Sedo wants me to unlock the domain and send them the auth code?

[poker_bears]

I just sold a domain via Sedo for high $$$. They want me to unlock the domain and send them the auth code. That doesn't sound very safe. Per their TOS, they're supposed to provide escrow.

A few months ago I sold a domain through them for high $$$$. I pushed the domain to their broker, they pushed it to the seller. I basically told them this is how it will work with this sale as well, or there is no sale.

Is this how they operate with small sales? I'm considering pulling all of my domains off Sedo.

Simply unlocking the domain and sending them the auth code seems really REALLY unsafe....

 

[Bearded Goat]

@discobull ..... I have myself offered to push a domain to sedo without changing whois details as I had a buyer who we were waiting and waiting and waiting to reply if they had a godaddy account and sedo said no. So while technically you can avoid the lock, sedo does not seem to like to do this either. Every sale I have had with a godaddy domain where buyer wanted domain elsewhere, I have had to provide the code for transfer.

 

[discobull]

@discobull ..... I have myself offered to push a domain to sedo without changing whois details as I had a buyer who we were waiting and waiting and waiting to reply if they had a godaddy account and sedo said no. So while technically you can avoid the lock, sedo does not seem to like to do this either. Every sale I have had with a godaddy domain where buyer wanted domain elsewhere, I have had to provide the code for transfer.

I understand, and I'm not debating that. I just wanted to clarify for those that don't know it that you can in fact move domains from one account to another without triggering a 60 day lock.

 

[Domainace]

When doing a sale via Escrow, you always push the domain to the Escrow account, then they push it to the buyer.

Not entirely true. The last name I sold via Escrow.com was unlocked and transferred directly to the buyer, as you are doing with Sedo. The only difference is that Escrow is a USA bonded service, whereas Sedo (as far as I know) is not.

If you trust Sedo enough to push names through their account, then I don't see much difference between that and transferring direct to the buyer while Sedo holds the funds. Pretty standard stuff. If you don't trust Sedo to handle this, then you probably shouldn't be using their service.

 

[m0ss]

There used to be no lock on a domain when you push a domain at Godaddy. Recently they have instituted a 10 day lock to prevent domain theft.

 

[carob]

If you trust Sedo enough to push names through their account, then I don't see much difference between that and transferring direct to the buyer while Sedo holds the funds. Pretty standard stuff. If you don't trust Sedo to handle this, then you probably shouldn't be using their service.

I don't think the issue is whether you trust Sedo, it's whether you trust that the buyer will take control of the name in a way that Sedo can verify so that Sedo can then pay you. And that the buyer will do so in a timely way - some have trouble with transfers and even don't collect names they paid for.

If the buyer delays taking control of the name, payment to you is delayed until they do.

If buyer's details do not appear in whois, or yours stay there, Sedo can choose not to pay you.

BTW, someone on here caught an expiring name dropped by Sedo's transfer/escrow service after an 8k reported sale. The domain was then happily sold again for 8k. And the other day I saw a domain sell in a live auction at Sedo where the whois showed Sedo's transfer service as the registrant during the auction.

 

[discobull]

BTW, someone on here caught an expiring name dropped by Sedo's transfer/escrow service after an 8k reported sale. The domain was then happily sold again for 8k. And the other day I saw a domain sell in a live auction at Sedo where the whois showed Sedo's transfer service as the registrant during the auction.

I don't know if you're talking about someone else's sale, but that exact thing happened to me just a couple of weeks ago. What's interesting to me about that scenario is that the only explanation I can imagine for Sedo escrow dropping a domain is that some buyer apparently paid $8k for a domain that he never bothered to collect ( If anyone can suggest another explanation, I'd love to hear it ). I guess your point is that since Sedo was in possession of the domain, the seller got paid and that that would not have happened if the seller had been transferring the domain directly to the buyer since the buyer would never have received it. My own experience, however, suggests that that isn't the case.

I once sold a domain for $5k where the buyer paid Sedo and I was supposed to transfer the domain directly to the buyer, but after 2 weeks of waiting and repeatedly badgering Sedo I still hadn't received a transfer request. According to the Sedo escrow agent, the buyer was claiming that he was in fact initiating the transfer and even resubmitting it repeatedly but that I wasn't authorizing the request. Since the transfer in question was from GoDaddy to Moniker, I attempted to transfer another of my domains between those two registrars to see if there were any problems. There weren't. My test transfer happened smoothly within an hour. The paranoid in me was suspecting that the buyer had had a change of heart and was deliberately trying to sabotage the deal so that he could get his money back and blame me for not delivering the domain, but I can't know for sure if that's what was going on.

