Dynadot Official Thread

[Dynadot]

Hi all!

We’ve created this thread to make it easier to communicate with us here on Namepros, and we’ll also be posting regular updates on our offers and products. Please feel free to share any feedback and suggestions with us, or to let us know if there’s anything we can assist with.

We’d like to kick things off with an extension of our $7.99 .COM transfer sale, the code “COMTRANS4” has been extended until 23:59 PST on May 31, and there’s no limit on how many domains you can transfer using the code. Every month we have great prices on a wide selection of domains, and you can find a full list of our sales here:

https://www.dynadot.com/sales.html

We’re also excited to share that our CEO, Todd Han, will be hosting an AMA (Ask Me Anything) right here on Namepros in the near future, with more information on a date and time coming soon.

Dynadot is an ICANN accredited domain name registrar and web host headquartered in San Mateo, California. Founded in 2002 by a software engineer, our primary focus is engineering and design excellence. Our custom written, state-of-the-art domain and hosting software is stable, fast, and easy to use. From humble beginnings, we have grown steadily and now are home to over 2.6 million domains.

Our goal is to provide our customers with world class registration and hosting services for a reasonable price. Most of our site is fully automated, allowing us to offer some of the lowest prices in the industry. At the same time we strive to provide excellent customer service, and helpful responses to all questions. If anything is not to your satisfaction, feel free to contact us, and we will do our best to resolve the situation.

We individually respond to every email we receive - no cut and paste responses. Customer service is handled by highly trained customer service representatives that work closely with our software engineers, so you are likely to get an intelligent response to your question.

Contact information:
Live chat support: https://www.dynadot.com/chat/login_resp.html
Email support: [email protected]
North American phone support: +1.866-262-3399 (toll free) and +1.650-262-0100
Chinese phone support: 400 803 5591

This was a promoted post.​

 

[Mister Funsky]

Lets see what other statements they come out with

Agreed. It's going to be interesting...hopefully it works out to everyone's satisfaction.

I've been trying to put the pieces of what happened together but my brain is running out of energy for the day. Tomorrow I'll try to get the timeline worked out.

I've been in this position before on another platform and it's irritating to say the least. It was a trivial transaction compared to the one Rick is/was involved in.

 

[NameGroove]

Here's some other registrars having issues as well (not 100% sure the perfect fix exists, but NC also re-runs their auction). And GD has (or had) fraud

https://www.namepros.com/threads/godaddy-expired-auctions-can-be-tricked.1306045/


And Namecheap re-runs their auction as they say that's the only way.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1986302887102672976

 

[Bob Hawkes]

Thanks for the post just above, @NameGroove. I think this is a key point. If one removes all bids from the nonpaying bidder, it makes a system ripe for abuse using the two buyer scheme, as the NC CEO explains. This problem at some platforms has been discussed on NamePros for many years.

It would be wrong if Dynadot required Rick to buy with only the top bid gone. But as I understand from their reply, that is not what was done. Rather, as a courtesy they offer the second bidder, Rick in this case, the option to buy at that price. Otherwise the name goes back to a fresh auction again. That approach helps to limit abuse by bidders working together.

-Bob

 

[Simon SE]

Not keen on all the noise from "the King". Not used Dynadot myself but from what I can see they have many happy customers and they are trying to do their best. Is it perfect? Possible not. But it seems their policies are fair and transparent. Just looking at that guys twitter header makes me cringe.

 

[Jannes]

Thanks for the post just above, @NameGroove. I think this is a key point. If one removes all bids from the nonpaying bidder, it makes a system ripe for abuse using the two buyer scheme, as the NC CEO explains. This problem at some platforms has been discussed on NamePros for many years.

It would be wrong if Dynadot required Rick to buy with only the top bid gone. But as I understand from their reply, that is not what was done. Rather, as a courtesy they offer the second bidder, Rick in this case, the option to buy at that price. Otherwise the name goes back to a fresh auction again. That approach helps to limit abuse by bidders working together.

-Bob

I think Rick feels insulted because Dynadot tried to profit from the situation and him. They should not have contacted him at all.

 

[Chris Co]

Not keen on all the noise from "the King". Not used Dynadot myself but from what I can see they have many happy customers and they are trying to do their best. Is it perfect? Possible not. But it seems their policies are fair and transparent. Just looking at that guys twitter header makes me cringe.

I know, people are behaving like Dynadot are forcing him to pay for it. He's free to take it or leave it.

Does it suck that he probably could have gotten it cheaper if it wasn't for the shill bidder? Sure, but the world isn't ending, and it's still possible to bid again in their last chance auctions.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

I think Rick feels insulted because Dynadot tried to profit from the situation and him. They should not have contacted him at all.

Perhaps better wording of communication possible. However, I disagree that they should have had a different process because it is Rick. As I understand the Dynadot process, it is offer the second bidder the option to buy at the last price they bid. If they decline, the name automatically goes back to a "Last Chance" fresh auction.

