Bidding on your own names at NameJet...?

[webquest]

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

 

[Michael]

You are right .. but the pure free-market argument for this doesn't care about equal footing. Free-Market simply implies that if you have the money to buy something, you can buy it .. and that if you have something, you can sell it for as much as you like. If there is only one of something (in this case a specific domain), then you can choose to sell it to whomever you want ... including yourself as strange as that may sound .. lol.

That's why i'm saying it's not a logic argument. If anything Free-Market rational certainly is simpler and cleaner. But I will most certainly agree that there is a morality question that needs to be asked .. and I can appreciate an open minded opinion the has moral issues against this sort of process.



You are most certainly right .. if that was the only argument it would be silly .. but it's more the Free-Market ideology argument that really is the counter-point to your argument here. And again let me be very clear that I don't entirely disagree with you. My very first post on this stresses how I don't think either side is entirely right .. but I also think it's wrong to completely dismiss the other point of view.

What I do think .. is that because both sides have merit .. that maybe we should explore a system that takes as much positive from both sides.


Again though .. none of that matters here .. even @MediaOptions says that the current NJ rules are what should be enforced here ... the rest is just a theoretical discussion ... to be continued here ...

https://www.namepros.com/threads/le...s-idea-of-owners-bidding-in-auctions.1030988/

I'll repeat this because you might have missed it, it was an edit added after your edit:

-- Free market does not mean a lack of laws, rules, or ethics. It just means that prices are set purely by supply and demand without restrictions like tariffs, anti-monopoly laws, etc. It does not mean "do whatever the hell you want to make a buck".

I would argue that a seller bidding in his own auction, with the advantage of only having to pay a commission, is the opposite of a free-market. The market is being unfairly influenced by someone with an economic advantage. By that logic, NameJet employees should be allowed to bid in the auctions as well in a "free market", even though they have the advantage of knowing exact reserves and people's proxy bids. Again, free market doesn't equate to "anything goes".

Let me put it another way. Let's say I actually own an auction house, so I directly pocket the commission from sales. Should I be allowed to bid, even though I'm getting a 15% discount on every purchase and I'm not on equal footing with other bidders? By your understanding of "free market" that would be totally cool. Would you actually argue that this would be ok?

Put yet another way, let's look at brokerage which is Andrew's main game. Let's say someone asks him to represent an LLL.com and agrees to a 15% commission, then he finds a buyer looking for LLL.com and tells him he charges a 15% buyer broker fees. He connects the two parties and double dips. I'm pretty sure he would frown on such activity, but nobody held a gun to anyone's head and "free market" and all that bullshit. So it's ok, right? Don't think so.

Or getting even more unethical, let's say he represents the seller of the LLL.com and tells the seller he got $30k, but really he sold it to another party for $50k and he himself was the buyer at $30k. So he pockets $20k plus the $4,500 in commission on the $30k sale. You might say "free market", the seller agreed to $30k and the other party agreed to $50k, nobody held a gun to their heads. But it is still wrong.

Again... free market is not a free for all, throw ethics out the window, laws be damned type of situation.

 

[LarryDomain]

NICE!!

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

A bit late, no?

 

[Kate]

You don't believe that more competition is a good thing?

Shill bidding is not healthy competition.
There is no point trying to rationalize and justify shill bidding.

 

[Ali]

I try very hard to stay away from commenting on these issues because I tend to get way too involved for my own sanity, but I’ve written too much over the week and it needs to get spoken.

This is one of the smallest, and most tight knit industries there is. Hence why it is so troubling when shit like this happens. This industry is forged on trust and relationships, burning bridges is a big no no, unless those bridges are PROVEN to be doused in gasoline already (then by all means, here is a lighter you can use).

For one, the ridiculous accusations and witch hunting behavior need to stop, PERIOD. For people to tip-toe around accusing and some even actually accusing @MediaOptions of fraud, without providing ANY evidence of it is lynch mob behavior to say the least. Drew shared an idea, and while his timing was terrible - he did not deserve to get doused in gasoline. After speaking with him, he even assumed that my original comment was directed towards him - let me be very clear that it wasn’t - it was directed towards the entire industry and the shill bidding behavior (among other behavior) that is being allowed to continue EVERYWHERE.

