http://www.fusu.com domain stock exchange

[Dr. Mindwrecker]

has anyone heard about this domain name stock exchange?
I think this a very cool idea.
If anyone puts there .tv's up there, let us know.

Could be a great way to get capital for other projects as well.

 

[DomainMayhem.com]

Very interesting find. I'm gonna check it out further to see if I want to submit any names. Rep added.

 

[duceman]

http://www.namepros.com/industry-news/402447-domain-name-stock-market.html?highlight=fusu.com

 

[TCK]

What does FUSU have to do with stock exchange?

How about the Domain Name Stock Exchange? DNSX

Why stop at domains? Why not include all online properties such as websites, Web services and domains?

 

[TheBulldog]

This has been gone over many times.

As I recall, the company is in Romania, they have NO, ZERO, ZILCH legal binding agreements in any other country.

Further, theyhave provided no proof that their "Partner Registrars" actually agreed to or signed agreements that would violate and jeopardize their status with ICANN. FUSU says that they have, but would not provide proof.

Further, at least in the US, there is zero registration/agreement/binding legal precedents, or lawyers that would touch this with a ten foot pole. They are claiming to sell equity shares of a property, but ONLY have laws of Romania(Again, this is memory on specific country), and NO legally binding agreements with ANY other country, registrar, equity regulation, or ANYTHING else to make this legit.

It is, in essence, a Pyramid scheme. If you invest, or are thinking of investing or putting up a name for investment, please be aware that there are no legally binding agreements for you or the buyer/seller that would be legitimate in any other country. Further, you will have absolutely zero recourse if you lose money or your domain. None. Zip. Zilch.

These threads are being heavily watched by many people because thus far, the 1 person associated with this venture has managed to post his posts, and the posts of his "legal council" from the same IP. They claim to be in the same office, but are you aware of any start up company that has basically a website, an owner and a lawyer in the same office making no money?

Buyer beware.

I personally am a little amazed that the threads are still making the rounds considering there is absolutely no legal grounds or binding agreements to back up the claims.

 

[NWDomains]

They are based in Slovakia.
I have seen that they had a presentation during the TRAFFIC conference in Las Vegas yesterday or today. Did not hear anything yet of how that went.


Had a look at their website, they added two auctions today.

They put on Flowers.mobi; owned by Rick Schwartz. Also listed is eel.com, a domain owned by Michael Castello. They also have one .tv for launch, which is hot.tv, at least according to their news update.

 

[Dr. Mindwrecker]

Wasnt hot.tv the one that was sold by that guy who was big into .cc?

 

[htmlindex]

The "About Us" page doesn't give any info about who is behind this company.

OverviewFusu is the world's first Domains Stock Exchange. Founded in 2007 by a team of domain industry professionals, Fusu's mission is to

operate the world's largest and most liquid domain secondary market,
open the domain secondary market to shareholders,
provide means to get liquidity for domain owners, without giving up control of their domain, and
add transparency to the domain aftermarket.

 

[smashfactory]

so they are selling shares of flowers.mobi?

 

[duceman]

so they are selling shares of flowers.mobi?

Yep.....

I guess big Rick is wanting to recoup 45% of his investment :hehe:

 

[jeffoverman]

i have signed up as a beta tester months back and forgot about them....thanks in reminding me to use them....

good luck everyone...

 

[htmlindex]

Yep.....

I guess big Rick is wanting to recoup 45% of his investment :hehe:

Wasn't he basically just given this name anyway with the $200k bid he made not a legit one where he had to pay for the name?

 

[gr8trfoo]

Wasn't he basically just given this name anyway with the $200k bid he made not a legit one where he had to pay for the name?

Huh?!?

Arn't you bordering on slander with a question like that?

 

[MrRhee]

Wasn't he basically just given this name anyway with the $200k bid he made not a legit one where he had to pay for the name?

