various Flippa reports weekly Domain Sales led by HotDog.com at $150,000

[Arpit131]

Flippa has just sent in their weekly sales report. HotDog.com was the highest reported domain name sale at $150,000.

Here are the sales :

HotDog.com - $150,000

Cloud.io - $45,000

EnglishLanguage.com - $14,999

Kennebunkport.com - $7,000

Portfolio of 101 Domain Names - $6,888

Susy.com - $6,001

Broker.io - $6,000

Tunez.com - $5,999

Handcuffed.com - $5,555

Daring.com - $3,500

Toat.com - $3,500

Innovate.org - $3,495

Bot.io - $3,100

CareerAdvisors.com - $3,052

CyberSquatter.com - $3,000

Dayy.com - $3,000

DroneGear.com - $1,995

TradeReview.com - $1,500

Koco.in - $1,500

ClubsTech.com - $1,350

Portfolio of 9 LLLL .COMs - $1,300

TeachPal.com - $1,249

Intannya.com - $1,200

Declares.com - $1,150

DGL.net - $1,105

VRMagazine.com - $1,100

EBM.net - $1,065

OrganicIngredients.com - $1,060

Divested.com - $1,050

e.et - $1,050

FashionablyLate.com - $1,050

Helicams.com - $1,002

Seashells.net - $1,000

Removably.com - $1,000

ComedyHouse.com - $1,000

Rezekinya.com - $1,000

Haul.it - $850

TryV.com - $799

Internet.ly - $770

EditPhotosOnline.com - $650

Lone.ly - $605

Retail.to - $555

RPNN.com - $510

Takeoff.io - $505

Schnapps.net - $505

iPackages.com - $470

Trainee.io - $450

UFIV.com - $425

UsedBoards.com - $400

Beds.to - $350

Source: Flippa

 

[Tia Wood]

I'm disappointed HotDog.com didn't come with Mustard.com, Chili.com and Onions.com.

 

[S-B]

I wonder if Flippa employees participated as bidders in any of these auctions. It would be nice to know that. Then we would be more able to discern which auction "sales" results are purely from bids placed by bidders who are NOT employees of Flippa. Then we would be educated. Do you get the idea that some here prefer to keep us ignorant about this sort of thing?

Is this seriously all you contribute?

 

[DU]

Flippa makes 1billion in revenue?

1 billion of what exactly?

Please keep up... that was GoDaddy Things move at a fast pace round these parts due to all the bees getting in bonnets and such..

 

[FlippaDomains]

Must they disclose that they are employees to all other bidders bidding on the same domain? Or must they only disclose to the Seller that they are employees? Clear it up. Be specific.

I think he means they disclose it to the seller.
IMHO it's a step but I think it is way more important for the bidders to know about it; at the end, like others said " as a seller who cares as long as I get paid " which is honest and true.

But the story is completely different about the bidders. I am not talking about bidding rings or anything like that I am just trying to point out what imo would be more useful, respectful and true to the market that is, informing the bidders.( and the seller if you like ). But informing only the seller just doesn't do the job.

As @FlippaDomains asked for suggestion then mine is to also inform the bidders as well maybe with an " E " beside the bidder number or by identifying them with £ employee " instead of bidder number x

That makes sense. I will be officially proposing the following:

• Bidder Aliases
• Employee Badges that show sellers and other bidders that Employees are bidding

Please remember that I represent the Domains side of things, and that this is one of those site-wide improvements that must be thought-through, spec'd out and approved by others. I have no earthly idea when this might happen, but I'll try and get it into a friendlier place to process soon.

I appreciate the dialogue, as per usual.

 

[DU]

A shill bidding website, in your mind, translates to Flippa employees bidding? Brilliant deduction.

Let me try to respond to the gibberish.

I didn't equate employee bidding to shill bidding at any point in my post (didn't even use the word shill) . I will assume that your stating "brilliant deduction" was some form of sarcasm rather than a compliment but thanks anyway.

It seems you like to employ the one-line non-sequitur as a form of strategy to avoid actually saying anything almost as much as I like to use rhetorical questions, no?

 

[HeyNow]

Is this seriously all you contribute?

If you participated in an auction as a bidder, won the bid, then later discovered 4 employees of the auctioneer or auction platform were bidding against you, my common sense tells me you would wonder if you paid far above what you should have for that domain.