In any case, what happened next is that Sedo asked me to change the email address in the whois to their own address so that they could approve the transfer request themselves. Of course, they didn't get one either since none was ever being emailed. Once they were able to confirm that the problem was on the buyer's side, Sedo asked me to push the domain into their own account after which I did get paid. So yes, there was a delay of a couple of weeks before I got my money, but I didn't end up getting screwed. I think that once Sedo gets paid, it's a pretty sure thing that the seller is going to get paid too no matter what. I agree that it would be better if Sedo took possession of the domain 100% of the time, but I'm not at the point yet where I worry that not doing so presents a major problem. I'd be interested to hear of stories that suggest otherwise...

 

[poker_bears]

I don't think the issue is whether you trust Sedo, it's whether you trust that the buyer will take control of the name in a way that Sedo can verify so that Sedo can then pay you.

Thank you. I'm stunned at some of the replies in this thread saying that you should simply trust Sedo. You can absolutely trust Sedo if you push the domain directly to them. If you blindly unlock the domain and email the auth code, there are numerous ways you can get ripped off. I'm amazed that people don't see that.

I'm not going to list them all, but the classic scam is that the buyer takes the domain, changes the who-is back to the seller's info and claims they never received the domain. Buyer gets refund plus domain. This is impossible if you push directly to the Escrow service as the seller has proof that the domain has been delivered.

 

[discobull]

I'm not going to list them all, but the classic scam is that the buyer takes the domain, changes the who-is back to the seller's info and claims they never received the domain. Buyer gets refund plus domain.

I'm skeptical that that could be pulled off so easily. Do you know of any instance where that scam was successful, or are you just concerned about it because it seems possible?

 

[poker_bears]

I'm skeptical that that could be pulled off so easily. Do you know of any instance where that scam was successful, or are you just concerned about it because it seems possible?

I'm not here to do your homework. This should be common sense...

 

[discobull]

I'm not here to do your homework. This should be common sense...

I'm guessing that your gratuitous rudeness is due to the fact that no, you don't know of any instance that this scam was successful, but that you lack the character to acknowledge this fact. Noted.

 

[poker_bears]

I'm guessing that your gratuitous rudeness is due to the fact that no, you don't know of any instance that this scam was successful, but that you lack the character to acknowledge this fact. Noted.

Hey, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, it's 3am and I'm up with a sick toddler here.

That said, figure it out on your own. Just wow...

 

[discobull]

Hey, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, it's 3am and I'm up with a sick toddler here.

That said, figure it out on your own. Just wow...

What's to figure out? You've either heard of a case or you haven't. I'm not a mind reader and since I've never heard of a case myself despite researching it, I'd be interested to know if such a thing has ever actually happened. I'm sure other people would be interested too so I'm not sure why you're reluctant to answer.

Anyway, good luck with the toddler.

 

[carob]

You've either heard of a case or you haven't. I'm not a mind reader and since I've never heard of a case myself despite researching it, I'd be interested to know if such a thing has ever actually happened.

I'd also be interested to know - I don't know of a known case either but that does not mean it hasn't happened or couldn't happen. There are threads on here about people actually getting scammed on Paypal and the risks (are there cases?) of being screwed selling via Escrow.com. Nothing stops scammers reading threads like this.

Really this thread is about risk - I prefer to get paid as fast as possible with as little risk as possible, but others may be ok with accepting more risk and responsibility and slower payment. I've also sometimes had things go very slowly due to incorrect authcodes and having to re-request, regenerate or resubmit authcodes.

BTW to change the registrant name on a .co.uk domain costs £12 so changing it to Sedo and then the buyer's name would cost £24 and similar could apply with some other extensions, so I wouldn't assume all extensions work the same.

Could this thread be made sticky?

 

[discobull]

I'd also be interested to know - I don't know of a known case either but that does not mean it hasn't happened or couldn't happen. There are threads on here about people actually getting scammed on Paypal and the risks (are there cases?) of being screwed selling via Escrow.com. Nothing stops scammers reading threads like this.

Really this thread is about risk - I prefer to get paid as fast as possible with as little risk as possible, but others may be ok with accepting more risk and responsibility and slower payment. I've also sometimes had things go very slowly due to incorrect authcodes and having to re-request, regenerate or resubmit authcodes.

BTW to change the registrant name on a .co.uk domain costs £12 so changing it to Sedo and then the buyer's name would cost £24 and similar could apply with some other extensions, so I wouldn't assume all extensions work the same.

Could this thread be made sticky?

I agree that it would be better if all domains went into escrow, but the reality that we live in is that that option is not available on some deals handled by most of the marketplaces. It's not just Sedo that operates this way, it's also Afternic and DomainNameSales and Flippa, etc.. So, before deciding to forego income in the interest of avoiding risk, I think it's worth exploring whether the real world risk is as high as the perceived risk. That's why I'm asking whether these seemingly possible scams ever actually happen, and, if so, to what extent.

