Alter.com Brandable Marketplace

In line with @Deven Patel statement above, l suggest those interested in their supporting Payoneer, like this my comment so he can have idea of the number of people that needs it.

 

@Deven Patel My domain appraisal is lower than other marketplace, so I didn't change the nameserver

 

We found that our appraisals are similar on average. If you don't agree with it then please reach out to support and we would be happy to take another look. Though keep in mind that our goal is to sell your domain. Other marketplaces may sometimes win you over with their appraisal but that doesn't mean the domain will sell.

Also, if you don't mind sharing the information publicly I would love to get everyone else's feedback on it. What is the domain name and what are the two appraisals?

 

My 38 domain live. (Nice logo)
Thank you.

 

Thank you for joining our marketplace!

 

Hi, I agree that not sellers are the same, that's why only the ones who agree with the “distribution of gains“ rule would join the platform. The platform sets the rules and the seller decides whether or not to join.

I personally really think this is a fantastic idea that would set your (or any) platform apart.

You could maybe implement 2 sections for sellers. The ones that are willing to pay only 10% commission, and the others that would like to pay more % but share gains.

Regarding the quantity vs quality point. If you are the ones selecting the domains (very carefully apparently), all your listings should be high-quality with around the same STR. So your platform will only sell high-quality domains with a high STR, and this has nothing to do with “high-quality sellers“ as the sellers have to go through YOUR selection process.

Also, none of this will impact in any way the buyer, which is your primary focus.

Other than that, I just joined and submitted 25 domains, I really liked the ease of the submission process, without being charged for it. Now let's see what is your acceptance rate of my names

 

This is an AMAZING concept man! Thanks for sharing it

 

I don't think so. What if someone lists only one domain? Should he share the same profits as someone who has 200 domains listed? What is someone makes multiple accounts and rakes in a higher share of the profits?

There's only one solution to both of those problems - to award a percentage proportional to the number of domains listed. But someone with a higher number of domains is expected to earn more anyway, so this system wouldn't really achieve anything.

Also, there's an additional problem. Some domains are listed for a million bucks. Why would a seller of one of those domains agree to share a percentage of the sale and in return receive a percentage of a domain sold for $3000?

Just as I was about to conclude this post, I just realized there is one solution to this last problem, technically.
To award a percentage based on the total value of one's domains, not number of domains listed. So someone who has one domain listed for $100 000 should earn 2x the percentage of someone who has 10 domains listed for $5000.

But, again, does this really achieve anything? It should balance out to be the same in the end. People with more domains (or higher value domains) are going to end up earning more with or without this system.

 

I agree the distribution should be based on the volume of $$$ extracted from listing prices as you say! It's much fairer than the number of listed domains alone.

“Also, there's an additional problem. Some domains are listed for a million bucks. Why would a seller of one of those domains agree to share a percentage of the sale and in return receive a percentage of a domain sold for $3000?“

This is also why the seller should have the choice of either paying 10% without sharing or 25-30% with the sharing option. Only the domains included in the sharing option would be the ones paying those high commissions.

 

No that was solved with the total domain value solution, it would work. It's just that this system won't achieve anything. People would, on average, earn the same kind of money. They would earn less from sales but more from sale percentages of others. In theory, it should balance out.

 

This would also solve the problem of competition amongst domainers in marketplaces as they would all be happy when a domain sells, regardless of the owner. A lot of domainers avoid marketplaces because they don't want other domains to be suggested to potential buyers. This new system could bring those domainers back.

Also, the distribution system could be a smart move that benefits the platform, as domainers will most likely promote it for free.

Personally I would totally recommend the platform to any potential buyer looking to buy a domain, knowing that I will benefit from any sale.

 

OK so why do you think this is good for sellers? Best thing that will happen is people will get an influx of money more consistently but they won't get more money on average (remember, they make less when they sell theirs).

 

The only problem I see is that the STR should be (around) the same for all domains, which is difficult to know precisely. It all depends on the selection process I suppose.

 

Well, you just answered your own question, people will get an influx of money more consistently.

“remember, they make less when they sell theirs“

Remember that we are talking about the same % commission that most common brandable marketplaces charge. Around 25-30%, which is INSANE. If Alter only needs 10%, then the other 15-20% could be redistributed fairly among sellers.

I have around 30 domains on those marketplaces and I won't receive any penny from them if I don't make sales. If I don't sell, I actually lose money because of the number of coins used for the acceptance of 1 domain (More than 10$ of coins for 1 domain accepted on SH and BP).

I would be more than happy to join a marketplace where I can be guaranteed to get some money back.

 

Keep poor people poor, keep rich people rich. Why fix it if it isn't broken?

@Lord Antares
You worry too much about other peoples money. Do you care what google is doing with it's money? Do you care what youtubers are doing with their money? Are you about to watch youtube video, and then you say: wait a minute, I will not watch a video because he/she will make money off of me. Not on my watch!

This is not a get rich quick scheme. This is to help other people that are trying to make a single sale.

You have million dollar brandable, great! 700k for you, 100k for Deven Patel, 200k for others that didn't make a sale. Do you care what will Deven do with his 100k? After you get your 700k, you don't get a cut of other user sales for that year. So you don't have to worry that some brandable sold for only 3k.