My common sense tells me that if Flippa was losing money allowing Flippa employees to bid at Flippa auctions, the policy would be terminated in about 15 minutes. The fact that the policy is allowed to continue, despite lots of raised eyebrows in the domain community, leads me to believe money is being made or saved with that policy in place, at the expense of the clueless, outside bidders. IMHO, to think otherwise is sticking one's head in the sand, like an ostrich.

 

[FlippaDomains]

Ah, I understand what you mean now.

Flippa Sellers aren't "in on the scheme" -- they're notified if an employee is bidding on something of theirs. THAT is how it should be -- the seller should know that the bidder is an employee, and is intentionally bidding to win that auction.

When a Flippa CEO states "We do allow our staff to bid on auctions as long as the bidders are clear about this with sellers, ..." my common sense tells me that the Sellers sanction the practice. I don't know how many other ways Slutzkin's words can be interpreted. His words tell the story.

-- If by sanction, you mean that the sellers are allowed to approve or reject the bid of a Flippa employee, then that is accurate.

-- If you are implying that X employees go around throwing bids around without mentioning they are employees, then that is not at all accurate.

-- If you really want to get to the bottom of what you feel is my treating you like an idiot, you should ask for any @FlippaDomains sellers to come forward to disclose experiences they have had accepting employees' bids...

I understand, according to your comments, that Slutzkin no longer works for Flippa. Hallelujah! But the policy still exists, right? So whether or no Slutzkin is the CEO or Daffy Duck is the CEO, the policy is still exists, right?

-- Our policy is that employees can bid so long as they disclose they are employees.

Instead of recognizing that we aren't idiots, you instead appear to choose to float the balloon that the policy is really benign, and not really an issue. If the policy really wasn't an issue, and Flippa wasn't making money from it, common sense tells us that the policy would be expendable. But it appears that policy is NOT expendable to date.

-- We're not "making money" from this kind of thing....because few if any employees participate on platform at all, and those who do are legitimate domain/website buyers who bid to acquire an asset.

I don't mean to treat anyone like an idiot, but you're trying to imply that we're all involved in some bid-rigging operation, which I cannot wait to prove to you simply does not exist...

 

[DU]

Is this seriously all you contribute?

Post #4 > Post #5 in terms of quality and word count, no?

It's a friendly way of calling bull5hit on some of these sales as well as pointing out that @FlippaDomains has a poor history

It gets old to keep repeating but at the same time it gets old how often these lists are thrown up without any real investigation into whether they are real or not.

Not a too terribly old link:
http://domainnamewire.com/2015/01/26/buying-bids-at-flippa/

Maybe Flippa should have a blog post addressing the concerns raised by historical shenanigans as well as employees being able to bid (without being identified) That should fix it, no?

But why can't bidders be flagged with "Employee". They already have people tagged as Supersellers, no?

Its a simple fix. Should take them about 5 minutes to code and save Heynow a lot of posting and you from yet another one line response in this forum

 

[S-B]

Post #4 > Post #5 in terms of quality and word count, no?

It's a friendly way of calling bull5hit on some of these sales as well as pointing out that @FlippaDomains has a poor history

It gets old to keep repeating but at the same time it gets old how often these lists are thrown up without any real investigation into whether they are real or not.

Not a too terribly old link:
http://domainnamewire.com/2015/01/26/buying-bids-at-flippa/

Maybe Flippa should have a blog post addressing the concerns raised by historical shenanigans as well as employees being able to bid (without being identified) That should fix it, no?

But why can't bidders be flagged with "Employee". They already have people tagged as Supersellers, no?

Its a simple fix. Should take them about 5 minutes to code and save Heynow a lot of posting and you from yet another one line response in this forum

A shill bidding website, in your mind, translates to Flippa employees bidding? Brilliant deduction.

 

[DU]

Here's the thing...companies will do whatever it takes to make the most profits possible, even if operations aren't ethical.
Godaddy just terminated my auctions account. Why? Because they auctioned off domains they didn't own, I contacted the registrant and negotiated a private, legal deal, and they didn't take kindly to competition.
It's no surprise that businesses like Flippa get red flagged when something seems fishy.

You violated GoDaddy.com Terms. End of Story.

 

[Keith]

You violated GoDaddy.com Terms. End of Story.

Says who?

There are several tools available to the public to access current, legal domain registrants. Godaddy wants to sell goods that they don't own. Then they expect the rest of the world to sit quietly as they rake in funds.

Hey, I have a TOS that nobody will read because it's pages long. Click agree and be aware that the fine print says you owe me your first born child. I guess you knew better since you clicked "I agree"...

