More Fraudulent Bidding Activity at DropCatch.com

[Arca]

DropCatch.com just can't get rid of fraudulent bidding activity on their platform. Fraudulent bidders bid up prices, don’t pay when they win, and then the names are re-auctioned again and again until a legit bidder wins.

It is a win-win system for DropCatch. If the fraudulent bidders bid up a legit bidder, DC cash out even more thanks to the fraudulent bidder driving up the price beyond where it would have gone with only legit bidders. If the fraudulent bidder wins, they simply hold and re-auction the name over and over until they get a legit bidder that pays. It's a problematic system for regular bidders, because before these fraudulent bid handles get suspended, they bid up legit bidders in various auctions.

DropCatch's system enables them to get paid for names even with so many fraudulent non-paying bidders on their platform. But even with this auction restarting system in place, there are simply so many fraudulent bidders that they sometimes struggle to find a legit winner, despite multipe re-auctions. Take CannaMarket.com. The domain has already been won by THREE DIFFERENT fraudulent bidders. The first winner, in the original auction, was fraudulent. The name was re-auctioned. The second winner was fraudulent. The name was re-auctioned. The third winner was fraudulent (he bid the name up to $4K). When a name can score a triple fraudulent bidder combo streak on their platform, with no legit winner in sight, it’s clear that there is something wrong with how their system works. They are currently holding cannamarket.com in a dropcatch.com holding account, and I wonder whether they will try to re-auction the name a fourth time, or just let it drop since this is obviously a bad look for them when three out of three attempts of auctioning off the name ended up with fraudulent bidding activity (and who is going to be brave enough to bid against all the fraudulent bidders in a fourth auction? This name is apparently a fraud magnet).

Then there was this auction for lumeo.com recently (it was bid up to $14K by a bidder that most likely is fraudulent, and the winner has not yet paid, and the payment deadline passed a few days ago). How long until this name gets re-auctioned due to fraudulent bidding activity?

I often get emails from dropcatch saying "due to complications involving potentially fraudulent activity, the following auctions you had participated in are being restarted". A quick search shows an inbox full of emails notifying me of fraudulent bidding activity and auctions being restarted:

I just received another one today. It contained another SEVEN auction names that closed recently with fraudulent bidding activity:

cybercorp.com - Sold for $1251
sefin.com - Sold for $665
devlog.com - Sold for $343
thermair.com - Sold for $457
simplypretty.com - Sold for $515
finte.com - Sold for $350
kinovo.com - Sold for $330

All these auctions involved fraudulent bidding, and have now been restarted (you can go to dropcatch.com and bid on them right now). A quick visit to the dropcatch.com website shows a other restarted auctions as well, such as for evinite.com (sold for $142) and acercloud.com (sold for $370). Will legit bidders win these restarted auctions this time around?

DropCatch.com is very much like a game of hot potato, where fraudulent bidders bid up auctions and don't pay when they come out winning. There is a significant amount of auctions being restarted due to winners not paying up, when compared with other expired domains auctions platforms. The result is that legit bidders have to pay, literally, for the presence of so many fraudulent bidders on this platform that bid up the prices for legit bidders. Just an advice for everyone to be aware of this issue when participating in auctions at dropcatch.com.

 

[Arca]

as they have no control over the wacky non paying bidders infiltrated within their platform.

They have chosen to have no control over this by deciding to not implement changes that would prevent it.

If bidding higher $ amounts had to be backed by pre-funded account funds they would practically eliminate the non-paying bidders issue.

If they ran private auctions they would largely eliminate the frontrunning issue. Their main competitors, NameJet and SnapNames, run private auctions. Why can't they? DropCatch is the first dropcatching platform to use open auctions. All this fraudulent activity on their platform by latecomers who are able to join as a result of their open auction system demonstrates why this system is less than ideal. Take Lumeo.com. Fraudulent winning bidder "golumeo" started bidding when the price was in the $3XX range. If this had been a close auction he would not have been able to attempt frontrunning, as he would not have been able to bid, and the domain might have been won by a legit winner instead.

But on the other hand, golumeo bid up a legit bidder to $14K (wasn't the second highest bidder w a r l o r d?), and if golumeo had stopped bidding just a moment earlier, that bidder would have won and might have paid for the name. In that case they would have achieved a significant monetary gain thanks to fraudulent bidder "golumeo". Just an example of how this fraudulent activity in many cases can lead to significant monetary gain for DropCatch.

