domains Doron Vermaat is a stand up guy – BrandBucket Name Sells while in Auction at Namepros

[equity78]

Doron Vermaat is a stand up guy – BrandBucket Name Sells while in Auction at Namepros
A hypothetical scenario that I wrote about last week on Namepros has become a real scenario for one high profile domainer. Namepros has become the wholesale platform for BrandBucket published and approved names. The one caveat, the name is live on BrandBucket. The worst scenario you want to have happen is for your auction to be at $31 and 80 hours left to go, and you get an email congratulations … [Read more...]

---

Update:

• Here's how it works on NamePros

 

[Name Trader]

When NP buyers buy BB published names they buy on the assumption the domain will continue to be listed for at least another 30 days on BB. In the meantime if it sells the registrant is obligated to transfer the domain.

Doron has done nothing illegal. He is basically giving the auction winner the revenue (less fees) of the sold domain.

Yep. But because the auction has been bid up by $2k due to the expected $2k cashback, he actually keeps the sale proceeds at BB. This is not entirely Doron's fault. He's trying to do his best in a bad situation. It's actually the ignorance of the bidders. $2k in, $2 out = No cashback. Doron keeps the profits.

IMHO. As I've said before. The best situation is to cancel the auction. Reason: It's not exclusive to NP's, and there are irregularities with the auction.. Doron has established plenty of contacts from the auction to sell the 67 domains privately. Nobody gets hurt.

 

[james haw]

The names shouldn't have been in a NP auction if listed as BIN elsewhere. This is a rule known to domainers on most platforms as it's obviously potential for an issue, and here it happened.

However, this particular scenario works in the favour of the bidders as the auction became more lucrative immediately, and anyone buying 68 names is more likely looking to resell, not churn out 68 projects. So it's not likely the bidders/buyer are going to be so bothered over one generic brand-able name.

I agree rules should be adhered to, but then, rules are only to form an initial order and fairness etc, and if we blindly force pre-determined rules we're in for a rough ride as life isn't so black and white. If all parties are ok with this, then why should all involved parties lose out? We should allow things if everyone is ok with it (within reason, before I spark some "so is it ok to break rules" debate).

Sure, if someone has one or a few names in auction, sells one elsewhere while the auction is ongoing, and just dumps the auction completely. This didn't happen here though as everyone discussed it, Doron offered a pretty nice resolve, and people seem ok with it.


Side line debaters should consider if the "rule being broken" has actually "broken" anything

 

[campout]

If the new standard is that BB names have to be de-listed before being sold at NP (a process that takes 30 days' planning in advance), I think the market for published names will largely dry up.

To me, the best solution is to allow sellers to stipulate "If... then..." clauses from the get-go.

"If this name sells on BB before the close of the auction, then....

• "Everyone who bid will receive $10"
• "The first person who bid will receive $100"

It becomes a little tricky to reward "the last bidder" or "the otherwise would-be winner" because of issues of timing and special knowledge of BB sales.

But if there is a good stipulation set out to start with, then everyone who is bidding knows exactly what scenarios might transpire and how they will be dealt with.

IMO the goal should be to find a way to solve this (rare) problem that doesn't damage this market, which a lot of us derive a lot of value from.

 

[Ted Levy]

The names shouldn't have been in a NP auction if listed as BIN elsewhere. This is a rule known to domainers on most platforms as it's obviously potential for an issue, and here it happened.

However, this particular scenario works in the favour of the bidders as the auction became more lucrative immediately, and anyone buying 68 names is more likely looking to resell, not churn out 68 projects. So it's not likely the bidders/buyer are going to be so bothered over one generic brand-able name.

I agree rules should be adhered to, but then, rules are only to form an initial order and fairness etc, and if we blindly force pre-determined rules we're in for a rough ride as life isn't so black and white. If all parties are ok with this, then why should all involved parties lose out? We should allow things if everyone is ok with it (within reason, before I spark some "so is it ok to break rules" debate).

Sure, if someone has one or a few names in auction, sells one elsewhere while the auction is ongoing, and just dumps the auction completely. This didn't happen here though as everyone discussed it, Doron offered a pretty nice resolve, and people seem ok with it.