I think it's also worth remembering that in the case where these scams were successful and money was refunded and domains essentially stolen, that in addition to our own losses Sedo et al would also be losing out on their commissions. That suggests to me that if this was really a widespread problem, these marketplaces would no longer be conducting business this way since it would be hurting their bottom line.

At the end of the day, I'm not happy to be put in the position of having to deliver domains this way, but since alternative options are not really available and since I've so far managed to successfully complete many transactions this way without incurring any losses, to me it's worth taking the risk. Others can decide for themselves whether they feel the same way...

 

[DNVantage]

If you blindly unlock the domain and email the auth code, there are numerous ways you can get ripped off.

I'm not going to list them all, but the classic scam is that the buyer takes the domain, changes the who-is back to the seller's info and claims they never received the domain. Buyer gets refund plus domain. This is impossible if you push directly to the Escrow service as the seller has proof that the domain has been delivered.

This is too easy a scam and if it has not been happened/reported, it will. Even if it has happened a few times, which escrow service is going to blog about this.

I have raised this before in First time Escrow.com transaction, Need help!!

Take the other side, whats preventing a rogue seller from giving the auth code to the buyer but having the domain transferred to someone else and claiming buyer transferred the domain away?

For a sale of $xxx to low $x,xxx, which escrow service or bank ( based on complain from an escrow service ) will put time and effort to prove the buyer has the domain or the seller did not transfer the domain to the buyer. AFAIK, In countries like USA, banks favor the buyer and will revert the amount back to their card unless the escrow service can prove the buyer got the goods. This probably is the case with other developed countries.

For high value sales, say $10K+, I doubt an escrow service will ask they seller to provide EPP directly to a buyer. So why skip this responsibility for low value sales, when fees charged are same percentage.

From the replies in this thread, it is clear, many seller's are comfortable with this, but it does not mean this might not happen. Guess it is about how much risk one wants to take.

I can understand all tlds cannot be escrowed but if an escrow service does not escrow a domain that can be escrowed (specially .com/.net/.org domains), to me it is like saying that only the buyer can be trusted, which is pretty much insulting the seller. This by itself is offending.

This is a question, sellers need to ask themselves, why are they OK with this? Why do they not insist with escrow provider, the domain also be escrowed ( for tlds possible ). Does the escrow provider not want your sales? This is a major point and the escrow provider that always does domain escrow by default for same/reasonable fees, will see seller preferring their platform.

As for me, I am not rich enough to take this risk, I will decline the sale to an unknown end-user if escrow service does not care to provide domain escrow.

Maybe seller should get 50% discount on fees when domain is also not escrowed.

 

[discobull]

This is too easy a scam and if it has not been happened/reported, it will. Even if it has happened a few times, which escrow service is going to blog about this.

That makes sense. Now how do you explain the fact that no seller has been motivated to blog about how he's been screwed by this flawed system? How about the fact that nobody on namepros has ever posted about it? Seems odd to me...

Take the other side, whats preventing a rogue seller from giving the auth code to the buyer but having the domain transferred to someone else and claiming buyer transferred the domain away?

This can't happen. First of all there's a 60 day lock after a transfer so the domain can't be transferred away, it can only be pushed away. What would be the benefit of pushing it away when the seller could just claim that account #1 belonged to the buyer instead of pushing it to account #2? Secondly, Sedo gives the authorization code to the buyer without informing the seller of which registrar will be receiving the domain. This means that in order to pull off this scam, the seller would have to guess which registrar will be getting the domain and then place the transfer request before the buyer does. Of course, assuming the seller guessed correctly, the actual buyer's transfer request would then be rejected since there's already a transfer in progress in which case he'd likely inform Sedo about the problem.

Sorry, but if this scam was as easy to pull off as people seem to think, I suspect we'd be hearing about it a lot instead of never.

As for me, I am not rich enough to take this risk,

And you're not likely to get rich if you keep passing up on sales.

 

[DNVantage]

I am not saying this is a common problem. It is a low chance but high risk for a new domainer. How do you expect a new domainer to react to this if they happen to lose their proceeds due to this loop hole? Just say, 'aww bad luck'?

This issue is not about one escrow provider. All major escrow providers have established their reputation and are trust worthy but there is a limit to what they can do when a buyer claims to not have received the domain or seller themselves transfers the domain. Simple solution is to provide domain escrow always, for tlds where it is possible.

Now how do you explain the fact that no seller has been motivated to blog about how he's been screwed by this flawed system? How about the fact that nobody on namepros has ever posted about it?

Not all sellers are domainers.... not all domainers are on NP. Someone tried to scam me out of a domain years ago, at that time, I did not care enough to find a forum to report it. Just cause it has never been reported does not mean it has not happened.

This can't happen.