 

[wwwweb]

They have chosen to have no control over this by deciding to not implement changes that would prevent it.

If bidding higher $ amounts had to be backed by pre-funded account funds they would practically eliminate the non-paying bidders issue.

If they ran private auctions they would largely eliminate the frontrunning issue. Their main competitors, NameJet and SnapNames, run private auctions. Why can't they? DropCatch is the first dropcatching platform to use open auctions. All this fraudulent activity on their platform by latecomers who are able to join as a result of their open auction system demonstrates why this system is less than ideal. Take Lumeo.com. Fraudulent winning bidder "golumeo" started bidding when the price was in the $3XX range. If this had been a close auction he would not have been able to attempt frontrunning, as he would not have been able to bid, and the domain might have been won by a legit winner instead.



But on the other hand, golumeo bid up a legit bidder to $14K (wasn't the second highest bidder w a r l o r d?), and if golumeo had stopped bidding just a moment earlier, that bidder would have won and might have paid for the name. In that case they would have achieved a significant monetary gain thanks to fraudulent bidder "golumeo". Just an example of how this fraudulent activity in many cases can lead to significant monetary gain for DropCatch.

Great insight, but why would dropcatch change any of this, to profit tens of thousands of dollars by having lax rules, on someone else's dime, why not leave it status quo, who wouldn't want to make an easy $10K everyday just by having lax internal controls. Time after time, their customers only suffer, they continue to profit, and grow.

When it comes to Dropcatch you have to play defense first, then offense, since the platform is not willing to protect you against such shill activity, you need to protect your money first. Otherwise you should just set up direct deposit into Dropcatchs bank account.

The Lumeo domain is tainted so to speak, who knows what that front runner would have done in terms of sending emails to mark holders, big liability.

 

[tonyk2000]

DropCatch stopped answering in this thread. Isn't it a public holiday today in U.S.? I think it is not.

Why remain silent? To have this thread go down and die?

Great insights posted here. DropCatch (or any other domainer-servicing business) should always remember that domainers are great investigators, it is the daily job , and not an easy job.
As Mark Twain said, "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

 

[wwwweb]

Could it be said that WITTYNUT of CannaMarket.com deadbeat fame really wanted the domain, and kept making the fake accounts until he came up with the $$$ to buy the domain, just buying time, for this to happen 3X over is bad. The problem is in the crossfire this person bidded up other names that probably caught his eye, but did not win, but cost other auctions hundreds, and overall thousands of dollars in bids.

If we can figure out such patterns, why can't dropcatch see this, why keep adding new same day signup bidders to the auction, in the hopes of a legit bidder wanting it more?

Maybe it is time for regulation for some of these operators, they seem to be operating in the wild west a bit, if someone really wanted to they could really take their customers to the bank. Money makes people do bad things we see this everyday, some people have a conscious, and others don't.

Dropcatch I leave you with this:

Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction. ...

 

[anantj]

This would certainly eliminate non-paying bidders. All these fraudulent $5,000, $10,000, etc. bids would be history if they made this change. Implementing this seems like an easy decision, and considering their terrible track record with fraudulent bidding and non-paying bidders, they should really take this simple step to strengthen the credibility of their platform.

How would bidders pre-fund their accounts to that level post auction start (which lasts for 3 days)? For amounts that large (at least larger than 5K), Wire transfer is the most viable option but that can take up to 5 days itself.

 

[wwwweb]

How would bidders pre-fund their accounts to that level post auction start (which lasts for 3 days)? For amounts that large (at least larger than 5K), Wire transfer is the most viable option but that can take up to 5 days itself.

I agree, I wouldn't want these guys holding large sums of deposits.

I would say maybe you 5X your deposit amount, and failing to fund within 7 days forfeits your deposit.

These are just big IF's, Dropcatch knows what is up, and they are ok with the status quo, as this is the most profitable route for them, you think they are truly concerned about their customers?

The tone of their cookie cutter email said it all.

You just have to be aware on their platform, and if you are getting baited, or you feel a crazy bidder is at bay, dump the domain on them.

 

[Arca]

Amagen.com was bid up to $669 on October 23. The winner did not pay and the auction has now been restarted.