Side line debaters should consider if the "rule being broken" has actually "broken" anything

No harm no foul.

 

[DnEbook]

CanOfWorms.Domains
~
Is available

 

[Eric Lyon]

Please recall that I briefly explained most of this in my first two posts in this thread: Post 1 and Post 2.

I'm going to respond to comments in this thread and then post a new thread that summarizes the important details, along with examples, for easy referencing. Update: Here it is.

What if you have a domain and auction it off at NP and Flippa at the same time - and the domain sells on both sites.

It is obvious there is a flaw with the system - and not with the seller's actions.

This is against the rules and the seller would be held accountable. Depending on when we catch it, the auction will either be terminated or the seller will be required to provide the domain to the winning bidder on NamePros.

So DNBolt would post SchoolPanda.com sold but no one remembers it being in that auction thread.

If anyone even remotely suspects that, they can Report it to NamePros and we will be happy to tell them "yes" or "no" within a matter of seconds of reviewing the situation. There's no need to wonder; we can easily check.

Everyone can also use Google Cache, archive.org, etc. to investigate.

So it's a binding agreement except when a rare scenario occur

As I mentioned in a previous post, the only reason an exception is being made here is because Doron was misinformed by our moderators, and we take responsibility for that mistake. So we're doing everything we can to make sure everyone is treated fairly given the circumstances.

All that happens is a market violation that no one wants to enforce.

We will certainly enforce all violations on NamePros. First, we need to clarify everything.

Now I get $500 instead but I've now spent more money to get the name that I wanted?.... These clauses don't make sense. Do I not bid because the one name I want might sell?

Everyone needs to be on the same page with the same expectations in all possible scenarios, and then it is sensible and fair. For instance, if you don't like the terms of the auction set by the seller, then you shouldn't bid on it. If you really wanted to, you could even go buy the domain at full price. In that case, everything is transparent, clearly defined, and fair to everyone involved.

I said this when Judgemind had the capability to substitute an equivalent name and this whole portfolio nonsense started.

The only time this is allowed on NamePros is if it's established upfront exactly what names will be substituted in the event that one sells elsewhere, thereby providing full transparency for buyers to decide if they want to participate in the auction.

dual listing is bad

That's for the seller and buyers to decide. As long as the seller outlines all of the terms and the outcomes are transparent and specific, then it's up to the buyers to decide if they want to participate. If buyers don't participate, then the seller will have to rethink their terms to make them more appealing to bidders. That's one of the benefits of an open market.

Here are xx names from BB. If any name from the list is sold via BB PRIOR to close of this auction, the seller reserves the right to replace it with another BB listed name. Could even disclose the names that could serve as replacement.

This is only allowed if all of the replacement names are listed before the first bid and the seller has explained the exact order in which those replacement domains will replace sold ones. Again, everything has to be predictable and clear before bidding takes place.

Doron did have a disclaimer like that but was advised that it was invalid - hence he removed it a couple days after the auction commenced.

His disclaimer was invalid and not allowed. We'll go over it as an example, along with others, in the summary thread.

The NP administration clearly indicated no violation has happened,

A violation did occur, but it would have been fixed in advance if we had better equipped our moderators with how these situations should be handled. Doron attempted to prepare for this scenario, but the approach he used was incorrect and invalid.

The post that we're working on will address this so that moving forward everything will be clear, and our moderators will be able to better advise in these types of situations.

All auctions on NP's must be exclusive to NP's

Correct; there must not be any other auction elsewhere for these domains. The rule is about auctions: domains being auctioned on NamePros must not be auctioned anywhere else at the same time.

The relevant rules in this particular scenario state that the auction cannot change after the first bid, and that the winning bidder must receive what they bid on, according to the terms the seller set at the beginning of the auction.

In this case, NP has interpreted its rule that delivering proceeds of the BB sale to buyer is equivalent to delivering the name.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Please see my comments in this post.

Eric has ALWAYS stated that domains auctioned at NP's must be exclusive to NP's. As far as can tell, he is STILL stating that.

Correct, but that is about auctions taking place at multiple venues at the same time. This case is a bit different. I do see how it can be interpreted in more than one way and that's why we're working on clarifying everything.

