news L7.com sells for $60k

[JudgeMind]

I noticed the no reserve auction for L7.com ended at only $60k and change. Seems very low for such a short .com name. I would think that Chinese investors would be all over that name and be willing to pay in the 6 figure range at least.

 

[DnEbook]

I own
69WM .com

Well that should get the chicks !

 

[DU]

I've known this for a bit now but it's far too clear...you speak out your ass..

My point is nothing to do with whatever actually happened or didn't happen in your particular case. There are plenty of people on this forum who have had their snapnames, sedo, paypal, flippa accounts banned and almost always it's the platform to blame. I have had a Snapnames account banned

My point is that there is continually a rush to judgment by people such as the scenario being "far fetched" and "The seller should get zero compassion" while requesting " more details and evidence. "

Your commitment to lambasting the seller is based on knowledge

As if you have a clue.

Maybe it was wrong to pick your post to quote or make a specific reference - and for that I apologize. But in general I don't like the rush of people to condemn one dodgy looking act when they've sought to be seen as a victim for arguably similar in the past.

If there is clear manipulation of the marketplace then everything people are saying is justified; however, when there are extenuating circumstances, there are extenuating circumstance. The agreement in this instance is between Buyer/Seller - Flippa does a wonderful job of making sure that they are totally free of all liability and legally unencumbered. In reality, the seller may have violated a Flippa contract and based on my reading there's nothing that can really legally be done as the contract / sale wouldn't be found as binding (in whatever jurisdiction applied- Australia?). Big deal. They get banned and I guess that's all people want.

I want to see the Platform held accountable for more which is much more impacting of the domaining industry and what people here should be looking for. Banning a seller is barely a blip on a radar. Making Flippa be more accountable, improving process, etc. has an impact for all future users and that's where the energy and focus should be (if people really care about "the industry"). Banning people from the platform is part of that accountability but avoiding the problems in the first place are a bigger part. This issue is gray, imho, and Flippa owes it to their users to ensure that this type of activity is black and white so people like you and me can't disagree.

From what I read there's some responsibility here on their platform. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people disagree. Legally speaking, it's tough to enforce something that is sold in unintended ways... legally you don't have to honor genuine pricing mistakes.

 

[Keith]

My point is nothing to do with whatever actually happened or didn't happen in your particular case. There are plenty of people on this forum who have had their snapnames, sedo, paypal, flippa accounts banned and almost always it's the platform to blame. I have had a Snapnames account banned

My point is that there is continually a rush to judgment by people such as the scenario being "far fetched" and "The seller should get zero compassion" while requesting " more details and evidence. "

Your commitment to lambasting the seller is based on knowledge

Maybe it was wrong to pick your post to quote or make a specific reference - and for that I apologize. But in general I don't like the rush of people to condemn one dodgy looking act when they've sought to be seen as a victim for arguably similar in the past.

If there is clear manipulation of the marketplace then everything people are saying is justified; however, when there are extenuating circumstances, there are extenuating circumstance. The agreement in this instance is between Buyer/Seller - Flippa does a wonderful job of making sure that they are totally free of all liability and legally unencumbered. In reality, the seller may have violated a Flippa contract and based on my reading there's nothing that can really legally be done as the contract / sale wouldn't be found as binding (in whatever jurisdiction applied- Australia?). Big deal. They get banned and I guess that's all people want.

I want to see the Platform held accountable for more which is much more impacting of the domaining industry and what people here should be looking for. Banning a seller is barely a blip on a radar. Making Flippa be more accountable, improving process, etc. has an impact for all future users and that's where the energy and focus should be (if people really care about "the industry"). Banning people from the platform is part of that accountability but avoiding the problems in the first place are a bigger part. This issue is gray, imho, and Flippa owes it to their users to ensure that this type of activity is black and white so people like you and me can't disagree.

From what I read there's some responsibility here on their platform. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people disagree. Legally speaking, it's tough to enforce something that is sold in unintended ways... legally you don't have to honor genuine pricing mistakes.

Thank you for this post!

There certainly should've been more attention to this auction by the admin because of the price point. Blame could probably be divided equally between the seller and Flippa.