New Namesilo Marketplace

[cocaseco]

Just saw this and the 7.5% commissions stood out!. Nice to have another option.

https://www.namesilo.com/Support/Marketplace

 

[GoWebnames.com]

Yeah, we agree... running the Marketplace comes with a lot of risk to us so we have taken several steps to minimize the number of charge backs and payment disputes. It is a careful balance between convenience for buyers and our need to protect ourselves from charge backs, and we are very happy of the results we've been able to achieve on this topic.

Just wondering how do you prevent someone from transfering out and doing a chargeback?
Does the seller suffer for chargeback?

 

[Keith]

Well buddy, I missed buying it too. It's expired CryptoFund.com which sold for $75 recently.
Someone else was faster. Although there is still some time left for renewal, I think the owner is not aware of it.

It could’ve been x.com. The point is, namesilo is incredibly ignorant for operating a system in this fashion.

Their site says these domains are auctions, which by definition is false -
auc·tion
ˈôkSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a public sale in which goods or property are sold to the highest bidder.
   
   How can there be a highest bidder if they don’t allow people to freely bid?!

 

[GoWebnames.com]

Their site says these domains are auctions, which by definition is false -
auc·tion
ˈôkSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a public sale in which goods or property are sold to the highest bidder.
   
   How can there be a highest bidder if they don’t allow people to freely bid?!

Everyone's got a way of running their businesses Keith. I too have won few profitable domains at NameSilo but wasn't lucky enough this time around. Am sure a few people would have tried snapping it up.

I guess they follow the DUTCH format of auctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction
Starts with a fixed price, the first one at any price takes the goods.

 

[Keith]

I guess they follow the DUTCH format of auctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction
Starts with a fixed price, the first one at any price takes the goods.

I’d buy that theory if they weren’t located in Arizona.

 

[namesilo]

Just wondering how do you prevent someone from transfering out and doing a chargeback?
Does the seller suffer for chargeback?

Thanks for the question. We actually have a number of things that we do in order to prevent charge backs and payment fraud, but we do not publish them specifically. Sorry to sound cryptic, but some of these methods are proprietary and others happen behind the scenes intentionally to help prevent circumvention.

In the event of a charge back, we contact the Seller to ask if they would exchange a returning their domain for reversing the payout that was made. This is the Seller's choice as we take the ultimate responsibility for charge backs.

 

[GoWebnames.com]

I’d buy that theory if they weren’t located in Arizona.

The only problem I find with their auctions is that their staff responsible for putting BIN prices on these expired auctions are not doing a good job. Their BIN prices go like $1600, $1200, $1000, $750, $200, $75, $50 .... If they put $1600 BIN for trash names like WACOCAT.com and WILLIEWHACKER.com but only $75 for CryptoFund.com, it doesn't make any sense. So, probably, they should have priced CryptoFund.com @ $1600/$1200 instead of $75. Not sure how do they work out the BIN prices. If it's done by a computer program instead, it needs a good rehaul.

 

[Keith]

The only problem I find with their auctions is that their staff responsible for putting BIN prices on these expired auctions are not doing a good job. Their BIN prices go like $1600, $1200, $1000, $750, $200, $75, $50 .... If they put $1600 BIN for trash names like WACOCAT.com and WILLIEWACKER.com but only $75 for CryptoFund.com, it doesn't make any sense. So, probably, they should have priced CryptoFund.com @ $1600/$1200 instead of $75.

It appears to be automated, based on the creation date as a big factor. They might as well price every domain at $50k bin and let people bid away. It can only make them more profitable.

 

[namesilo]

The only problem I find with their auctions is that their staff responsible for putting BIN prices on these expired auctions are not doing a good job. Their BIN prices go like $1600, $1200, $1000, $750, $200, $75, $50 .... If they put $1600 BIN for trash names like WACOCAT.com and WILLIEWHACKER.com but only $75 for CryptoFund.com, it doesn't make any sense. So, probably, they should have priced CryptoFund.com @ $1600/$1200 instead of $75.