 

[wwwweb]

Amagen.com was bid up to $669 on October 23. The winner did not pay and the auction has now been restarted.

Probably another stupid front runner who think he could score from amgen.

Another one that got passed the eagle eye support at dropcatch, as concerned as they are. I am sure they are twiddling their fingers while scouring tmz in a productive manner, given all their action happens 15 mins in a single day.

 

[Brandstead]

Couldn't they just preauth the credit cards on file to ensure the user has at least some funds available, and include in the terms that non auction payment results in a fine to discourage this? I've been in a few of the auctions mentioned, and seeing the crazy bidding and constant re-auctions makes it hard to trust at all

 

[wwwweb]

Couldn't they just preauth the credit cards on file to ensure the user has at least some funds available, and include in the terms that non auction payment results in a fine to discourage this? I've been in a few of the auctions mentioned, and seeing the crazy bidding and constant re-auctions makes it hard to trust at all

Good advice, if only we were playing with monopoly money the current methods might work for some. If your not careful you can get fleeced to the tune of 4-5 figures very quickly on there.

 

[Arca]

These domains were not paid for by the winners and the auctions were restarted. The restarted auctions have ended, and one domain went for more, the other for less, this time around.

October 19 results (fraudulent winning bidders):
WeForce.com - Sold for $665
FoodBall.com - Sold for $760

November 1 restarted auctions results:
WeForce.com - Sold for $750
FoodBall.com - Sold for $554

 

[Arca]

More fraudulent bidding @ DropCatch.com

Hardly a day goes by without any new fraudulent bidding at DropCatch news. Here's the latest auction to involve a fraudulent bidder who, fortunately for bidder #2, won the auction:

The domain avenew.com sold for $2,270 on October 24. However, the winner did not pay, and the auction has now been restarted.

Frontrunning or just a winner who got buyers remorse? Will the second highest bidder be able to get the domain for a cheaper price with the fraudulent bidder out of the picture? Or will the domain perhaps fetch $3,XXX this time around?

 

[wwwweb]

More fraudulent bidding @ DropCatch.com

Hardly a day goes by without any new fraudulent bidding at DropCatch news. Here's the latest auction to involve a fraudulent bidder who, fortunately for bidder #2, won the auction:

The domain avenew.com sold for $2,270 on October 24. However, the winner did not pay, and the auction has now been restarted.

Frontrunning or just a winner who got buyers remorse? Will the second highest bidder be able to get the domain for a cheaper price with the fraudulent bidder out of the picture? Or will the domain perhaps fetch $3,XXX this time around?

I guess the 4 end users didn't bite to the tune of $5K, which is the min. they would need to make it worth their while.

One again Position bidder #2 was left vunerable for fraud by dropcatch management inability to stop fraud on their platform. Considering their platform has probably less than 100 active bidders on any given day, that they cannot isolate such activity is quite patheic indeed.

 

[Arca]

I guess the 4 end users didn't bite to the tune of $5K, which is the min. they would need to make it worth their while.

One again Position bidder #2 was left vunerable for fraud by dropcatch management inability to stop fraud on their platform. Considering their platform has probably less than 100 active bidders on any given day, that they cannot isolate such activity is quite patheic indeed.

Would be interesting to know the ratio between established bidders and brand new accounts among non-paying winners.

 

[wwwweb]

What a difference a shill bidder makes, an $11K difference by taking the shill bidder out of the lumeo.com auction.

 

[Jasonn]

I wonder if globalenergy.com will be paid for. Up to 19k..

 

[offthehandle]

@DropCatch Support @JBubba

Hi, I am a regular customer as well, and have become one because of the good customer service and trust I have in the system. However I have not followed any of these developments nor bid on these auctions. I was surprised today to see this thread continue to grow. The public identification of the shills, non paying bidders, default bidders, whatever you want to call them is crucial to track.

There are quite a few valid concerns here, please give them an update and respond here even if it’s to state that you are investigating this further and update the posters concerns so this thread.

I am sure DC does not want this thread to grow and become like another “Bidding on your own names on NJ”, scandal thread, which still is ongoing.

Thank you.

 

[wwwweb]

I wonder if globalenergy.com will be paid for. Up to 19k..