 

[FlippaDomains]

I wonder if Flippa employees participated as bidders in any of these auctions. It would be nice to know that. Then we would be more able to discern which auction "sales" results are purely from bids placed by bidders who are NOT employees of Flippa. Then we would be educated. Do you get the idea that some here prefer to keep us ignorant about this sort of thing?

Sure, here's your answer:

HotDog.com was brokered by Brannans -- they brought their end user to Flippa for a Buy/Now sale.

 

[FlippaDomains]

Great sale. When DAYY.com was sold for $3000, were Flippa employees bidding on that domain? From what CEO David Slutzkin said, when he was CEO, the Sellers are in on the scheme. So tell us, were Flippa employee(s) bidding in that auction? If yes, did a Flippa employee win the domain?

First off, can you find the transcript where it says that sellers are "in on it" ? And do you have any other information other than this interview that leads you to believe that employees are suspected shill bidders?

Second, since Dave Slutzkin no longer works for Flippa, what would it take for you to stop using such an old, tired talking point?

Seriously -- what would put this to rest?

Bidder IDs / aliases? "Employee" badges shown next to bids?

I'm listening...

 

[JB Lions]

Bidder IDs / aliases? "Employee" badges shown next to bids?

That you already know because those suggestions were brought up many months ago. I think you said you were working on bidder aliases? But no launch date.

Namejet, Snapnames, Pheenix, Dropcatch etc. use bidder aliases.

Employees, either ban it outright (that's with using bidder aliases if you do) or employee badge.

It's just a matter of doing it, that's on your end.

 

[JB Lions]

I just verified each and every bidder is active and seller on flippa except few but they stopped bidding after couple hundred bucks.Which is usual because they were new on flippa or may be cannot afford further bidding.i didn't find any suspected bidder.

Yeah, I don't know anything about your auction, mine was more a general statement. I mentioned the ones above that use bidder aliases and I like them, think it helps. GoDaddy, some number. I have no idea who I'm bidding against. I think something like that, would be more of a target for that kind of thing.

 

[Keith]

You either need to pull the direct quote, or you need to be more careful with your language.

Flippa should remove direct messaging between buyers and sellers until a winning bidder emerges. The current system has shenanigans written all over it.

People are finding out what reserves are set at and then bidding just below. It gives off a false sense of true domain values.

 

[DU]

Bear in mind:

Flippa is NOT an auctioneer.
Flippa does NOT conduct auctions.

Flippa is NOT actually responsible for very much at all.

 

[HeyNow]

First off, can you find the transcript where it says that sellers are "in on it" ? And do you have any other information other than this interview that leads you to believe that employees are suspected shill bidders?

Second, since Dave Slutzkin no longer works for Flippa, what would it take for you to stop using such an old, tired talking point?

Seriously -- what would put this to rest?

Bidder IDs / aliases? "Employee" badges shown next to bids?

I'm listening...

Here's the "transcript" that leads me to believe that the sellers are "in on it" : http://tldinvestors.com/2012/11/quick-chat-with-david-slutzkin-ceo-flippa.html Question and answer #6 to be specific. When a Flippa CEO states "We do allow our staff to bid on auctions as long as the bidders are clear about this with sellers, ..." my common sense tells me that the Sellers sanction the practice. I don't know how many other ways Slutzkin's words can be interpreted. His words tell the story.

I understand, according to your comments, that Slutzkin no longer works for Flippa. Hallelujah! But the policy still exists, right? So whether or no Slutzkin is the CEO or Daffy Duck is the CEO, the policy is still exists, right?

You ask, "What would put this to rest?" Glad you finally asked! If you didn't treat me and those concerned about the policy as thought we were idiots, then you would be closer to gleaning our respect and trust. For example, whenever we bring up the policy of Flippa allowing its employees to participate as bidders in Flippa auctions, you remind us that Slutzkin is no longer CEO. What the f-ck does that have to do with the policy? Not much, evidently, because the policy still stands. You also remind us that Flippa employees (and I'll paraphrase here because I don't really have time to search for your exact post) are so busy that they have little time to participate in Flippa auctions. Instead of recognizing that we aren't idiots, you instead appear to choose to float the balloon that the policy is really benign, and not really an issue. If the policy really wasn't an issue, and Flippa wasn't making money from it, common sense tells us that the policy would be expendable. But it appears that policy is NOT expendable to date.