Thanks for the feedback. We have a number of algorithms we run in order to programmatically assign a starting price for expired domain auctions. We use a number of criteria such as domain age, length, etc. Without getting too far into our code, I would guess the prices above are based upon the fact that all the domains listed are about 15-20 years old.

 

[4better]

If I was the lucky bidder of that CryptoFund.com then I would say that Namesilo auction platform is the best one for me. It gives me the assurance that nobody is going to take that domain away from me (except if the domain owner renews it) from big investors capable of bidding thousands of dollars. Well, for this particular type of auction I've got some luck a few times.

 

[GoWebnames.com]

If I was the lucky bidder of that CryptoFund.com then I would say that Namesilo auction platform is the best one for me. It gives me the assurance that nobody is going to take that domain away from me (except if the domain owner renews it) from big investors capable of bidding thousands of dollars. Well, for this particular type of auction I've got some luck a few times.

True that. It assures you that you couldn't be Gangraped [.com] by LondonMeat [.com]

 

[toughdomains]

cpplus.com only 9 billion usd!!!
https://www.namesilo.com/OfferCounter?auction=ZmLmBGZkZmDmAmZkp27s164p6290994837r941419n37p751

 

[alcy]

can someone post quick confirmation that namesilo makret sales require payment by wire from buyer only above 5k... and that this was raised from originaly being 1k+

I read both versions in articles.. but just wanted to be sure.

like this one here says its > 1k for wire payments.

check it out.. it has some nice sale stats for ns market too

http://adamyamada.com/namesilo-shares-sales-data-namesilo-marketplace/

thanks.

 

[Arca]

Some thoughts/suggestions regarding the BIN/payment plan/make offer page:

I think the wording here could benefit from a slight edit, because "Submit a minimum offer of $500" arguably instructs the buyer to make an offer of the minimum amount allowed.

It would be better to say "Submit an offer, minimum $500" or "Submit an offer (min $500)". Here the emphasis is shifted towards the fact that they can make an offer and that there is a minimum, rather than that they should submit an offer of the minimum.

Add a period to the end of the sentence to be consistent with the rest of the page. All other "star point" sentences on this page end with a period or an exclamation mark.

I think not showing any numbers here undersells the payment plan option. Instead of saying “Start using the domain upon processing of down payment!” (which is rather abstract without indicating how much the minimum down payment is), maybe you could say “Start using the domain today for as little as [lowest down payment available]”.

Or alternatively: "Pay [minimum down payment available] to get the domain today, followed by [longest period of installment payments available] equal monthly payments of [lowest monthly payment available if choosing lowest down payment]."

That would come out something like this: "Pay $200 to get the domain today, followed by 12 monthly payments of $200."

Or maybe "Start using the domain today for just $200. Full ownership after 12 monthly payments of $200." When people get to see these numbers I think that's more effective in terms of getting them to see the benefits of this option right away. Not sure what would be the best way to formulate these numbers in a sentence though (the down payment + up to 12 monthly payments system makes it a bit more complicated to succinctly convey these numbers in a brief sentence).

Moreover, saying "Make automated monthly payments" makes it sound like the buyer is committing to pay the amount in full/"subscribing" to buy the domain for the full price, which is not the case. Also, many online services that have you sign up for automated monthly payments to pay for something make it notoriously hard to cancel these payments, so this hardly reads like a selling point for a hesitant buyer.

One of the main selling points of the payment plan is less commitment upfront. If the main goal is to get more people to sign up for this option, I think something like "No obligations. Cancel any time!" would be more effective in terms of getting more hesitant buyers to buy domains via the payment plan. If they know that they stand to lose no more than the first payment if they regret their purchase shortly after, it's easy for them to justify an impulse buy. So pushing them in that direction by pointing out that there are no obligations for them could be helpful in terms of more effectively capitalizing on impulse buys.

While this would possibly lead to more payment plan sales, it could also lead to more less committed buyers that don't complete the payment plan. Personally I don't mind such buyers, as I get to keep the funds paid (which usually more than covers my acquisition cost) + I get the domain back and can put it up for sale again and sell it again to somebody else. In my own experience so far buyers defaulting on their payment plan is very rare. And when they do, it's usually after making payments for months.