Again, this is not a get rich quick scheme:
1. You sell your own domain, you get the money in your account, where you are free to do what ever you want with it.
2. You don't make a sale, you get money as In-Store credit, where you can use it ONLY on renewals/registrations/transfers.

This way you want to make a sale, but just in case you don't, you don't have to worry about renewals. Maybe some users won't be able to renew all, but at least some. And if you have only 1 brandable (me), you can renew it, even multiple years, and buy more brandables, and point them to marketplace where EVERYONE WINS.

And, if you don't like this, or agree with this, you can always go to different markeplace, where you and owner are enjoying all the fruits.

 

I've no idea what you're trying to say honestly. This system won't "empower the poor" or something.

If you have a higher total value of domains listed, you will earn a higher percentage of other people's sales than someone with a lower total value of domains, right?

Without this system, you would still earn more money because you have a more valuable portfolio.

On average, nothing would change. People with more money would still earn more money.

Also,

I'm sorry but what??

So after giving away a 20% cut of a massive domain sale, you would have no right to receive a cut from other people's sales?

Seems like you just want a system where you could leech off of people with good domains, while not needing to contribute anything yourself. No one in their right mind who has premium domains would want to take part in that ripoff.

 

Here is where I have a problem too. Imagine a domainer that has a single 6/7 figure domain and he has to distribute 20% of this single sale, and the only thing he gets back are renewals/registrations/transfers for only 1 domain (max 50$ per year). This isn't fair for that domainer.

 

Again the most important variable IMO is the selection process, which has to be very rigorous in order to get consistent similar STRs between domains. For example, if the STR of the whole store's portfolio is 3% then every SINGLE domain should be at 3% (+/- 0.5%) STR too. The tricky part is the selection process because of human errors and biases. It would have to be based on faith and trust. Or one can also imagine a system where the whole community votes and decides. Ok, this is a political thread now

 

I agree. The selection process needs to be done by competent people. I see some inconsistencies in their selections and appraisals. Some domains appraised at 3k are markedly better than others appraised at the same price. But I don't honestly think they need to be incredibly accurate with STR.

You could get lucky or unlucky with sales, but it should average out. They just shouldn't be too error prone.

I still don't see how this system would be better than the existing one. 10% commission is already a great deal, I'd need a more tangible argument to take this system over pure commission.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just don't see how it's an instant improvement.

 

Deven never said he was doing this. The pull here is lower commission than other brandable markets.

What you guys are suggesting sounds like a cross between a co op and socialism etc which maybe someone will try something like that at a later date. It would be impossible to implement in a way that is completely fair to all.

All domains are not equal, all sellers don’t have the same wealth or lack thereof. So in theory the people with the best most sellable names would be providing for an entire group’s morale or renewals? I don’t get how that is fair.

If I buy a 4 letter name for 1K sell it for 15K I am providing alot more to the group than hand reggers will ever provide to me. Its an extreme example to make my point.

I have seen this idea thrown around elsewhere but its hard to see beyond people with great domains will be rewarding those with possibly not so great domains. In this business you should be rewarded for choosing right not choosing wrong imo.

 

I'm sorry but you made 700k and you want more? The same year? You want to take a cut from sellers who made zero?

You don't look at this that some leechers are sucking money out of you, you look at it that you helped domainers out.

In-Store credit is only for registrations/renewals/transfers. Which means you can't take the money and run. Only option is to reinvest it in brandables.

This is not an improvement for users who are making regular sales, it's improvement for users who make zero sales.

Let me ask you this:
Would you complain if Deven at the end of the year decides to give half of his earnings (5% out of 10%) to users who didn't make a sale in a current year?

 

@timestamp How can you or anyone else for that matter decide that a seller got enough money in a single year and doesn't deserve more? You don't know the cost of the domains, the size of the portfolio that needs to be renewed etc. Plus, how can you decide for another person who made a great decision in buying a specific domain or domains, that you'll take away money from him, regardless of how much was made? IMO if a domainer doesn't make a sale in an entire year, they aren't a domainer, they shouldn't be dealing with domains and would do themselves a favor if they quit or learn as much as possible before continuing wasting their time and money. Or try to get SH to register domains for them so they won't have any costs and then if they get a sale they can start buying their own domains.

This whole suggestion is basically a way for people who aren't good at domaining to get charity so they can continue to renew low quality domains and buy more. Charity has its time and place but domaining is about skills, making good decisions consistently and being rewarded for it. You're looking at it from the narrow perspective of a domainer who doesn't have money. Of course it's great for such a person. It would also be great if every year people who lost money in the stock exchange will be paid by people who made money in the stock exchange. But why should that happen? Domaining, like any other investment, is capitalism, not socialism. Expecting successful sellers to carry the weight of unsuccessful sellers is unrealistic and since there's no incentive for successful sellers to do it, I don't think it's likely to happen.

 

It seems like this alter.com thread has been hijacked. I would love to post on this socialist marketplace idea because it seems like a good one and seems workable. My idea is more of a "co-op" mkt. But someone should start a new post (I know, I should do it). I just signed up and submitted domains to Alter. Let's see what happens.

 

Again, all domains should be equally good in terms of STR. If you solve this problem through a rigorous selection process, then there will be no “people with the best most sellable names providing for an entire group’s morale or renewals“. Each domain would be as good as the other. This is why a sort of democratic system is probably a good idea because every domainer would be involved in the selection process.