Located in Domain Marketplace Reviews started by webquest, Jul 18, 2017.
1. Andrew Rosener (Mediaoptions)
2. Andy Booth
3. James Booth
4. Oliver Hoger
Simple. Ignoring things makes them go away. Adam Dicker didn't ignore his thread (at least in the beginning) and the thread got hotter every day for weeks. Shane Bellone ignored his thread and it died in days. You will probably never hear from any of them again regarding this matter.
It's been brought to my attention (and poor job on my part for not thoroughly investing the address prior to posting) that the address used in both Hoger and Media options (maybe InternetRealEstate in better fit?) domain match up to GiBro.com offices...
Cos it takes time to think up a beliveable story
We will hear from them if there is a lawsuit (class action) in the near future.
The more you look, the less you see. This fraudulent act could kill this business for everyone of us.
...and to hire an attorney!
I can't imagine there won't be with all the evidence presented here that makes it look like a pretty big shill bidding operation!
About refund, just got a reply from NameJet that they will look into the shill bidding I complained !!
Perhaps I missed it where is the evidence on Andrew?
Holly Sh*t, just thought I'd mention....this thread has already racked up 34 817+ views! ...lol
Does InternetRealEstate LTD need any investigating? Given they are using the same (maybe mailforwarding business development service) as Hoger? Or is that fair coincidence? Just wondering why the separation of assets (protection) and who else is still involved with Internet Real Estate (as in are the other individuals associated with the company needing to be looked into for potentially bidding up auctions? at least looked at to see if they are innocent or a participant)
I'm not sure hard evidence has been presented. Just speculation and association with a few similarities. A few specific allegations have been made, such as a 6N, but I don't think evidence of that auction has been brought forth yet.
Grilled, thanks for all the detective work and data. You do a nice job posting this hard data. I assume you realize that shell corporations do in fact use the same physical addresses, but a different POB number. Unless they use the same exact corporation ID and box there is no real tie in.
Are you stating they share the same POB? That is a key piece of data.
There was a famous 60 minutes piece showing years ago exposing all the same large companies under one small office in the Cayman Islands. It looks suspicious, but it is Legal tax avoidance. All the large corporations do this sort of accounting game of selling and moving around assets to avoid taxes. But the rest of us wind up paying for it.
Also, I have read that entire WI dot com auction and following comment war, thanks for posting that. Very disturbing posturing, etc.
I think they are implying Guilt by association in Andrew's case. Also Andrew has adamantly defended the act of being able to bid on your own auctions. There's a thread dedicated just for @MediaOptions here:
Just add namepros address here/threads/lets-discuss-andrew-roseners-idea-of-owners-bidding-in-auctions.1030988/
i'm saying their WHOIS have the same physical address. An address associated with a company that offers both mail forwarding and business development (registration etc) services.
Well if a merger occured as suggested if I read the domaingang piece correctly, then it is easy to simply transfer control in same jurisdiction and use the same forwarding service. Nothing improper about that. Separate box numbers or forwarding ID info was probably not on whois, so that precludes proof, imho. I think this is a tangled mess, but it may all not be what it appears. The listed parties above may all be innocent. But it leaves a bad taste in your mouth anyway.
NameJet does not need to respond here, nobody is owed anything except those who go get in a single file line with NJ and ask for refunds of the difference. Publically exposing this is fine, but individuals need to seek their claims. The company lawyers will preclude them from posting anything further publically as it is just more questioning and potential self incrimination. Very smart move to lurk and watch and not state anything further.
Like the Brandbucket insider scam, representatives come on once at the onset to state the obvious with a lukewarm statement and denial, then disappear back into their caves.
Ralph Nader on the Caymans. 10,000 companies at one physical address.
Gibraltar wealth management
Folks, you are treading on thin ice with your accusations.
I'm going to keep this short. I haven't decided whether or not I want to post a more formal response. Unlike you savages, I'm waiting for NameJet to provide a detailed response of their findings.
But to defend myself and my company's reputation here are all of the answers you want:
1. We have NOT engaged in shill bidding. PERIOD. STOP THE BULLsh*t. There have been mistaken and accidental instances where an old backorder resulted in our participation in an auction we were running. There have been instances where we bid on a name we were selling without knowing and then it was pointed out to us and we contacted Namejet and it was immediately removed. Accidents happen. But we have never knowingly and intentionally bid up an auction, shill bid or anything else that folks are accusing me of. Anyone who has ever sold large volumes of names on Namejet knows that it is a very messy and arduous process with lots of room for error. Namejet is not as sophisticated as folks think they are. Its a small team with multiple stake holders. It takes them years to implement changes and updates to their technology. It wasn't until this year that seller's could even track their own auctions without backordering their own names! Success breeds envy and I have a target on my back the size of Texas. I accept that. I'm an aggressive trader and aggressive business person. But I am NOT a criminal and I am NOT engaged in fraud.
2. Gibraltar Address: Yes, the address for Internet Real Estate Ltd (a completely different company from Media Options by the way, completely separate business) has the same mailing address as Oliver Holger's company. It is a corporate registration address in Gibraltar. There are more than 39,000 companies with the same address (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/s...e%2C+Gibraltar). I believe there is something like 2 million companies in America that share the same address in Delaware. I guess half of the companies in America are colluding because they have the same corporate registration address! We have NO tie to Oliver Hoger whatsoever or his company other than being friends with him for many years and doing lots of business over those years. Just like MANY of you.