I don't know you but I would like to suggest you don't spread accusations like that around domain forums. if you know for sure and have proof, then provide it... but if all you are doing is perpetuating a malicious & unproven rumor, then its best to not bring it up. Rick has answered that question many times over, just read his blog. Bottom line: rumor was started by various anti-mobi naysayers as a smear tactic against Rick and .mobi itself. Personally, I wouldn't question the validity of the whole auction process and all the players involved with that transaction. This isn't an attack on you personally, no ill-will intended, just helping you to avoid any negativity/action that may be directed at you if you keep posting this rumor.

 

[rodash]

I looked at this concept with a lot of scepticism, partly because it emanated from Romania, partly because of the discussion within the thread, and largely because of my own reservations of how it could possibly work, given the vagaries of ICANN and the difficulies of tieing it all down legally. If this concept had originated in the US, I'd be more predisposed towards the idea.

The Schwartz Flowers.mobi listing interests me. How much credence do you guys think the flowers.mobi listing gives these players? Is Schwartz likely to risk his reputation listing with something that's not the real deal? I wouldn't have thought so. He must have been impressed with them to go ahead and list.

The thing that I keep coming back to is the legals. Safely hanging on to your part of the domains once a deal is struck may be one part of the equation, but how do you protect yourself from being sued by the other parties (shareholders) in case you mishandle the domain and lose it (that could mean losing it through a claim through WIPO, losing it through failing to register it, losing it through someone illegally transferring the name, losing it through a registrar cock-up, losing it because you've made improper use of it and are in breach of ICANN policies, or losing it because of an ICANN policy change?)

But the biggest issue by far - and I don't think anyone's mentioned this in this thread - is that we don't actually "own" domains. We only hold the rights to use them, and those rights continue while we keep renewing the domains. So how can you sell part of something you don't own? Is it made clear legally that people are buying into something they don't actually own? How can this stand up in the courts?

It's one thing losing a name you own entirely, but if you lost one 45% owned by another party, God help you. You need to think of all the pitfalls before you go into something like this. Of course, if it all works smoothly then there are huge benefits for premium name holders.

 

[TheWatcher]

so they are selling shares of flowers.mobi?

who will bother to buy a share for flowers.mobi where iphone can surf flowers.com. It was a lost in IMHO whaddya know?

 

[TheBulldog]

I can say that I am honestly surprised that people are even willing to talk about this without knowing what the legal ramifications are.

It seems like everyone is ignoring the OBVIOUS legal issues in hopes of selling shares in a product which they don't actually own but only have a yearly lease for.

This is HIGHLY illegal.

 

[NWDomains]

I can say that I am honestly surprised that people are even willing to talk about this without knowing what the legal ramifications are.

It seems like everyone is ignoring the OBVIOUS legal issues in hopes of selling shares in a product which they don't actually own but only have a yearly lease for.

This is HIGHLY illegal.

Bulldog,

I am not saying I disagree with you but what would be the difference to selling the entire domain instead of part of it if you don't own it and only pay a yearly lease for it in the first place?

 

[TheBulldog]

A good question....

If you sell equity shares in something.....a product, business, item, etc, then you are legally obligated to the people buying said equity shares.

In the US, selling equity shares is regulated by the SEC (securities and exchange commision) The sec is higly regulated by the government of the us. The have very strict rules about what is and isn't a company that can sell equity shares of itself.

To be blunt, the company that is in charge of the DOT tv extension, Demand Media, is not even approved by the SEC at this point.

For any compay to do business inside the us borders involving equity shares of ANYTHING, they need to work with SEC to be legal. This company is located outside of the US, and worse yet in a country that is not exactly known for square dealing.

They have ZERO obligation to any laws othe then Slovakian, and in reality have FAILED to prove that their contracts even apply to Slovakian laws.

There was even someone in the thread linked that gave $50 with no respnse, no return, and no reply from the company...

Quite frankly, I would consider anyone giving them money in any form and easy mark.

 

[NWDomains]

A good question....