A policy needs to be applied to all. In many cases, I suspect, especially low final bid auctions, the second place buyer is interested in getting the name at their last bid. Sometimes, not, and it goes to a fresh auction. Seems sensible to me. If the policy was always to send it to a fresh auction, which as I understand it Namecheap now does, that policy seems. reasonable to me as well.

Just my opinion.

-Bob

 

[karmaco]

Thanks for the post just above, @NameGroove. I think this is a key point. If one removes all bids from the nonpaying bidder, it makes a system ripe for abuse using the two buyer scheme, as the NC CEO explains. This problem at some platforms has been discussed on NamePros for many years.

It would be wrong if Dynadot required Rick to buy with only the top bid gone. But as I understand from their reply, that is not what was done. Rather, as a courtesy they offer the second bidder, Rick in this case, the option to buy at that price. Otherwise the name goes back to a fresh auction again. That approach helps to limit abuse by bidders working together.

-Bob

Its not a fresh auction according to Rick if it will start at the last assumed "valid" bid
from Rick which is absolute horseshit.

All the bids of the defaulter should be eliminated as fraud because they never intended to pay.

The only other proper option is a re auction from original opening bid.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

Its not a fresh auction according to Rick if it will start at the last assumed "valid" bid
from Rick which is absolute horseshit.

All the bids of the defaulter should be eliminated as fraud because they never intended to pay.

The only other proper option is a re auction from original opening bid.

I agree that would be a concern if it is that way. I have read Dynadot's reply to Rick and don't see mention of starting bid amount.

I don't know details, but when I look at Dynadot Last Chance auctions currently on, https://www.dynadot.com/market/last-chance-auction it looks to me like they are starting at first bid, not final highest value valid bid. Can someone who has particiated in Last Chance Auctions at Dynadot confirm how the starting bid amount is determined?

Information from the Dynadot Help for Last Chance Auctions does not make it clear, to me at least, what is the starting bid amount. https://www.dynadot.com/help/question/last-chance-auction.

-Bob

PS I did a bit more research. e.g. currently HVP in .cc is in a last chance auction. The price it 'sold' at in previous auction is on NameBio at $213.00. In the last chance auction on now it started at $16.79. That looks to me like the first, or nearly first, bid from the original auction.

 

[Keith]

Thanks for the post just above, @NameGroove. I think this is a key point. If one removes all bids from the nonpaying bidder, it makes a system ripe for abuse using the two buyer scheme, as the NC CEO explains. This problem at some platforms has been discussed on NamePros for many years.

It would be wrong if Dynadot required Rick to buy with only the top bid gone. But as I understand from their reply, that is not what was done. Rather, as a courtesy they offer the second bidder, Rick in this case, the option to buy at that price. Otherwise the name goes back to a fresh auction again. That approach helps to limit abuse by bidders working together.

-Bob

You absolutely remove all the non payers bids and sell it to the next high bid. According to Dynadot the bidder against Rick was “verified”. They do not mention anything about scamming the system.

They are practicing bad business with the current auction system in place.

 

[E. Silvera]

If Dynadot are acting in compliance with their ToS and rules, these are explicitly acknowledged and accepted by any and all the users as a requirement before participating in the auction events.

Both Dynadot and bidders are bound by those terms, and cannot change them for a current, ongoing situation.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

This NamePros thread from last 2023, and links within, demonstrate the abuse possible using the "2 bidder" scheme at auctions when the auction platform policy is to remove all bids and award name to other bidder.

• Bidder 1 places low bid
• Accomplice Bidder 2 early in auction places very high bid, discouraging any other bidders
• Bidder 2 wins but does not pay
• Bidder 2 bids removed, Bidder 1 wins name for well less below market value

This is NOT what happened here but it is what the auction site would be open to if the policy of removing all bids and then simply awarding a name to the other bidder was followed.

There is no perfect solution, but starting a new auction seems more immune to abuse, in my opinion.

Of course if all auctions operated as down bid auctions, there would be much less opportunity to abuse. But I know many like the current up auction process.

-Bob

PS I agree with @E. Silvera point that as long as auction followed stated procedures, by bidding we accept the ToS. If they in any way did not follow them, then they should be called to follow, but I don't see that has happened. If we want an auction site with different procedures, we do have several choices. I know not for a specific name.

 

[URL Stream]

There is no perfect solution,

not 100% sure the perfect fix exists

True.

However, taking precautions before it happens is key.

A zero-tolerance policy — i.e., strictly banning accounts, verifying buyers, and validating payment methods before allowing high bids, etc. — would go a long way toward not needing a fix or solution later on.

 

[Gabriel360]

True.

However, taking precautions before it happens is key.

A zero-tolerance policy — i.e., strictly banning accounts, verifying buyers, and validating payment methods before allowing high bids, etc. — would go a long way toward not needing a fix or solution later on.

The highest bid which defaulted was from a VERIFIED account according to Dynadot.