3. Wi.com: I believe we exhausted this theme after Michael Berkens negligently posted an incredibly slanted blog post at TheDomains questioning the value or validity of wi.com and warning people to bid at their own risk. All of this while he was the 2nd highest bidder! But for some reason people attacked ME and nobody questioned the ethics of Berkens posting something at that conspicuous time. Fine, I'm over it. But THAT POST is what caused the buyer to back out of the sale of wi.com. It hit reserve at $501,000 with a valid bid. It should have been sold. We should have walked away with $501,000 (minus commission). But the buyer "Index" contacted Namejet and told them they want to back out of the sale because they read Michael Berken's post and didn't feel comfortable moving ahead. Great, I'm over it. Gut check. That kind of hit would have CRUSHED most of you. We keep on trucking like we always do. Our million dollar asset (wi.com) was immediately devalued by half or more. Great. I'm over it. Just another day in domaining.
You folks should truly be ashamed.
Michael Sumner is doing great work with his investigation. Posting facts. Making observations. Discussion. Debate. NOT making accusations. That is productive. That will get answers. But throwing around unwarranted accusations only makes things worse. Some of you are guilty of libel.
I'm done now. If you want more answers from me and are a respected member of the community then please contact me by email or phone.
I know you don't engage in it Grilled but there are those here who are too quick to judge without hard evidence. When mob mentality rules, it can easily turn on them on equally thin accusations and so let us all not promote such behavior.
Exactly. I really don't want to pass any judgement until everything is settled. Just like in court, all evidence is presented, and given an opportunity to prove or disprove any allegations brought forth. Such light is used to determine other avenues of the investigation. Because mediaoptions is a huge supporter of NJ, I think an investigation to his dealings is fitting (given the association between the accused shiller), in that if the investigation shows MediaOptions complete innocence, all this hearsay will be stopped, and said parties can go about their business without hearsay connections negatively affecting them going forward. Actions speak louder than words. Andrew can yell I'm innocent at the top of his lungs, and some here will still not believe it until an investigation shows otherwise. This also applies to his theoretical talks of bidding on your own domains. It's one thing for him to theoreticize about the ethics of doing it - it's another thing if he's actually doing it. If he's only theoreticizing, and not acting, than this shows great ethics and restraint. If the theory is based on his past actions, it's an utter ethics violation.
All this blah blah rant I'm saying may also be misdirected. I don't like seeing everyone turn on each other. Especially those trying to be as forthright as possible while teetering the clinet/broker relationship. At some point, just as our legal system takes into account the cooperation of alleged parties, we have to forget about the little fish in efforts of getting the big fish. IE if certain sellers are receiving benefits that make it easier for them to shill, then we should hope they come forward with their involvement, so the auction house can't publicly recuse themselves of wrongdoing.
I think much of what I learned in both the brandbucket insider wholesale acceptance scam, and this liquid domain wholesale scam, is that domains are worth what endusers will pay -- you can't rely on wholesale pricing (evident as well by @uglydork massive sale. You can't sell for $10k on NP -- Find an enduser and differentiate yourself from the rest by SELLING your domain to the proper party.) I think MediaOptions puts in a lot of work. So it's unfair to say their domains fetch more money on NJ solely because of shilling. Hence - why an investigation will settle the dispute.... I don't even know what I'm ranting about anymore. All logic went out the window when you said my trigger word... brandbucket.
Andrew what was shameful was your view on people bidding on their own names I Just can't get over that "mindset" but my issue with you is not personal but with your view "only". I for one do not think you are a criminal that to me is BS but come on dude you are top industry guy advocating for something which can be defined as shill bidding not a good Look. We need guys like you to help maintain the highest of standards I hope you understand that .
If he's not participating (which no evidence has proved yet) he'd be doing the industry a disservice by not debating about other options. Being that he's top in the industry, you have to imagine he's privy to a lot more than the average domainer. Thus, I think it's great he discusses it (from a theoretical POV) as long as he's not participating. Doesn't that show a solid moral high ground? Being fully aware of the ins and outs of why the rules may need to be changed, yet conducting his business in the highest standards by steering clear of said practices.
Listen, I'm done arguing this point but this part is critical. A SHILL BID is a bid where the person is hiding, using an alias or a proxy. If it is laid out in the TOS and the owner is clearly identified in the bidding process and the auction is a forced sale auction where no party can renege and a sale will happen no matter what, it is NOT a shill bid. It is an alternative auction structure.
Whether you agree with my proposal or not isn't the issue. Attacking me about it is WRONG and shows a lack of intellect. I welcomed intellectual debate and discussion. What I got was pitch forks and knives.
At least this episode has shown me who my friends are! The list got shorter.
Again my issue is with his view "only" what he is advocating open or not is "illegal" at least here in the UK I don't doubt he conducts his business in the highest of standards his business is not in question here well at least in my view. Just to add even if Bill Gates or Vatican the pope said the same thing I would still be strongly against it and lose respect but that is my view only.
Separate names with a comma.