Secondly, I’m infuriated that with ALL the technology available, money at hand, and talent in this industry we have not made an iota of progress within the auction marketplace system. Even more so disappointed by the pitchfork-swinging-witch-hunt-lynch-mob motivated actions that some members are taking. That said, THANK YOU to all those who are positively and vigorously pursuing the truth with REAL data and facts: you are what's right with this industry.

It's time for this industry to step it the fuck up. However that happens, it needs to happen NOW. Otherwise we can all kiss it goodbye.

 

[xn--v4h.com]

Gather around boys and girls. I want to tell you a story. My last sale was arabica.org. It went to auction with NO reserve. The last bidder won it after 24 hours with a bid of only $55. $55! Let's just say I bought it for MUCH more than that. If I believed that bidding on my domain was OK to do, then I could have bid it up to $100 and likely got it back no problem. BUT I did not. And of course I still wouldn't do it now or in the future. I took the risk in the hopes of the reward of more bidders. That's business. I'm not going to sacrifice the integrity of how I conduct my business, period!

 

[904.com]

Sorry I don't agree. Some of you guys are downright petty, close-minded, and mentally limited. Other than that, you guys are great. I understand that these types of events blow up like this event every three months. Unbelievable and unacceptable! Sincerely hope some of you look yourselves in the mirror and improve yourselves in the future. Sorry to be blunt but too many of you need it.

I am new to Namepros but from what I've seen so far I believe you are totally wrong. I'm very impressed with the hard work and integrity of some of these younger domain investors. Gives me hope for our future. Almost every industry is shady when you really look under the hood. That will never change. But when you discredit this community that worked incredibly hard to try to restore integrity and confidence in domain auction business than I think that you are very far off base. This post is to stick up for these NamePros members putting in this hard work. I respect it. Think its very high quality work. Thank you for all that you are contributing.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

P.S. ShillJet.com is available for hand reg. I suspect this will be a term used in the future to describe NJ if their management continues to condone this type of behavior through their actions (or inaction in their case)

ShillJet.com no longer available for hand reg. Haha - I love this community!

 

[Donny]

Facts are Facts. Your domains and his domains are going to the same account, how could that be? Same person? Split personality maybe? Alter-ego? Alternative Identity?

 

[promo]

Yes there is an issue..

If you list a name without reserve but you keep a secret reserve by shill bidding on the name, you are in fact deceiving people to think they have a chance to buy the name at a certain price point when no chance is there.

It makes it okay to deceive people if you are willing to pay the auction house commission??

@MediaOptions
I dont want to go into a head to head with you on this. I am myself a party to behind the scenes info on this and I would prefer to keep out as much as possible.

Two things though:
1: I know you cant teach business ethics to someone who does not want to hear it.
2: its against the TOS you agreed to when you signed up at NJ. I know you do it yourself since its not more than 3 months since you bid on one of your LLL.COMs you had another seller put up. Not sure what came of that and frankly at this point I dont care.

So there. I said my peace. If you want to have further discussion with me, we can have it through PM.

 

[StevenG]

Hey, I just wanted to give an update on my end. I had a conversation with Andrew Rosener and we talked about the situation and why it's so convoluted and frustrating for all parties involved. I made accusations that I shouldn't have, and I would like to publicly retract them and apologize for any harm they have done to Andrew Rosener, Media Options and their employees.

I said things that I shouldn't have, I'm truly sorry for that, and I hope that Andrew can forgive me. We all got heated into this discussion and have tried to find connections where there weren't any. Even if some people have done something wrong, it's not okay to lump others together with guilt by association. So what I said was misguided, I didn't have the answers. I hope that this thread can stay on task in being able to fix the issues at hand, let's stay clear of unfounded personal accusations.

Ultimately I hope that we are able to make amends as a community and sort out these issues.

 

[tonyk2000]

I am not here accusing anybody of anything, but as @Oliver Hoger said he was not HKDN I decided to do a little digging.

One of Oliver's domains is these.com, it has his name on the whois. The domain is pointing to ParkingCrew, and it has a DRID of as-drid-2397039701937088.

One of HDKN's domains is spreader.com, the whois shows that Marque Solutions with an email address of [email protected] owns the domain. The domain is also pointing to ParkingCrew, and it has the same exact DRID of as-drid-2397039701937088.

This means that Oliver and HKDN are sharing the same account with ParkingCrew. I did find multiple examples like this.