It also seems like the bidder had to deposit some amount of money to bid up to the amount they did.

That deposit will be FORFEITED.

 

[D Haynes]

Rick is just being a whiney bitch as usual. His delusions of self importance are off the scale. It's painful to watch.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

It was posted a number of hours ago, but just seeing it now. Todd posted this reply to Rick. So they used to do what Rick wants, but they stopped doing it that way because of the gaming of the system mentioned above.

 

[Caleb Tweed]

Hey everyone sorry for the delay, just got home from NamesCon and am catching up.

Not a whole lot more I can add to the discussion that hasn't been said already from Todd and the team, but just wanted to post some key points to clear up any confusion on how our system works/what happened:

-When someone wins the auction, they have 48 hours to pay, and if it goes above a certain amount they must both deposit a 5% fee which is forfeited upon an unpaid auction, as well as a ban from using our auction platform.
-We give every winner exactly 48 hours to pay, with some small exceptions such as if we receive confirmation of incoming payment from a bank wire or something similar, but for the most part it's a solid 48 hours.
-If the winner does not pay, we offer the domain to the second place bidder at their most recent bid for 24 hours. This is by no means enforced/have any consequences if they decide not to pay.
-If both the first and second place bidders don't pay, the domain will simply be re-auctioned from the lowest price (Typically $7.99 + the renewal cost) at a later date. The Last Chance auction does not even give the second place bidder the option to pay for these ones (it will just be re-auctioned again from the bottom if the winner again fails to pay)
-I did look into this one personally, and this user did have a clean record of buying and paying for auctions from us in the past, but this time simply wasn't able to produce the funds in time. But I can confirm they have both been banned from auctions as well as having their 5% deposit forfeited.
- As Todd (and Richard) mentioned, the collusion scam had been a big problem in the past so this current system seems the best to mitigate this, and the 5% deposit even more so, but if you have other suggestions we're open to them.

Hope that clears everything up, but let me know if you need me to elaborate on anything.

 

[NicTraders]

Hey everyone sorry for the delay, just got home from NamesCon and am catching up.

Not a whole lot more I can add to the discussion that hasn't been said already from Todd and the team, but just wanted to post some key points to clear up any confusion on how our system works/what happened:

-When someone wins the auction, they have 48 hours to pay, and if it goes above a certain amount they must both deposit a 5% fee which is forfeited upon an unpaid auction, as well as a ban from using our auction platform.
-We give every winner exactly 48 hours to pay, with some small exceptions such as if we receive confirmation of incoming payment from a bank wire or something similar, but for the most part it's a solid 48 hours.
-If the winner does not pay, we offer the domain to the second place bidder at their most recent bid for 24 hours. This is by no means enforced/have any consequences if they decide not to pay.
-If both the first and second place bidders don't pay, the domain will simply be re-auctioned from the lowest price (Typically $7.99 + the renewal cost) at a later date. The Last Chance auction does not even give the second place bidder the option to pay for these ones (it will just be re-auctioned again from the bottom if the winner again fails to pay)
-I did look into this one personally, and this user did have a clean record of buying and paying for auctions from us in the past, but this time simply wasn't able to produce the funds in time. But I can confirm they have both been banned from auctions as well as having their 5% deposit forfeited.
- As Todd (and Richard) mentioned, the collusion scam had been a big problem in the past so this current system seems the best to mitigate this, and the 5% deposit even more so, but if you have other suggestions we're open to them.

Hope that clears everything up, but let me know if you need me to elaborate on anything.

Thanks @Caleb Tweed - I really think that's about as fair as you can be.

And sadly, it does prove that My Schwartz doesn't let the truth get in the way of a good story...

Nope - there are consequences for a non-paying bidder.
And nope - the underbidder is not forced to do anything at all.

Nope, it goes back on at the standard starting price.

 

[Jannes]

Yeah but because those ”nope” points are so obvious, it seems (to me) that what Rick is thinking is this: he’s kinda forced to pay $33k if he wants the domain, because in the second auction the inflated bids of the first auction will act as a kinda baseline (proxy bids reach that level instantly), the winning bid will probably be higher, and the starting price is irrelevant.

I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter itself, I’m just trying to understand Rick’s thoughts here (”the principle of charity”). Of course I can be way off.

 

[NicTraders]

Yeah but because those ”nope” points are so obvious, it seems (to me) that what Rick is thinking is this: he’s kinda forced to pay $33k if he wants the domain, because in the second auction the inflated bids of the first auction will act as a kinda baseline (proxy bids reach that level instantly), the winning bid will probably be higher, and the starting price is irrelevant.

I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter itself, I’m just trying to understand Rick’s thoughts here (”the principle of charity”). Of course I can be way off.

Yeah, I don't really think that's the case at all (that the previous bid will act as some sort of baseline). Except for the fact that he has now advertised it far and wide, and there is likely to be a lot more interest in the auction.