is directly in the terms of service for Christie's that they ALLOW employees and directors to bid in their own auctions):

"In their filing relating to the Taubman guarantee, Sotheby’s stated that it “may reduce its financial exposure under auction guarantees through contractual risk and reward sharing arrangements.” Typically this works by the third party agreeing, for a fee, to place an irrevocable written bid for an undisclosed amount on the lot before the auction (known as a third party guarantee). The amount of the bid can be up to or exceeding the guarantee amount. As a result the third party guarantor takes on all or part of the risk of the lot not being sold. For example, if an auction house have given a minimum price guarantee to the seller of £100 million for an artwork, but a third party guarantor places an irrevocable written bid for, say, £80 million, the auction house’s risk is reduced by that sum.

Third party guarantors (effectively the owner) may then also participate in the auction themselves and choose to bid on the lot over and above their irrevocable written bid. If the lot sells for less than the irrevocable bid the third party pays the bid amount, less the fee, and secures the work. If the lot sells for more than the irrevocable written bid, and the irrevocable written bidder was not the winning bidder, they receive their fee and a share of the profits above the guarantee amount."

MediaOptions · Jul 19, 2017

Jimmy Hoffa said:
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/

Only fraud if not done openly and acceptable under TOS. You are missing the point. I'm saying turn the auction concept on its head. Eliminate reserves and allow an owner to bid for their name OPENLY. Not hiding under an alias. Even clearly mark them as owner if you want. Not trying to shill anyone or hide anything. I'm just arguing for a better economic model.

I still haven't heard an argument that proves this is not a better mechanism for market pricing and efficiency. All I hear is people arguing they don't want to pay higher prices in the auctions. But that is NOT an argument! Those prices would be REAL MARKET PRICES. Not artificially inflated. But the logic I've provided has been lost on most unfortunately. But I assure you it is reality and truth and widely understood outside of our little World.

Again - I apologize, I should have opened a new thread. This has NOTHING to do with the Booth situation. I went off topic and that is my own fault. But the thread got me thinking and things got carried away.

Anyhow, I won't comment further unless someone has something truly thought provoking to say on the topic.

Beezy · Jul 19, 2017

MediaOptions said:
I'm not protecting anyone. In fact I stated right up front that my intention was simply to discuss the practice itself and have a contructive conversation about it because its a topic that I have thought about a lot.

What is interesting is that it is completely normal and standard with other auction industries.

Here is an excerpt about Sotheby's (Christies is even MORE pervasive with their owner and insider bidding. In fact it is directly in the terms of service for Christie's that they ALLOW employees and directors to bid in their own auctions):

"In their filing relating to the Taubman guarantee, Sotheby’s stated that it “may reduce its financial exposure under auction guarantees through contractual risk and reward sharing arrangements.” Typically this works by the third party agreeing, for a fee, to place an irrevocable written bid for an undisclosed amount on the lot before the auction (known as a third party guarantee). The amount of the bid can be up to or exceeding the guarantee amount. As a result the third party guarantor takes on all or part of the risk of the lot not being sold. For example, if an auction house have given a minimum price guarantee to the seller of £100 million for an artwork, but a third party guarantor places an irrevocable written bid for, say, £80 million, the auction house’s risk is reduced by that sum.

Third party guarantors (effectively the owner) may then also participate in the auction themselves and choose to bid on the lot over and above their irrevocable written bid. If the lot sells for less than the irrevocable bid the third party pays the bid amount, less the fee, and secures the work. If the lot sells for more than the irrevocable written bid, and the irrevocable written bidder was not the winning bidder, they receive their fee and a share of the profits above the guarantee amount."

Here is the full article:

http://www.boodlehatfield.com/the-firm/articles/auction-house-guarantees-friend-or-foe/

Namejet offers guarantees now?! If not, this is pretty irrelevant.

@NameJetGM can you confirm this?

offthehandle · Jul 19, 2017

https://www.quora.com/Do-the-top-au...se-shill-or-ghost-bidders-Are-they-allowed-to

http://oz.stern.nyu.edu/seminar/fa01/1108.pdf

https://auctionlaw.wordpress.com/

MediaOptions · Jul 19, 2017

offthehandle said:
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.

However, there is a consistent exception to all of this, which state law and the courts have upheld. At a forced sale, no matter the type of auction, the seller may bid without any disclosure. Such auctions are often court-ordered events, such as foreclosures, repossessions and the like. We discussed this in more detail in our article about Auctions and Forced Sales.

http://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/law-auctions

Exactly. The key here and I probably should have made it more clear from the beginning in my argument, is that it is disclosed and OPEN (as I said) that the seller / owner is bidding in the auction. You could even label them as owner in the bidding. There is absolutely nothing wrong for a technical and legal standpoint if the owner bids on their own domain so long as it is disclosed.

I'm certainly not proposing fraud. I'm talking about a more efficient way of establishing market pricing in an otherwise non-liquid and inefficiently priced market.

Probably the auction house would need to take possession of the domain prior to auction in order to make it a FORCED SALE. Meaning seller has no way of backing out or changing the playing field.