These are facts, no BS. Oliver and HKDN are the same person.

Donny

Donny is an owner of a parking company. So I would say that his analysis of anything parking - related can be considered as one a few undisputable facts, or authoritative opinions, which we really have in this thread (as most posts are just "imho"s somewhat related to the subject). Thank you so much Donny for spending time and efforts in this thread...

 

[Slanted]

Garth made an interesting comment:

"I think they need to drop third party listings. The brand is getting hammered by them."

It's part of this discussion by extension:

http://tldinvestors.com/2017/07/nam...s-fake-accounts-to-show-how-to-shill-bid.html

Dropping 3rd-party listings would cure 90% of the shill bidding. From that standpoint, it's an excellent suggestion. Seen from another perspective, it would be overkill.

For 2 years, when I covered NameJet auction results at DNW each week, I filtered out everything but genuine expiry auctions. The primary reason, which I talked about fairly openly, was the propensity of seller-controlled auctions to be manipulated. Those auction results would have distorted my market analysis. Also, I didn't want to be anybody's stooge, giving undue publicity to pumped-up prices.

Rampant shill bidding in this industry has been known about for many years. Without letting NameJet off the hook, it's worth pointing out that other auction houses were also implicated or infected with this same problem:

http://domainnamewire.com/2015/01/26/buying-bids-at-flippa/

Many sellers at NameJet would be furious if 3rd-party auctions were discontinued. People would scream bloody murder. And many of them would be perfectly innocent. Personally, it wouldn't bother me, since I have listed inventory at NameJet only twice. In fact, I'd welcome that change. But other people find themselves in other positions.

NameJet itself could potentially lose revenue by doing this. Most of their super-premium domains come from 3rd parties. Those are the headline grabbers; so NameJet would lose publicity if they confined their auctions to the expiry stream.

For those reasons, I don't think it will happen. But certainly discontinuing 3rd-party auctions would cure most of the shill bidding. Even if that idea is not seriously entertained as a course of action, it's worth pondering as a thought experiment. If NameJet contained only genuine expiry auctions, how would things change for domainers – not just at NameJet but elsewhere? There would be many knock-on effects.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

It appears that BQDN likes to bid on BoothCom auctions that are no reserve.

Below screenshots are BoothCom auctions being bid on (collusion?) by BQDN @BoothDomains

 

[equity78]

Apparently Andrew Rosener thinks it's ok to bid on your own domain names, Well I would say Jonathan @NameJetGM you better clarify that.

From TheDomains:

1. Andrew Rosener says
   
   July 18, 2017 at 4:43 pm
   
   If a domain is listed for sale with no reserve I actually don’t see the problem with an owner bidding for the domain. In a state tax auction or any other type of asset forfeiture auction it is standard that creditors or prior owners would be bidding in the auction right up against other unrelated bidders.
   
   As long as they have to pay cold hard cash to buy the name back like everyone else, then where is the problem? They are creating no economic damage. In fact it is just another form of “reserve” pricing and actually is more economically accurate and beneficial to the market.
   
   With a reserve auction, nobody wins if the auction doesn’t hit reserve. You do not even get an accurate picture of the market value of the asset because the bids don’t mean ANYTHING until they are over the reserve. At least with a no-reserve auction where the owner is allowed to bid, you have real economic advantage and productivity. The owner must authentically create a value threshold. If owner buys it back, the auction house still gets their commission creating economic benefit. The market gets a true picture of the value of the asset. And the owner re-acquires the asset that they value higher than the market does.
   
   When you have any deal for ANYTHING and you have a bonafide buyer and a seller at the table then one of them will walk away with the property and one will walk away with the money but BOTH the property and money are on the table and up for grabs by either party. Read that again because its important. If the “Seller” doesn’t accept the offer from the buyer than, in essence, they have just paid whatever price the buyer offered to buy their own property back. Quite literally, there is no buyer and no seller, there are only two parties (or more in the case of an auction) who assign value to a particular piece of property. One party has money (or other consideration) and one party has the property. At that exact moment in time, you have two parties who each need to decide if they value the offered money or the property higher. One walks away with the property and one with the money. Its really that simple.
   
