Spaceship.com - Marketplace Thread

[DomainRecap]

Spaceship.com recently launched a new Marketplace section, and as NamePros has given me the go-head, I think the company deserves its own thread for NP domain marketplace users to converse in.

https://www.spaceship.com/sellerhub/

Personally speaking, I will be setting up a new Spaceship.com account this weekend and going to work investigating its various features, options and policies.

 

[NameGroove]

Spaceship has great ux but needs bundle sales like daaz. selling one by one is risky when buyers can grab your best gems and walk away

Richard said they are working on it

Richard Kirkendall @namecheapceo123 October 7, 2026

Yes we are working on it.

View original Load full embed

 

[Spaceship]

Why spaceship can't handle one selected domain? Only work to manage from 2 and up, when adding a category, seller hub or other things.

Could you clarify what you mean by managing only one selected domain? A specific example would help us better understand the matter.

 

[carob]

. The pale icons should (or should have been) tested before rollout.

Websites are required to meet accessibility standards, which can be, and are, objectively tested, and are part of a professional development process. Having sufficient contrast is one of the standards.

Users can take legal action against sites not making themselves accessible. A few years ago the Olympics did have to pay out for accessibility failings, after action was taken against them.

Not meeting standards frustrates and turns away those with any number of issues, be they visual, kinetic, cognitive etc etc - and many accessibility failings are also handicaps in SEO.

Who wants to frustrate, disrespect and turn away buyers?

 

[carob]

Full-colour card logos bring multiple brands’ palettes onto that page and pull the eye to checkout before the buyer has decided, so we show them in one neutral tone that sits with the rest of the design, and we check them against WCAG contrast standards so they stay readable, including for buyers with lower vision.

WCAG standards tests can be run at several sites, including:
https://www.accessibilitychecker.org/

and: https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/tools/list/

 

[carob]

WCAG standards tests can be run at several sites, including:
https://www.accessibilitychecker.org/

and: https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/tools/list/

https://www.accessibilitychecker.org/audit/?website=spaceship.com&flag=us&include_ai=0 says:

 

[Spaceship]

https://www.accessibilitychecker.org/audit/?website=spaceship.com&flag=us&include_ai=0 says:

Show attachment 316812

We've escalated this matter to our team for further review.

 

[NicTraders]

Why spaceship can't handle one selected domain? Only work to manage from 2 and up, when adding a category, seller hub or other things.

Yes, it's something they need to fix. Firstly, they only seem to give you those options in Domain Portfolio, not in Domain Manager, but secondly they only appear if you select multiple domains.

Could you clarify what you mean by managing only one selected domain? A specific example would help us better understand the matter.

When you select a single domain in Domain Manager or Domain Portfolio you don't get all the options in the right-hand side slide-out menu. E.g. the Category and SellerHub menu items don't appear.
IMHO it would be best to amalgamate both DM and DP into a single interface, and to load all options whether you select a single domain or multiples. It's quite forseeable that someone buys a new domain and wants to add it to an existing category.

 

[Spaceship]

Yes, it's something they need to fix. Firstly, they only seem to give you those options in Domain Portfolio, not in Domain Manager, but secondly they only appear if you select multiple domains.


When you select a single domain in Domain Manager or Domain Portfolio you don't get all the options in the right-hand side slide-out menu. E.g. the Category and SellerHub menu items don't appear.
IMHO it would be best to amalgamate both DM and DP into a single interface, and to load all options whether you select a single domain or multiples. It's quite forseeable that someone buys a new domain and wants to add it to an existing category.

Thank you for providing the details. I've passed your feedback to the team.

 

[Altetra]

Thank you for providing the details. I've passed your feedback to the team.

I have report this issue many months ago, it was never solved. Anyway thanks.
P.s. this issue of single domain selected was persistent in Seller Hub when you tried to delete one domain, you had to select at least 2 for delete to appear.

 

[URL Expo]

How domain price for LTO shows on my portfolio page:

How domain price for LTO shows on the landing page:

Hey @Spaceship, I noticed a discrepancy between the LTO prices displayed on my portfolio page and those shown on the individual landing pages for all my domains ...

For example, one of my domains has a BIN price of $10,000 and an LTO price of $12,000. The system divides the $12,000 LTO price into 24 monthly payments of $500. However, on the portfolio page, the LTO is displayed as a $500 down payment plus 24 monthly payments of $500, effectively making it 25 payments instead of 24.