 

[tonyk2000]

No obligations. Cancel any time!" would be more effective in terms of getting more hesitant buyers to buy domains via the payment plan.

Interesting idea, but will all the buyers correctly understand the meaning? There _are_ obligations - as per formal T&C which they most likely will not read though. What if they'll expect to find "cancel" button inside then - and will not find such a button, or expect to receive a refund of previous quotes paid.

 

[Arca]

@namesilo - could you add an "uncheck all domains" option on the domain manager page? For some time now domain selections have started becoming very persistent. Say I select and make some edits to one portfolio, and then go to edit another portfolio, the previous selections remain even though I leave that page/portfolio. Then if I go back to the previous portfolio, uncheck those domains, then go to the next portfolio, those selections still remain at times (even if I go back to unselect them 5-6 times, they may remain selected). Or if I select some domains, then close the window or say go somewhere else on the namesilo site, when I return, those selections still remain. Selections have become a lot more enduring than they used to be, as domains remain selected even if they are "out of sight" and even if you leave the domain manager.

Previously once you "left" certain selections, they would not remain selected out of view. Selections would only include the selected domains on the page you were on. Now selections tend to remain even if you close the browser window and then reopen it again. So often when I make edits, I end up also editing previously selected domains that I didn't know were still selected. Mis-editing domains I didn't intend to edit has started happening a lot as a result, and that's something that never happened previously. Was this a conscious change on your end to have selections remain even though you leave the page where you selected the domains, or is it just a bug? I find that the only way to make sure there are no selected domains in my domain manager is to log out and then log in again, which is inconvenient if you want to make edits to multiple folders...

Would be great if you could add an "unselect all" button/link somewhere on the domain manager page so that we have a way of making sure that no old selections remain when we start making new ones. Maybe an icon on the bottom of the frame next to the "find records" and "reload grid" icons.

 

[namesilo]

@namesilo - could you add an "uncheck all domains" option on the domain manager page? For some time now domain selections have started becoming very persistent. Say I select and make some edits to one portfolio, and then go to edit another portfolio, the previous selections remain even though I leave that page/portfolio. Then if I go back to the previous portfolio, uncheck those domains, then go to the next portfolio, those selections still remain at times (even if I go back to unselect them 5-6 times, they may remain selected). Or if I select some domains, then close the window or say go somewhere else on the namesilo site, when I return, those selections still remain. Selections have become a lot more enduring than they used to be, as domains remain selected even if they are "out of sight" and even if you leave the domain manager.

Previously once you "left" certain selections, they would not remain selected out of view. Selections would only include the selected domains on the page you were on. Now selections tend to remain even if you close the browser window and then reopen it again. So often when I make edits, I end up also editing previously selected domains that I didn't know were still selected. Mis-editing domains I didn't intend to edit has started happening a lot as a result, and that's something that never happened previously. Was this a conscious change on your end to have selections remain even though you leave the page where you selected the domains, or is it just a bug? I find that the only way to make sure there are no selected domains in my domain manager is to log out and then log in again, which is inconvenient if you want to make edits to multiple folders...

Would be great if you could add an "unselect all" button/link somewhere on the domain manager page so that we have a way of making sure that no old selections remain when we start making new ones. Maybe an icon on the bottom of the frame next to the "find records" and "reload grid" icons.

No problem - we added an "Uncheck all Domains" link to the top of the domain list.

 

[Keith]

Why wouldn’t dns automatically update upon an expired domain being renewed?

deleted-83b0e4c8ca6b6cf07236a9d3fbbf38d1.drop-iilvvyoyu08jybnfrtjk.biz

 

[namesilo]

Why wouldn’t dns automatically update upon an expired domain being renewed?

deleted-83b0e4c8ca6b6cf07236a9d3fbbf38d1.drop-iilvvyoyu08jybnfrtjk.biz

Please email [email protected] with any questions related to specific domains. Thanks

 

[Keith]

Please email [email protected] with any questions related to specific domains. Thanks

This is a question regarding the platform policy, not a specific domain. Any reason there isn’t an answer readily available?