If you sell equity shares in something.....a product, business, item, etc, then you are legally obligated to the people buying said equity shares.

In the US, selling equity shares is regulated by the SEC (securities and exchange commision) The sec is higly regulated by the government of the us. The have very strict rules about what is and isn't a company that can sell equity shares of itself.

To be blunt, the company that is in charge of the DOT tv extension, Demand Media, is not even approved by the SEC at this point.

For any compay to do business inside the us borders involving equity shares of ANYTHING, they need to work with SEC to be legal. This company is located outside of the US, and worse yet in a country that is not exactly known for square dealing.

They have ZERO obligation to any laws othe then Slovakian, and in reality have FAILED to prove that their contracts even apply to Slovakian laws.

There was even someone in the thread linked that gave $50 with no respnse, no return, and no reply from the company...

Quite frankly, I would consider anyone giving them money in any form and easy mark.

Is there a difference in selling some shares of equity compared to all shares of equity under SEC ruling?

Fusu and their issues aside, what is the difference under US SEC rules? If you sell a domain, you actually sell the 100% rights of using a name you don't own and only lease. What makes it different to do that with part of a domain?

I clearly don't have the legal understanding of all of this but there must be some ruling around this or is the domain world mad and illegal?

 

[rodash]

Bulldog,
You appear to be across this more than anyone. I've tried to go back through the threads but there's a lot of ground to cover.

In your opinion, with legals aside, is all the risk of participating in this "exchange" with the share purchasers? What risks are there for domain name owns?

I'm wondering if participation in Fusu by a domain name holder could be grounds for ICANN to revoke the rights to a domain name, if they saw fit to. Or is this a natural progression of where the domain name industry is headed, and something we were bound to see in the course of time?

Romanian connections and legal hurdles aside, this is a sensational concept.

..

 

[TheBulldog]

Happy to jump in and explain that one to since I have followed this closely.

FUSU claims to have signed agreements in place with two registrars, EURODns being one of them. Those agreements supposedly dictate that EuroDNS would notify FUSU of any changes to domains in the FUSU program.

As you are all aware, registrars will only contact domain owners about domain issues. When asked about this, FUSU glossed over how this will happen, and didn't respond with any solid reasoning other then they would be notified of ALL domain changes.

Since the only contact made is to the contact information in the domain, that could only mean that there is a stipulation that some part of the contact owners information is changed to FUSU. Like the email adress.

And as you are all also aware, if you have the email address as yours you can ask for password reset via that email. Which means that this slovakian company would have complete access to your domain and could conceivable take it away at any time.

Further, when asked directly about this, they refused to answer the question of how other then this they would be contacted and did not deny that they would ask for contact information to be changed.

ICANN rules are pretty clear on one other thing as well. The only contact information for a domain is restricted to the domain owners. If you have ANY part of your contact information wrong, then you are in violation of TOS, and subject to loosing your domain.

FUSU has made it very clear they will ONLY do business with people who transfer the domains to one of the two European registrars. So if you have your names at godaddy, then you can't participate.

Finally, even though they have been asked, they have refused flatly to provide proof that these registrars have even remotely agreed to these ICANN acredidation violations. Beware that if EuroDNS or the other one, if they were to participate, would be in violation of the domain contact restrictions in place for their accredidation. Which I seriously doubt any registrar would do.

Is there a difference in selling some shares of equity compared to all shares of equity under SEC ruling?

Fusu and their issues aside, what is the difference under US SEC rules? If you sell a domain, you actually sell the 100% rights of using a name you don't own and only lease. What makes it different to do that with part of a domain?

I clearly don't have the legal understanding of all of this but there must be some ruling around this or is the domain world mad and illegal?

No, as long as you are selling any equity shares of anything in the us, you are bound.

While the SEC probably wouldn't look at this, they could, and then you might be legally liable.

Let's say you lease an apartment. You can't sell the bedroom to a third party giving them ownership rights. You didn't have them to sell in the first place.