To clarify, I don't require an initial down payment on any of my domains. My LTO price is always calculated as the BIN price plus 20%, with the total amount divided equally across the available monthly installments.
So the correct pricing is the one shown on the individual landing page.

Could you please look into this discrepancy and ensure that the portfolio page displays the LTO pricing consistently with the individual domain landing pages, without adding an initial down payment?

Thanks!

 

[Spaceship]

How domain price for LTO shows on my portfolio page:

Show attachment 316868

Show attachment 316866

How domain price for LTO shows on the landing page:

Show attachment 316867


Hey @Spaceship, I noticed a discrepancy between the LTO prices displayed on my portfolio page and those shown on the individual landing pages for all my domains ...

For example, one of my domains has a BIN price of $10,000 and an LTO price of $12,000. The system divides the $12,000 LTO price into 24 monthly payments of $500. However, on the portfolio page, the LTO is displayed as a $500 down payment plus 24 monthly payments of $500, effectively making it 25 payments instead of 24.

To clarify, I don't require an initial down payment on any of my domains. My LTO price is always calculated as the BIN price plus 20%, with the total amount divided equally across the available monthly installments.
So the correct pricing is the one shown on the individual landing page.

Could you please look into this discrepancy and ensure that the portfolio page displays the LTO pricing consistently with the individual domain landing pages, without adding an initial down payment?

Thanks!

Thanks for bringing it to our attention! The responsible team will review it and we'll get back to you once there are updates.

 

[Penta GI]

@Spaceship I have a couple of suggestions that I think would be particularly useful for those of us using the Spaceship API to manage our portfolios.

I've been using your API pretty much since day one, and I really like it, but there are two things that have been giving me a bit of a headache lately.

1. LTO prices don't update when you change the BIN price.

Say I have a domain listed for $5,000 with LTO enabled. If I later decide to increase the BIN to $6,000, the LTO configuration still keeps the original $5,000 as its full price.

Unless I remember to go back and manually update the LTO settings, I end up with two different prices for the same domain. Not ideal, especially when you're managing a large portfolio or making frequent price adjustments or tweaks.

Wouldn't it make sense for the LTO price to automatically follow the BIN price, or at least warn us when the two no longer match?

2. Why can't we manage LTO through the API?

This one has puzzled me for a while. The API is already pretty capable, so I'm surprised we still can't create, retrieve, update, or delete LTO configurations through it, or simply toggle LTO on and off for individual domains.

For anyone automating their portfolio management, having to jump back into the Spaceship interface every time we want to adjust an LTO setting is a bit frustrating.

I imagine neither of these is particularly unusual as a use case, and I'd bet quite a few fellow NP'ers would appreciate having them addressed too.

Thank you very much for building such a great product !!

Regards,
T

 

[Spaceship]

@Spaceship I have a couple of suggestions that I think would be particularly useful for those of us using the Spaceship API to manage our portfolios.

I've been using your API pretty much since day one, and I really like it, but there are two things that have been giving me a bit of a headache lately.

1. LTO prices don't update when you change the BIN price.

Say I have a domain listed for $5,000 with LTO enabled. If I later decide to increase the BIN to $6,000, the LTO configuration still keeps the original $5,000 as its full price.

Unless I remember to go back and manually update the LTO settings, I end up with two different prices for the same domain. Not ideal, especially when you're managing a large portfolio or making frequent price adjustments or tweaks.

Wouldn't it make sense for the LTO price to automatically follow the BIN price, or at least warn us when the two no longer match?

2. Why can't we manage LTO through the API?

This one has puzzled me for a while. The API is already pretty capable, so I'm surprised we still can't create, retrieve, update, or delete LTO configurations through it, or simply toggle LTO on and off for individual domains.

For anyone automating their portfolio management, having to jump back into the Spaceship interface every time we want to adjust an LTO setting is a bit frustrating.

I imagine neither of these is particularly unusual as a use case, and I'd bet quite a few fellow NP'ers would appreciate having them addressed too.

Thank you very much for building such a great product !!

Regards,
T

Thanks for the detailed feedback! We’ve shared these suggestions with the team.

There aren't any API improvements planned for the next month. However, we'll look into prioritizing this after the current workstreams are complete and keep you updated.

Regarding LTO pricing, could you clarify whether you'd prefer the LTO Full Price to automatically follow BIN updates, or if this should be an optional setting?