Eric basically condoned the whole thing.

If it happens again, so what? The same put-and-take wink-wink-nod-nod will serve as a solution to make NP happy.

This is not the case. Please see my comments in this post.

The names shouldn't have been in a NP auction if listed as BIN elsewhere. This is a rule known to domainers on most platforms as it's obviously potential for an issue, and here it happened.

Right, the only time domains should be auctioned while there is a possibility that they will be sold elsewhere is if it is clearly defined in the terms what will happen in that scenario. More on that here.

Requiring a 'what if' scenario at the beginning of the auction is all that is needed. This avoids one-size-fits all rules that end up penalizing either the buyer or the seller.

To me, the best solution is to allow sellers to stipulate "If... then..." clauses from the get-go.

But if there is a good stipulation set out to start with, then everyone who is bidding knows exactly what scenarios might transpire and how they will be dealt with.

Exactly. That's how it's always been and that's how it still is today (details).

* Updated to include links to the summary.

 

[Eric Lyon]

The summary:

A summary of all pertinent information from this thread, including what is and is not allowed, can be found by visiting this page:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/963358/

A few additional notes about this specific case:

• Everyone presently bidding on Doron's auction is aware of the new terms of the auction and therefore the auction is back on track, fully transparent, specific, and fair.
  
  
• When the seller mentions that the value of an auction has increased by a specific dollar amount, that puts the power in the bidders' hands. If they wanted to, they could continue bidding the same way and ignore that information, to benefit from the increased value at the end of the auction. It's up to the bidders to decide how much they want to factor it in. They don't have to bid any differently than they would have otherwise. It's their choice.
  
  
• Our rules state that the winning bidder must receive what is described in the first post of the auction. No exceptions. It is the seller's responsibility to make sure that they can fulfill that obligation no matter what. It's important that sellers cover all of their bases in the terms of their auction before a bid is received.

 

[Ted Levy]

@Eric Lyon

Would you accept this?:

"If any of the listed domains in this auction are sold on BB prior to the end of the auction, 3% of the listed value will be substituted for the sold domains. If such a sale occurs, this information will be posted to the auction thread and the original thread will be updated accordingly."

This would seem to be transparent and equitable, particularly if the percentage (3% in the example) was sufficiently high (few if any BB-published names sell for greater than 3% of the listing price these days.)

 

[Keith DeBoer]

Right now Doron is being a stand up guy at Domain X in New Delhi
Hey Doron!!!!!!! Turn off NP and enjoy the conference!

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Congratulations Doron and bb on the sale!

 

[Eric Lyon]

"If any of the listed domains in this auction are sold on BB prior to the end of the auction, 3% of the listed value will be substituted for the sold domains. If such a sale occurs, this information will be posted to the auction thread and the original thread will be updated accordingly."

Not quite. It needs to specify, upfront, the exact price that each domain will sell for. From your terms, buyers have to be able to determine (calculate in this case) exactly what will be substituted.

 

[Ted Levy]

Not quite. It needs to specify, upfront, the exact price that each domain will sell for. From your terms, buyers have to be able to determine (calculate in this case) exactly what will be substituted.

Not sure I understand. In my example, say I list a number of domains with their current BB listed price. Are you saying that rather than my stating "3% of the listed value" (if say a domain has a listed value of $2,000) that I need to specify "$60"? In other words, I need to do the math and give a dollar figure for each domain rather than just specify a percentage and let the buyer do the multiplication?

Or something else?

Surely we can trust that the buyer can multiply two numbers given both of them rather than do it for him/her for each listed domain?

 

[Eric Lyon]

In my example, say I list a number of domains with their current BB listed price.

Yes, this is what I meant. All information (e.g., exact BB sale prices) must be provided upfront in the terms. You do not need to do simple arithmetic for buyers.

However, I recommend calculating it for buyers since it will make it easier for them to decide if they want to participate in your auction. Some buyers may not be interested in pulling out a calculator and avoid such auctions.

For additional discussion about this, please visit:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/963358/

 

[Shams]

Well that's commitment. @Doron Vermaat is a nice person and as well honest businessman.