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

 

[Internet.Domains]

Judge: Guilty! Do you have anything to say before you go to jail for fraud!?

Criminal: What was wrong with what I did?...Nobody got hurt and it helped the free market...It was capitalism......It was a good thing.

Judge: Lock him up!!...Get him the hell out of here, these people are nuts!!!

 

[alcy]

how about refunds for everyone that was overpaying
from day 1. for all impacted domains.

 

[zurc.net]

How far back does auction history go on NameJet? I'm curious.

 

[Beezy]

Is there a class action lawyer on the board?

 

[hookbox]

I love it. @Rick Schwartz is putting this on blast

https://twitter.com/domainking?lang=en

 

[Recons.Com]

Let's assume I have a very valuable name that I bought for $10,000

Now I can set a reserve of $10,000+NJ commission and risk that their won't be enough activity, visibility, hype etc.

Or I can go @MediaOptions advocated way and set it as "no reserve", but bid myself up to certain level.

Now, many bidders might not investigate who owns the name and who the bidder aliases are.

They bid up to $5K, I bid a bit higher, end up paying $1K to NJ, but that is still less than what I would lose compared to my perceived value (which is $10K, obviously), so losing $1K is better than losing $5K.

Even at $10K bid, I might still prefer to buy it back and pay $2K to NJ as my loss.

And I still might believe it is a good business for me, if there is a 20% chance that I will get enough hype and action to get it to $25K, for example, as 20% of 15K delta is more than 1-2K loss.

Now it is bad for bidders for this reason:

- they might not suspect they are bidding against the owner or his liaison, as that would mean an effective reserve and bidder might not be interested in those

- they waste lots of time participating in the auction that they did not know had a reserve and also they tie up their resources to it.

No reserve is no reserve and let it stay that way.

Booth brothers should present the evidence of sale to us too, not just NJ or NJ should vouch for them and confirm that they have seen and verified proof of ARM'S LENGTH sale to unrelated party.

 

[Al Cohol]

Better than any Hollywood drama this here domain "industry".

 

[spankdemon]

He's calling it a no reserve auction.....But it's like a ghost reserve. It can appear and reappear / increase at any moment!

What if you were allowed to suddenly add a reserve price in the middle of an auction? Or increase the reserve price during an auction once it had already been passed? Yeah, that really makes sense.. That's essentially what he wants, even though he claims reserve prices muck up the free market!
Bidder 3 has the lead at $500! Oh wait, seller just bid $800..darn. Why didn't he just set an $800 reserve, that mofo...Oh look, Bidder 3 has bid $900. Seller bids $1000. Wtf is going on here? Okay, seller wins at $1000.
Seller: "Well, I don't want to sell it that cheaply, do I?..but I also didn't want to inform anyone of my reserve beforehand, because I wasn't sure of the value myself. But now I see it does have some value above what I thought..
Just figured I'd waste everyone's time since I'm entitled to it by my economic theory "
Or maybe "My hot potato shill bidding tactics failed this time around, darn it!"

Reserve prices on NameJet are not visible, but there is at least a range. So you're not going in blindly, wasting time on an auction that might have an insane reserve.
But of course, it would be much better to allow the seller to set a new "visible reserve" at any moment, just above your previous bid.

Decide how much you are willing to sell for, and that's that! Not these bullshit games.

 

[xn--v4h.com]

In early 2016 when I was bidding for 6N Chips at NJ, I was puzzled at @MediaOptions bidding on his own names. Now I know why he did because system allowed it. Sorry to say @NameJetGM , its very unethical.

Can you provide proof of this?

 

[xn--v4h.com]

https://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/what-is-shill-bidding/

For honest auction participants — both buyers and sellers — shill bidding damages the auction process by instilling distrust in the practice. Buyers may avoid auctions where they believe shill bidding is tolerated. Sellers may find lower prices where their items are sold at auctions which potential bidders are avoiding.

Too, auction buyers pay artificially inflated prices by either basing their bids on shill bidders, and/or being pushed by shill bidders to pay more.

For the shill bidder, the consequences can range from being barred from participating in auctions, to civil and and even criminal charges; fines alone to-date have been as high as $400,000 for shill bidding. Most every case of shill bidding resulting in civil charges has involved some type of online auction, where the identity of the bidders is more easily concealed.

Shill bidding is a crime and auctioneers need to do everything they can to help eliminate it from the auction industry.

https://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/can-the-seller-bid-at-auction/

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.

Auction bidders detest the seller (the owner) bidding on property in which they (the bidders) are interested. Few things deter bidders from an auction to any larger degree than sellers bidding, or otherwise protecting their property from bidders.

Here are more quotes from laws.

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

This makes so much sense now. THANK YOU.

 

[SpareDomains]

I'd say...

You want a reserve price then add one
You don't want a reserve price then don't add one

But stay out of your own auctions as that's the point of a reserve so you don't undersell something. Point of no reserve is to let them fly, not continually bump to create reserves on your own inventory which does nothing but create a false demand to the other bidders which may make them jump higher than they originally budgeted based on the imaginary fraudulent demand they are seeing.

 

[zurc.net]

Isn't there a DN Jail?

 

[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!

 

[ksusha64]

I love it. @Rick Schwartz is putting this on blast

https://twitter.com/domainking?lang=en

That's why Rick Schwartz is best domainer of all time!!!

 

[xn--v4h.com]

Isn't there a DN Jail?

Yes there is. You get to register .horse all day long.

 

[SpareDomains]

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!

Always a risk. If your willing to take that risk go no reserve. If ya think not a good idea then add a reserve. At the end of the day a loss isn't a waste as long as ya learn from it and having good ethics is a good business model.

 

[NameJetGM]

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

 

[alcy]

That's why Rick Schwartz is best domainer of all time!!!

true
if he wasn't domainer
he'd have the best drama tv show of all time
better than the simpsons
that's how good he is

 

[tonyk2000]

I wanted to say something (share my findings on whois/ips/dns and generic opinion) a few pages ago, but elected not to - as it would be better to wait until NameJet, who should be the only "judge" here, returns back to this thread and posts their findings.

Indeed, without their findings, we the forum members are all in specific postion of Cassandra trying to make too many predictions. Just imagine for a moment, what if the statement of both brothers are correct and they indeed do not own domains in question, nor they asked somebody to list the domains on their behalf?

Many members (myself included) already decided for themselves what really happened and how, but isn't it too early to make our findings public before we hear from NameJet, who is also participating in this thread?

For for the sake of clarity, I have never met or dealt with either brother, and I did not bid @ NameJet on any domains in question. I am simply trying to be as fair as possible....

A suggestion to NameJet: IF you find that bidding activity in auctions in question included one or more bids that should have never appeared in the first place, please do not restart auctions and please do not withdraw domains from your lists. YOU allowed this bad thing to happen. YOU have to fix. The only way to fix it - still saving face and everything else - would be to stop auctions right now and award domains in question to the latest highest legitimate bidders, those highest bidders who made their bid before illegitimate bid appeared. Yes, it may even be below expected market value. Fine. And this would also be a perfect lesson to any customer who may be planning to try to abuse the system in future.

EDIT: I noticed that NameJet posted their response in about the same time I made my post. I'd say that NameJets investigation is not yet completed. One would expect much more facts and analysis, up to IPs/Logins/Docs/Sellers payee account/Sellers w9 tax form, or at least an outcome of such an analysis.

 

[offthehandle]

"It is my understanding", isn't very convincing.

Either it is known who owned the names or you do not know and we would hope you will provide that info when you figure it out later. They could have quickly played a game and transferred them to their nextdoor neighbor for all we know.