AGAIN: This is a mental exercise. Its a discussion. Many of you are taking it for something else.

MediaOptions · Jul 19, 2017

Keith DeBoer said:
@MediaOptions I think you're proposing an auction set up that could resolve the dysfunctional time wasting system we currently have with reserve auctions where the reserve amount is often undisclosed. The hidden reserve often curtails bidding and participation in the auction. It's a round about way for the owner to bid up the auction to a pre-determined level or take the domain back after domainers have spent time watching and making good faith bids.

I assume in your suggested system that the owner of the domain is clearly and obviously identified as the domain owner at all steps of the auction process. In this scenario, bidders are free to walk away and allow the owner to repurchase his/her domain and pay the commission if the owner feels they are not getting a good enough market value for their domain. This would be a replacement for the reserve system. Yes?

My take is that you do NOT support any system whereby the domain owner -- or his/her representative -- is allowed to make bids in a non-transparent fashion.

Your proposal is a bit hard for many of us to swallow because of the emotional charge associated with shill bidding. But if that danger was removed then I think it would become a lot more palatable to a lot of people.

Peace.

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER! Yes, you are exactly right and pat yourself on the back for being the only person on this entire forum to actually understand the logic of my proposal.

Thank you

wwwweb · Jul 19, 2017

NameJetGM said:
As an official statement from NameJet – our policy is clear that sellers cannot bid on their own domains, period. The integrity of our platform is of utmost importance to us and we do not condone shill bidding of any kind. From an ethical standpoint, it is unfair to the other participants, and from a practical standpoint, a few extra dollars on a few sales is simply not worth the potential damage to our reputation and business. Again, our stance is clear and we take immediate action whenever we have any reason to believe that there is inappropriate activity occurring on the platform. Bottom line – we take these matters very seriously!

With that said, it is my understanding that Andy and James Booth are not the sellers or current owners of the domains at issue. Andy did own them recently, but per him (both to me privately and in this thread) the domains are no longer his to sell, and he was interested in reacquiring them at what he felt were good prices. However, the WHOIS still reflects Andy as the registrant and that has made this whole thing confusing and problematic.

And while I have no reason to dispute Andy’s claims, we will cancel the remaining auctions involving these domains. To put things in perspective, there are not many domains involved, so it is not some large coordinated campaign to improperly inflate auction values. And it looks like they won nearly all of those domains auctioned, which further speaks to their legitimate interest in them – and for anyone negatively impacted we will look to address that.

Moreover, we will take steps to further outline and clarify our rules around this over the next few weeks to help eliminate any ongoing confusion. In the meantime, we will continue to investigate and monitor this issue (as well as any others brought to our attention) to determine if any further action is necessary.

Thanks everyone and have a good evening.

-Jonathan
GM, NameJet

How can namejet list names, that are owned by another party without verifying the whois?

Chris Hydrick · Jul 19, 2017

@NameJetGM

NameJetGM said:
Hi all,

Sorry if I wasn't clear - they are definitely not the seller of the domains. It is 100% a different seller.

Thanks,

-Jonathan

~~Are you kidding me?~~ ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

Thanks for that intel Sherlock. This thread could have told you that.

Why is it that of all the domains listed on NameJet by seller (Oliver H.) have the proper WHOIS besides a batch of domains owned by Booth?

Because Booth still owned the domains. Did he provide you proof of the sale? Email Screenshot or something? I doubt he did, otherwise, to my knowledge, that would be committing forgery.

NameJet - if I were you, I would demand proof of sale. Thus, whenever the class action lawsuit comes, you'll have sufficient proof that your marketplace doesn't condone shill bidding, and thoroughly investigates reports of such. (unlike what your findings today show)

If NameJet's failure to properly investigate shill bidding within their platform, upsets or effects you, please FILE A COMPLAINT ON THE FTC website, and their marketplace will properly be investigated by an independent source. I'm sure we'll be amazed by what else they uncover.

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/GettingStarted#crnt

NameJetGM said:
And it looks like they won nearly all of those domains auctioned, which further speaks to their legitimate interest in them – and for anyone negatively impacted we will look to address that.

zurc.net said:
I smell a fish.

If by fish you mean, class action lawsuit? Then yes, very very fishy at NameJet! Their response, and joking nature of secondary responses really tick me off. Because of said incompetence, I will continue investigate and grilling at my leisure.

offthehandle · Jul 19, 2017

Beezy said:
Here is the full article:

http://www.boodlehatfield.com/the-firm/articles/auction-house-

Are guarantees ethical?

Auction house guarantees are legal but they remain a controversial topic as some consider that they serve to distort the market and inflate prices.

It is noted in the auction house catalogue that a lot is subject to a minimum price guarantee, but the guarantee amount is not made public and the guarantor knows the amount. Therefore, arguably they have information that puts them in a better position than their rival bidders. Normally, the reserve price is not disclosed to anyone else. This arguably threatens the idea that those participating in the auction process are doing so on a level playing field.