 

[Arca]

No problem - we added an "Uncheck all Domains" link to the top of the domain list.

Thank you! That link will surely come in handy.

Any thoughts on changing “Submit a minimum offer of $500" to "Submit an offer, minimum $500" or "Submit an offer (min $500)”?

 

[Arca]

@namesilo - would it be possible to let us set up custom domain defender questions?

Also, when we get an offer, and then make a counter offer, to which the buyer never responds, could we get a notification email? Just a notification that the other negotiating party did not respond before the expiry of the counter offer and that negotiations have been closed. Currently the negotiation page for a domain just silently disappears if the buyer does not respond within the offer validity period.

 

[Arca]

@namesilo - Could you add some preventative security measures to the sub-account manager, especially with regards to outward domain transfers and account pushes?

Mainly the ability to limit a sub-account to unlock no more than X amount of domains within each 24 hour period.

This would limit potential loss/theft if a sub-account is compromised. If a sub-account can unlock a maximum of say 1-2 domains within each 24 hour or 30 day period they can’t get much done in terms of theft, even if they technically have access to thousands of domains in your account.

Would be good to see more sub-account configurations that could safeguard the main account in case the sub-account is compromised. Some examples would be to disable the “Deactivate Domains” option and barring the sub-account from editing for sale listings as well as creating new sales listings (listing valuable domains for $10 would be another way to facilitate a mass ownership transfer if they can’t unlock the domain to do a regular transfer/push). Disabling manually expedited transfer outs for sub-accounts would also be a good idea.

Right now the sub-account manager permissions are so broad that if the sub-account is compromised it constitutes a great risk to the main account. If we could set more detailed safeguarding limitations on sub-accounts it would be make this useful option less risky, and as a result more useful. The above suggestions are just some the first things that came to mind that could restrict a sub-account in order to protect the main account, you might take another approach to it as well.

I haven't used the sub-account manager option so far because the current authorizations given to the sub-account seem to be too broad/permissive, and therefore too risky. If we had more options to restrict the sub-account I would certainly use this option in situations where it would be convenient/necessary to let others manage my portfolio for various reasons.

Also, if an account holder is travelling, it would be very useful to be able to set up a restricted sub-account that we could use to access our domains in order to push/transfer the handful of domains that will sell via third party platforms during that period. Dealing with your domains is always tricky when you're traveling due to often having to log into various untrusted wifi networks, as well as 2FA often not working smoothly if you're in other countries, as well as easy of losing your 2FA device while travelling. The ability to be able to access your account via a sub-account that only allows a handful of domains to be pushed/transferred out would be a much better and lower risk way of logging in to the account while using various iffy hotel and other open wifi networks during the travel, so that even if your password gets stolen, the thief can do much less damage with the sub-account access, than they could if they got access to the main account.

 

[Dave]

@Keith CryptoFund .com got renewed by the way, with like 2 days remaining.

 

[Michael Ehrhardt]

Honestly
I have an namesilo account
But if I want to sell my domain I have to search to upload them
How is that ?
This is not simple and easy
I don’t want to study the market place before listing domains
Pls get back to me

 

[Keith]

@Keith CryptoFund .com got renewed by the way, with like 2 days remaining.

Yes, by the registrar surely. They won’t admit it but lots of evidence says it wasn’t the registrant. I was looking at this domain over a year ago when typing in the url resolved to a namesilo default page that said it was expired. Then it was renewed for 2017 and the page still said it was expired.

Now by magic it gets renewed at the last second. Mind you, prior to expiration, multiple GoDaddy reps sent offers on behalf of their clients. Big offers too. There was not one response to a single offer. The dns also still says “delete” “drop” which is what it changed to upon expiration.

Moral of the story is don’t trust namesilo. They’re another netsol who houses domains in client hold for years because they feel they’re entitled.