   Example:
   
   Lets say that we put Murphy.com for sale in auction or in a straight listing and we receive an offer of $150,000 for the domain. We have have only two options and outcomes:
   
   1. We accept the offer, transfer the domain and walk away with $150,000
   2. “Buy” the domain for $150,000 ourselves (by turning down the bonafide offer of $150k)
   
   This may not be immediately obvious to most folks but every time you say “NO” to an offer, what you did was buy your asset or property or contract for whatever the offer price was that you turned down.
   
   If an auction has a reserve price and the owner is bidding below the reserve price then that is a totally different story. I actually don’t necessarily see the issue with an owner bidding below the reserve either just to create “momentum” in the auction, but since the domain can not be sold below the reserve anyhow, it is not financially harming anyone involved. But I fully understand that this practice is more controversial and does create some false illusion of the value of the asset in the event it does not sell.
   
   Outside of the domain industry it is common practice that an owner would be able to bid for their own asset in lieu of setting a reserve. If they buy the property back they still have to pay the full commission to the auction house or broker. Again, that is real money paid and keep in mind that if they had let the #2 bidder win, that would have been money in their pocket. So the price paid is actually HIGHER than anyone else would have paid because they are paying the purchase price (opportunity cost) PLUS the auction commission (actual out of pocket cash). If that makes any sense…
   
   So while I’m sure my post will cause controversy, I must say, I think it is silly to worry about owners bidding on their own domains in either scenario. The only ones you need to worry about are the auction houses themselves and making sure there is no INTERNAL shill bidding (like Halvarez).
   

 

[betthelot]

This risk is the opportunity cost. I really am surprised nobody understands that!!!!!!

If i put xyz.com in auction and its about to sell for $10,000 and I bid $10,100 then i have made the decision that i rather have the domain name xyz.com than the $10,000 (minus auction commission). If I rather have $10,000 then i let someone else win.

Free market capitalism 101.

Hi Andrew, I understand your theory that allowing the owner to bid on a no reserve auction creates the most perfectly priced market. It's clear you have given this a lot of thought.
What is against your model is that in an auction environment a major piece of information that bidders use to assess the value of an asset is 'DO OTHERS THINK THE SAME'.
It helps to validate or give confidence for them to bid higher. Now if the other bidder is the owner most would feel they are being duped, because owners often over value their own assets and therefore winning against the owner means you have more chance of falling prey to the winner's curse i.e. paying over market value because of incomplete information.
There is no doubt, owners bidding incognito achieves the highest auction prices. Does that truly mean perfectly priced market? No, and here is why: you sacrifice the good will of the auction platform once it becomes clear the auction house is allowing owners to bid and therefore long term, bidders lose confidence and stop bidding in fear they are bidding against the owner. Initially, prices fetched will be higher but as soon as the full information is known to other bidders they will be more circumspect in fear of the winners curse and loss of trust in the auction house.

 

[xn--v4h.com]

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.
-Jonathan
GM, NameJet

The above just doesn't smell right at all. Seems to me you verified the truthfulness of him not owning the domain based on his words. What are the facts? When exactly did those domains change hands, and WHO owns them now -- and this who MUST be the one who is auctioning those domains right now.

I cannot auction my domain without changing my registrant AND prove I own it by either changing the registrant's email or changing the records in the domain's records themselves. So how in the world could the current owner(s) able to put their domains in auction without even changing the registrant's info?

 

[richface]

Again and for the last time, I am NOT supporting shill bidding. I'm supporting the IDEA of openly allowing owners to participate in auctions which have NO RESERVE. Everyone has a fair and equal shot at buying the asset. Where is the flaw?

No Reserve should mean no Reserve so disappointed in you. For all you newbies there are no Guru's in this industry Trust no one!!! this is such a disgraceful point of view. If you want a Reserve be transparent SET A RESERVE do not bid on your own names here in the UK you get prosecuted for doing so! I want to sell a property at no reserve but hey i will bid on it to set a reserve and in case I win pay myself nothing wrong with that as no other bidder will be influenced on how they bid yer right!. Give me a break!

 

[Donny]

I'm sure it's not to hard to check the API IP logs and IP Logs for when they login. I would bet that all of this is automated.

Donny

 

[GeorgeK]

By the way, there is a law suit involving one of the Booth brothers that the blogs haven't covered yet, regarding the HH.com domain name, see:

http://norcalrecord.com/stories/511...judgment-regarding-sale-of-hh-com-domain-name

 

[hawkeye]

And people say/think that Game Of Thrones is entertaining and enthralling.

