Giant Shill Bidding Operation at NameJet Exposed

[Addison]

Beware of domain name auction bids at exactly the reserve price at Namejet

I was going through the Namejet domain name auctions when I spotted the domain name che.biz.

I checked the auction again today and “grandcru” has increased the bid to $18,800 and of course once again had not hit the reserve.

it is either the seller or a friend of the seller that is creating hype about the auction and also making bids close to the reserve so that some legit bidder gets tricked and makes a bid that will hit the reserve.

Here is another auction from last month with “grandcru” bidding just below the reserve for the domain name bakery.biz

I came across a tweet yesterday by Raymond that said that auto.co had a $75k bid at Namejet. So I went to the auction and guess what? It was “grandcru” once again bidding at the lower end of the reserve. “grandcru” made a $75,001 bid while the second highest bid was just $2,000.

I checked with Whoisology to make sure and I found that last month che.biz had the same registrant name as auto.co and bakery.biz.

I just noticed that che.biz is marketed by Namejet. If I was Namejet I would be very careful what auctions I promote.

 

[Wannabean]

Your response is the exact defense of a shill bidder. Shills believe that legitimate bidders shouldn't bid more than the domain is worth to them, so the price the winner pays is always fair even if a shill made them bid higher. You're throwing all of your logic and sound reason out the window because of the reserve price. I'll break it down more for you later.

No. And I think you know this isn't what I'm saying. You've got yourself in a situation where you have to defend and to do that your mis quoting me and making up stuff I haven't even said because you can't deal with the actual points I've raised.

People will read all of this thread and make their own minds up objectively. Considering you think you've exposed a giant shill bidding operation at one of the biggest auction platforms, it's significant that the 2 people who've replied to this thread the most are you and I (who disagrees with you).

Where's the rest of the community to thank you for your whistle blowing? This can't have been the reaction you were hoping for.

 

[MackieMesser]

This discussion on the definition of "shill-bidding" reminds me on "alternative facts". Maybe it's time to discuss whether planet earth is flat or round?

English is not my native language and I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, but the cases described here remind me very much on shill-bidding and is the right term to use when speaking of alleged shill-bidding since 100% certain proof is currently not available. Assuming that the information provided by the thread opener (hereafter OP) is correct, the suspicion that shill-bidding is taking place in the cases described by the OP is justified.

Assuming that the in the cases described by the OP, the seller himself or his friend is actually bidding on the auction certainly meets the definition of shill-bidding and the matter that a reserve price has been placed doesn't change this fact. There is currently no 100 % proof for shill-bidding in these cases, but the suspicion is justified as the relationship between seller and that certain bidder is not being disclosed and the domains in question appear to have an unrealistically high value.

It might be different if the relationship between seller and that certain bidder would be publicly disclosed, but it has to be assumed that no third party would then participate in that auction.

So even if no third party involves in the auction acquiring the domain, meeting the reserve price and paying a higher sum for the domain than the actual market value is, the intention in that case is fraudulent and definable as shill-bidding if the seller and that certain bidder are proven to be in fact one and the same person or the bidder is a friend of the seller and their relationship is not publicly disclosed.

Reminds my by the way on murder and attempted murder: Assuming that in these cases the seller or his friend bid on the auctions without disclosing their relationship meets the definition of shill-bidding as the action/deed has taken place. It is then shill-bidding and not attempted shill-bidding.

Anyway, I go for lunch now.

 

[NameJetGM]

Hi everyone,

I appreciate the spirited debate and I am glad to see you take this type of thing as seriously as we do. As I commented on the original article the day it was published, “The integrity of our platform is our top priority and we would not condone artificially propping up auctions with illegitimate bids”.

In this case, there were a few auctions that exhibited concerning bidding patterns. We investigated and took immediate action, including suspending the auctions and the seller, who was new to our platform. This was not a widespread operation as only a few domains were involved and they did not result in any sales.

We are glad we were able to quickly address this matter. We deeply care about our customers and we work hard to cultivate a marketplace based on trust and integrity.

Thanks all and take care,

-Jonathan
GM, NameJet

 

[Addison]

your mis quoting me and making up stuff I haven't even said

Readers can decide if I've misquoted you, but IMO, it's clear as day that I haven't.

Where's the rest of the community to thank you

Do you see all of the thanks and likes on my first post?

your whistle blowing?

I didn't blow any whistles. The stories were published by bloggers, and I shared them here.

This can't have been the reaction you were hoping for.

You're making assumptions. I wasn't hoping for any reaction. I wouldn't have posted at all after my first two posts if it weren't for your ignorance that needed to be set straight.

 

[Addison]

Hi everyone,

I appreciate the spirited debate and I am glad to see you take this type of thing as seriously as we do. As I commented on the original article the day it was published, “The integrity of our platform is our top priority and we would not condone artificially propping up auctions with illegitimate bids”.

In this case, there were a few auctions that exhibited concerning bidding patterns. We investigated and took immediate action, including suspending the auctions and the seller, who was new to our platform. This was not a widespread operation as only a few domains were involved and they did not result in any sales.

We are glad we were able to quickly address this matter. We deeply care about our customers and we work hard to cultivate a marketplace based on trust and integrity.

Thanks all and take care,

-Jonathan
GM, NameJet

Kudos for rapidly taking action. Superb work!

Is there anything that NameJet can do to catch it themselves next time? I ask as a concerned domain investor.

 

[Wannabean]

I didn't blow any whistles. The stories were published by bloggers, and I shared them here.

Shared but kinda hijacked and tried to turn it in to something it never was imo (thread title) but nevermind and glad Jonathan has sorted it out. We can at least agree thats a good thing.

 

[Addison]

something it never was imo (thread title)

Your opinion can be that the ice in your freezer never was a liquid, but that doesn't change the facts.

The facts are that you're wrong and your opinion doesn't change that.