Beezy · Jul 19, 2017

Grilled said:
@NameJetGM

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/GettingStarted#crnt

Besides FTC, I believe there are several SEC rules broken. https://www.sec.gov/

Will investigate that later but just putting that here for reference if anyone else is up for it (@Grilled, I know you probably have other things to do right now!).

rh2000 · Jul 19, 2017

NameJetGM said:
Hi all,

Sorry if I wasn't clear - they are definitely not the seller of the domains. It is 100% a different seller.

Thanks,

-Jonathan

Stevie Wonder can see this is bullshit and you know it. Your company got caught, that is what happens when you play favoritism and let the same people run auctions over and over, then have nerve to let them bid on the same damn auction. Your auction platform is rigged just like the 2016 presidential election.

Beezy · Jul 19, 2017

rh2000 said:
Stevie Wonder can see this is bullsh*t and you know it. Your company got caught, that is what happens when you play favoritism and let the same people run auctions over and over, then have nerve to let them bid on the same damn auction. Your auction platform is rigged just like the 2016 presidential election.

Ahhh. Don't take the bait anyone that disagree with that last part plz. Guys, stay on topic.

Ategy · Jul 19, 2017

Ategy.com said:
Andrew (@MediaOptions) was expressing his opinion on what he thinks auctions SHOULD be like. His opinion is free market in it's purest form .. and in a way also makes shill bidding a non-factor as they are part of the game.

MediaOptions said:
(@Keith DeBoer) WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER! Yes, you are exactly right and pat yourself on the back for being the only person on this entire forum to actually understand the logic of my proposal.

Ummm .. @MediaOptions .. I want some chicken dinner too! lol

Seriously though .. you make very valid points .. and it's a purer form of capitalism / free market that could be beneficial to this particular industry because .. let's be honest .. it's a muddled up mess! While there are valid points on the other side of the argument, given the current market I'd tend to favour the purer form you're talking about .. as long as the rules are re-written and everything is clear and transparent.

That being said .. arguing that point here is simply giving the impression that you're defending the specific alleged accusations in this particular instance .. which you clearly aren't if you read the entire discussion start to finish .. but few people actually do that .. sooo .. yeah .. I think your argument/points are unfortunately lost here despite their merits of at the very least being explored/discussed further!

Beezy · Jul 19, 2017

@MediaOptions, have you ever won your own names at namejet?

MediaOptions · Jul 19, 2017

Ategy.com said:
Ummm .. @MediaOptions .. I want some chicken dinner too! lol

Seriously though .. you make very valid points .. and it's a purer form of capitalism / free market that could be beneficial to this particular industry because .. let's be honest .. it's a muddled up mess! While there are valid points on the other side of the argument, given the current market I'd tend to favour the purer form you're talking about .. as long as the rules are re-written and everything is clear and transparent.

That being said .. arguing that point here is simply giving the impression that you're defending the specific alleged accusations in this particular instance .. which you clearly aren't if you read the entire discussion start to finish .. but few people actually do that .. sooo .. yeah .. I think your argument/points are unfortunately lost here despite their merits of at the very least being explored/discussed further!

Yes, again, I apologize for getting off topic, the mess is my own fault. It may even make sense for the moderators to separate out my posts from into another thread.

I simply wanted to make a theoretical point about auction processes and how it related to this post. I got off topic and the momentum took the thread even further off topic to the point that people started confusing what I was even saying. By no means am I or did I ever encourage or defend shill bidding. Please read my comments in their entirety to actually understand what I am saying.

Anyhow, I won't comment any further (seriously this time!).

xn--v4h.com · Jul 19, 2017

@MediaOptions Sun Tzu has a whole chapter on timing and appropriate place of battle, if you want to read it. I can even send you our book!

Chris Hydrick · Jul 19, 2017

MediaOptions said:
I simply wanted to make a theoretical point about auction processes and how it related to this post. I got off topic and the momentum took the thread even further off topic to the point that people started confusing what I was even saying. By no means am I or did I ever encourage or defend shill bidding. Please read my comments in their entirety to actually understand what I am saying.

Thanks for stopping by!

Sometimes, in debate, people have to take an unpopular stance just to further discussion (and change). Though, I don't fully agree with what you've said, I 100% appreciate you stopping by to articulate your experienced opinion.

Ategy · Jul 19, 2017

MediaOptions said:
..I got off topic and the momentum took .. even further off topic to the point that people started confusing what I was even saying.

@MediaOptions ... You just described the last "30 seconds" (aka 15 minutes) of every episode of @DomainSherpa Review that you've been apart of .. lmao .. and regardless as to what people say .. don't ever change that .. I love it!

Bidding on your own names at NameJet...?

Established Member

VIP Member

Emoji domains at Punycode.comEstablished Member

Mike SEstablished Member

Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

Arif M, NameCult.com TheDomainSocial.comTop Member

VIP Member

VIP Member

Top Member

.Top Member

VIP Member

VIP Member

Top Member

Top Member

.Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

Arif M, NameCult.com TheDomainSocial.comTop Member

Top Member

VIP Member

Emoji domains at Punycode.comEstablished Member

Top Member

Arif M, NameCult.com TheDomainSocial.comTop Member

Similar threads

We're social

Pinned

Appreciation

Agreement