Did you recognize the username? It is a nice domain, but to throw down $20K, and if you sell thru a platform like sedo, godaddy, you need $25K just to break even.

A naive front runner will think there is many users for the domain out there, but it could take, weeks, and months to get the right deal, not over the course of the weekend. Then to get past all the gatekeepers to get to the right party who is going to pay mid 5 figures, is not an easy task.

 

[Arca]

What a difference a shill bidder makes, an $11K difference by taking the shill bidder out of the lumeo.com auction.

Not only the fraudulent bidder, but the second highest bidder during the original auction mysteriously lost all interest in the name even though he could have bought it for much less this time around.

For those not familiar with this name, Lumeo.com was won by a fraudulent bidder who passed himself off as end-user g o l u m e o (.) c o m (using bid handle "golumeo") and attempted frontrunning the name. He bid the domain up to $14,072 but did not pay as he was not able to find any end-users willing to pay more than that.

The restarted auction for that name ended today at a significantly lower $2,275 (the auction was won by k a m i s a m a, second highest bidder was g r e e n m o u n t a i n).

Notably, the second highest bidder in the original auction, w a r l o r d, who bid it up to $14K at the time, right behind bidder "golumeo", was also in the auction today, but obviously he did not match his bidding on Oct 21.

I'm surprised that he was willing to pay $14K for the domain on Oct 21, yet today, merely two weeks later, he is not even willing to bid above $2,2K (in fact, w a r l o r d did not place a single bid above $59 - what a difference 2 weeks can make!).

I wonder if globalenergy.com will be paid for. Up to 19k..

Did you recognize the username? It is a nice domain, but to throw down $20K, and if you sell thru a platform like sedo, godaddy, you need $25K just to break even.

GlobalEnergy.com was won by bidder P o s t P o s t for $18,900 today. Anyone know anything about this bidder? I personally can't recall seeing this handle before. A new account or an established bidder? Will this winner pay or will it turn out to be another fraudulent bidder?

Second highest bidder was w a r l o r d at $18,850, the same w a r l o r d who was second highest bidder in the original lumeo.com auction at $14K. So while his budget for lumeo.com suddenly shrank from $14,000 to $59, he was still able to budget $18,850 for globalenergy.com on the same day.

 

[wwwweb]

Not only the fraudulent bidder, but the second highest bidder during the original auction mysteriously lost all interest in the name even though he could have bought it for much less this time around.

For those not familiar with this name, Lumeo.com was won by a fraudulent bidder who passed himself off as end-user g o l u m e o (.) c o m (using bid handle "golumeo") and attempted frontrunning the name. He bid the domain up to $14,072 but did not pay as he was not able to find any end-users willing to pay more than that.

The restarted auction for that name ended today at a significantly lower $2,275 (the auction was won by k a m i s a m a, second highest bidder was g r e e n m o u n t a i n).

Notably, the second highest bidder in the original auction, w a r l o r d, who bid it up to $14K at the time, right behind bidder "golumeo", was also in the auction today, but obviously he did not match his bidding on Oct 21.

I'm surprised that he was willing to pay $14K for the domain on Oct 21, yet today, merely two weeks later, he is not even willing to bid above $2,2K (in fact, w a r l o r d did not place a single bid above $59 - what a difference 2 weeks can make!).


GlobalEnergy.com was won by bidder P o s t P o s t for $18,900 today. Anyone know anything about this bidder? I personally can't recall seeing this handle before. A new account or an established bidder? Will this winner pay or will it turn out to be another fraudulent bidder?

Second highest bidder was w a r l o r d at $18,850, the same w a r l o r d who was second highest bidder in the original lumeo.com auction at $14K. So while his budget for lumeo.com suddenly shrank from $14,000 to $59, he was still able to budget $18,850 for globalenergy.com on the same day.

Great info, I have never seen PostPost, I have seen warlord in many high $ auctions, rarely any in the small auctions, he always tends to bid for the 4-5 figure ones, not so in the 3 figures which is weird now that I think of it. Warlord has been around for a while, I am sure someone here can ID him to a caught domain.

I think the $$$'s really went down today, because of the TM discounting, even moreso because it is Novartis, whose lawyer is relentless in UDRP filings. Lumeo.com had some risk, at $2K ok fine roll the dice, at $14K to much risk.