 

[Donny]

Shane, I found spreader.com domain on your site and went from there. I've found almost 30 domains that HKDN owns that go to the same account that Oliver has with ParkingCrew. This can't be a mistake.

I'm sure he's moving them all to the correct account now.

Donny

 

[Perceptron]

Again, NOT TRUE in a tax auction. In most tax auctions, the proceeds are use to pay off the tax liability plus interest and all remaining proceeds are returned to the owner.

Before I was in domaining, tax auctions were my number one investment. I participated in LOTS.

As a seller, the moment you agree to a No Reserve or a Low Reserve or Any Reserve Auction, you basically are agreeing to put the Asset on the table, for that price point which you have agreed as Reserve. From that point, it is left to the market to drive its value.

The whole idea of putting a Reserve for a Reserve Auction is to make sure at what price point you are comfortable to sell it at the least.

The example on Tax Auction is inherently very different to the voluntary Domain Auction at Namejet or Flippa or Namepros, where the seller is not forced with the Auction!
In case of a lien, within tax auctions, it is basically imposed on the seller due to some sort of default.
"......A tax sale is the forced sale of property (usually real estate) by a governmental entity for unpaid taxes by the property's owner...." here

This is not a Forced Auction, hence they are not comparable!

Had it been a case where the Domain have expired or the owner had failed some liability, and now the owner of the Domain may lose the Domain due to default with payment or deadline of payment, then in that case the owner might get the opportunity to get it back by participating in the Forced Auction!

 

[domain hacks]

They bid on each other domains, they like each other posts...oh, the humanity!!

 

[zurc.net]

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

Did they provide proof of an actual sale or are you just accepting them at their word? @NameJetGM

My account was suspended 6 years ago, due to the fact that I won a domain name, failed to pay (from being in the hospital for almost a month). I tried to provide documents proving what I was saying was fact, considering you didn't accept my word, which went ignored.

Fast tracking to present day, I wanted to have my account re-instated, you guys requested $2,500 in order to do so, a non-refundable deposit, fast forward again 6 months later and you all allowed me to re-open it for $250 non-refundable deposit.

I wish my word was taken at face value. And seeing how you are handling this only at their word, I kind of wish I didn't fund my account knowing that some people are going to be able to get away with whatever they want, all depending on their profile in the industry. Ridiculous.

 

[Michael]

@Michael's Math .. lol

First let me say I don't necessarily completely disagree with parts of what you're saying .. except that there are two ways of looking at the math. your way .. and @MediaOptions way which is:

If he wins the auction at $23,800, and the previous high bid was $23,600 (I'm assuming $200 minimum steps based on your math above) .. then he is losing $25,980 ($2380 fees and $23,600 from the money he didn't get from the other potentially winning bidder and was the theoretical auction market value).

As I stated a few times above .. you can easily argue the logic both ways .. it's not one or the other .. there's a who ton of grey in here.


Most importantly what people ignore .. is that this is most certainly already happening anyways. Whether the Booths are guilty or not, the domaining industry is small with lots of mini claws and alliances. AND .. there is no real way of stopping anybody from doing this if the really wanted to.

But to be clear .. I am most definitely not saying that it is ok in this specific case (and when you read past page 3 you'll see @MediaOptions isn't either) .. in fact as far as I know, almost nobody disagrees that *IF* they did it in this case .. it goes against Namejet Terms of Service and is 100% wrong. End of Story.


So in the meantime we wait for @NameJetGM to give us the justification and/or proof as to why he says he is 100% sure it was not Andy Booth's domain.

My math is correct. Opportunity cost is not a real cost... try amortizing that $23,600 on your taxes Your only real cost is the commission when you win your own auction.

Would it be nice to have that $23,600? Sure. But you could still sell the name the next day for that amount or more, so it is not a cost. By that logic, the "cost" of your portfolio is what you paid for every name in it, PLUS your expected sale price for all those names you haven't sold. That's like saying I bought a name for $10k, turned down a $30k offer, so now that name cost me $40k. That's just dumb.

Also you're double-counting the commission He wouldn't net $23,600 if that was the high bid, he would miss out on $21,240 in cash plus have to pay $2,360 in commission for a total fake "loss" of $23,600 using this backwards math.