Godaddy immediately changed its policy of allowing its VP of TDNAM auctions to bid, anonymously, at TDNAM auctions, as soon as the shit hit the fan when affected bidders voiced their anger and the press picked up on that anger. It took Godaddy about 15 minutes to see the light. IMHO, Flippa hasn't seen the light.

Like I said, I'm tired of being treated like a fool. So are a lot of us.

 

[FlippaDomains]

Pardon? What was so " not careful " in stating I didn't know about something?
It's either you misunderstood something or you are getting paranoid there @Flippa as I simple said I wasn't aware of something that another pro stated.

Sorry, I quoted you accidentally as that was meant towards @HeyNow 's "the sellers are in on it" comment. I'll address all this more later, but just wanted to clear up that my comment wasn't directed at you.

 

[AndyM]

Excuse me for being ignorant but, as long as I get paid for the domain I am selling then I really don't care who's bidding on it! flippa employee or not. If I make a profit I'm happy. As flippa are the listing platform then I would only expect them to make a profit also, and as there are thousands of domains, sites and apps listed on flippa then the profit is going to be huge.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, Thank you for taking the time and sharing this information of recent sales with us all.

 

[Keith]

Excuse me for being ignorant but, as long as I get paid for the domain I am selling then I really don't care who's bidding on it! flippa employee or not. If I make a profit I'm happy. As flippa are the listing platform then I would only expect them to make a profit also, and as there are thousands of domains, sites and apps listed on flippa then the profit is going to be huge.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, Thank you for taking the time and sharing this information of recent sales with us all.

Yup, as a seller who cares. As a buyer seeing bids on domains that you assume represent the market, when they really don't, could be very costly.

There are plenty of places to bid on and buy domains outside of Flippa if you're an employee. The practice stinks.

 

[HeyNow]

-- Our policy is that employees can bid so long as they disclose they are employees.

Must they disclose that they are employees to all other bidders bidding on the same domain? Or must they only disclose to the Seller that they are employees? Clear it up. Be specific.

 

[NameOmnia]

Must they disclose that they are employees to all other bidders bidding on the same domain? Or must they only disclose to the Seller that they are employees? Clear it up. Be specific.

I think he means they disclose it to the seller.
IMHO it's a step but I think it is way more important for the bidders to know about it; at the end, like others said " as a seller who cares as long as I get paid " which is honest and true.

But the story is completely different about the bidders. I am not talking about bidding rings or anything like that I am just trying to point out what imo would be more useful, respectful and true to the market that is, informing the bidders.( and the seller if you like ). But informing only the seller just doesn't do the job.

As @FlippaDomains asked for suggestion then mine is to also inform the bidders as well maybe with an " E " beside the bidder number or by identifying them with £ employee " instead of bidder number x

 

[Weber]

Well, Ebay has a lot of different sellers offering the same product. For instance, there are dozens of listings for the same style widget, guitar, or tool. Domain name auctions are different because each domain name is unique, can't be duplicated, and is a one-of-a-kind item.

Apples and oranges.

Domain names are also listed for sale on Ebay. Also, many other items sold are very rare and one-of-a-kind.

I'm not trying to argue one point of view over another. Just pointing out the fact that the largest listing service in the world with as much experience as anyone running a website, allows it's employees to participate under certain conditions. Those conditions do not include disclosing usernames and flagging employee participation.

 

[FlippaDomains]

Thanks. And it really does make sense. Just think about this for a second.

All of us domainers participate in auctions etc. More than often a widely used way to establish if there is a market/buyers for a particular name is to see if many people are bidding on it. I am not saying that it is a right or wrong criteria to value a name but is indeed a very widely accepted one.

So let's say I come to Flippa and I see that a name has 20 people bidding on it..well...there must be " something " in that name and if I buy it I will have many chances to sell it for a profit...Now...it turns out that part of those bids were not really domianers or end users but employees...well that changes everything can you see that? My " potential " market just drastically changed and possibly decreased.

If this is not a reason enough, just consider that if the employees bids were made clear then NO ONE could come up again accusing you of a range of malpractices. My view is that it will be a win-win-win for Flippa, the sellers and the buyers; so far it has only been a win-win for the first 2.

Thanks for attention and time.

Yes, agreed. And thank you. And you're welcome.

I would still like to argue, however, that Employees' bids are still considered actual bids -- provided they're bidding on assets at their own leisure / for investment purposes (which happens, albeit not by more than a minority, and not often), vs. a bunch of people lobbing bids indiscriminately. I personally can confirm that this does not occur.

Agreed that transparency would solve everything. Let me have at it.