 

[Penta GI]

Thanks for the detailed feedback! We’ve shared these suggestions with the team.

There aren't any API improvements planned for the next month. However, we'll look into prioritizing this after the current workstreams are complete and keep you updated.

Regarding LTO pricing, could you clarify whether you'd prefer the LTO Full Price to automatically follow BIN updates, or if this should be an optional setting?

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly!

Personally, and from a practical standpoint, I'd prefer LTO pricing to automatically follow BIN price adjustments.

In an ideal world, I'd love to see a simpler approach where the BIN price serves as the basis for LTO calculations. Sellers would simply enable or disable LTO, and the system would automatically suggest a maximum installment period based on the BIN price range. Of course, sellers could still adjust the suggested number of months to suit their preferences.

All the other existing LTO settings, such as down payments, final payments, etc., could remain available as optional domain-level overrides or account-wide defaults.

That way, whenever the BIN price changes, the LTO pricing adjusts automatically, with any configured overrides applied accordingly, without requiring additional manual intervention.

I understand that some sellers might prefer to maintain independent LTO pricing, though, so having a central setting to disable automatic synchronization would make sense too.

In short, automatic synchronization by default, with the flexibility to override it when needed, would be my preferred approach.

But these are just my two cents, of course!

Ultimately, your product and development teams will know best what aligns with your roadmap, overall vision, and technical constraints. Coming from a software engineering and tech lead background myself, I'd be happy to share some more in-depth technical thoughts if ever useful.

Thanks again for considering the feedback!

Regards,
T

 

[URL Stream]

Thanks for your patience, and for pushing for an answer rather than letting it drop.

 

[Spaceship]

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly!

Personally, and from a practical standpoint, I'd prefer LTO pricing to automatically follow BIN price adjustments.

In an ideal world, I'd love to see a simpler approach where the BIN price serves as the basis for LTO calculations. Sellers would simply enable or disable LTO, and the system would automatically suggest a maximum installment period based on the BIN price range. Of course, sellers could still adjust the suggested number of months to suit their preferences.

All the other existing LTO settings, such as down payments, final payments, etc., could remain available as optional domain-level overrides or account-wide defaults.

That way, whenever the BIN price changes, the LTO pricing adjusts automatically, with any configured overrides applied accordingly, without requiring additional manual intervention.

I understand that some sellers might prefer to maintain independent LTO pricing, though, so having a central setting to disable automatic synchronization would make sense too.

In short, automatic synchronization by default, with the flexibility to override it when needed, would be my preferred approach.

But these are just my two cents, of course!

Ultimately, your product and development teams will know best what aligns with your roadmap, overall vision, and technical constraints. Coming from a software engineering and tech lead background myself, I'd be happy to share some more in-depth technical thoughts if ever useful.

Thanks again for considering the feedback!

Regards,
T

Thanks for the input! We've passed it along to the team.

 

[Miver]

[ Still asking myself, time by time, who is behind this company account, human or LLM ]

 

[pb]

[ Still asking myself, time by time, who is behind this company account, human or LLM ]

 

[Spaceship]

How domain price for LTO shows on my portfolio page:

Show attachment 316868

Show attachment 316866

How domain price for LTO shows on the landing page:

Show attachment 316867


Hey @Spaceship, I noticed a discrepancy between the LTO prices displayed on my portfolio page and those shown on the individual landing pages for all my domains ...

For example, one of my domains has a BIN price of $10,000 and an LTO price of $12,000. The system divides the $12,000 LTO price into 24 monthly payments of $500. However, on the portfolio page, the LTO is displayed as a $500 down payment plus 24 monthly payments of $500, effectively making it 25 payments instead of 24.

To clarify, I don't require an initial down payment on any of my domains. My LTO price is always calculated as the BIN price plus 20%, with the total amount divided equally across the available monthly installments.
So the correct pricing is the one shown on the individual landing page.

Could you please look into this discrepancy and ensure that the portfolio page displays the LTO pricing consistently with the individual domain landing pages, without adding an initial down payment?

Thanks!

It has been fixed, and the LTO settings are now displayed correctly in the Seller Portfolio.

 

[lil]

namecheap integration is excellent, I primarily boarded the ship because of the ecosystem, many people including normies browse on namecheap and if somebody comes upon your domain listed on spaceship, it discloses the price and leasing term (if applicable) directly on the domain's banner. that alone is a big incentive for many to put their domains on spaceship. I'm liking it so far.