The keyword here is CLAIM. Buyer or seller can claim anything they like. Think the scenario over. You will figure out how a rouge seller can claim the buyer transferred the domain away ( to a registrar other than intended ) or how a buyer can claim they did not receive the domain because it was already transferred away.

if this scam was as easy to pull off as people seem to think, I suspect we'd be hearing about it a lot instead of never.

Please do not mix easy with frequency of occurrence.

Just like accepting payment for domain sales by paypal? Every buyer can request payment reversal for domain sales but do most do? Domain sellers still 'risk' accepting by paypal. High risk does not mean high occurance. Just cause it is not happening frequently or not reported enough, does not mean it is not easy.

Before downloading became common, I used to ship my software on CD. For urgent requests, I used to ship before receiving payment. Over few years I had exactly only one person who did not pay up after receiving the software. It was commonly known among my buyers, I ship before receiving the payment so It would be easy for a new buyer to request urgent delivery and never pay. Just cause something is easy does not meant it will happen frequently and does not mean it will get reported.

Maybe escrow providers should ask the seller to send the EPP to the buyer for high value sales, perhaps we will see if it happens 'easily/frequently' or not

And you're not likely to get rich if you keep passing up on sales.

I keep passing up on lottery tickets. Haven't bough one in over twenty years, I guess I will never get very very rich. I am not going to pickup bungee jumping either. ( Skydiving, I am fine with )

You are comfortable with certain risk, good for you, it does not make the raised point wrong or that it will not happen. Bottom line is, it will matter to the person it happens to, and it may matter a lot to domainers who cannot afford such a loss.

If escrow services charge fees for escrow, they should provide domain escrow, at least for tlds like .com or be explicit like escrow.com which clearly says they will charge extra for it always.

If this was not an important point for some of the sellers and my guess is preferred, it would not be raised at all. It has already been raised twice at NP in last few weeks.

 

[discobull]

Just like accepting payment for domain sales by paypal? Every buyer can request payment reversal for domain sales but do most do?

Obviously it doesn't happen with Paypal every time, but it happens enough that it gets reported, right? I mean, it's not that hard to find a report from someone saying that they were screwed on a paypal deal. OTOH, I'd still like someone to show me a case of someone getting burned on an escrow deal. You're right, just because there's no report of it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's also true, that big foot might exist even though no evidence has ever been produced to support his existence. The question I have is why would anyone prefer to believe that something is real even though no evidence for it exists? Additionally, why would anyone make business decisions based on an unfounded belief?

You keep insisting that this sort of scam is easy. So where's the proof of that?

I keep passing up on lottery tickets. Haven't bough one in over twenty years, I guess I will never get very very rich.

I think the evidence suggests that you have your analogy backwards. When you buy a lottery ticket you're hoping to defy the odds. Since the odds of getting scammed on Sedo are minimal ( possibly 0 ), when you turn down a sale on their marketplace you're also playing against the odds just as you would with a lottery ticket except that in this case you're betting that you will win by staying out of the game.

 

[Domainace]

The keyword here is CLAIM. Buyer or seller can claim anything they like.

The keyword here is escrow, as in Sedo holds the funds in escrow. The buyer can claim anything, sure. But Sedo isn't just going to hand the money back if the seller is disputing it. We are not talking about Paypal here.

In any case, we are talking about a sale in the 100s of dollars. This is worrying about losing a bit to the occasional scammer while losing many times more in sales by being intractable.

 

[DNVantage]

@discobull You are focusing on one escrow provider and odds.

To me this is a low chance but high risk common problem with all escrow providers who do not escrow domains, and not one escrow provider.

I agree with you about the odds of getting scammed are minimal, but tell that to the seller who gets scammed. Perhaps it will be comforting to the seller in hindsight.

To me it is simple, if escrow providers are charging fee for escrow, the domain should also be escrowed always and not sometimes. It is not a big deal to ask for when you are paying for it.

 

[discobull]

@discobull
I agree with you about the odds of getting scammed are minimal, but tell that to the seller who gets scammed. Perhaps it will be comforting to the seller in hindsight.

You're making an emotional argument. I understand that it doesn't feel good to get scammed, but in this case a) there's so far no evidence that the scamming is even possible and b) even if it is possible it wouldn't necessarily mean that turning down deals to avoid the potential risk is a smart choice.

At this point, I've done a lot of deals through escrow and have been scammed exactly never. If my next deal went sour, I would for sure feel bad about it, but then I'd remember how much money I've made so far by taking this "risk" and quickly realize that I'm still way ahead of the game for having made that choice. To me, what's being proposed in this thread is the equivalent of Walmart declaring that they're no longer going to allow the public entry into their stores so that they can thereby avoid the threat of shoplifting. I think that if that ever happened that most people would quickly recognize it as a silly and irrational decision. The same applies here. If you think you can make more money by avoiding deals that involve this sort of escrow, then that's the right decision to make. By contrast, if that decision is costing you more money than it saves you, then I think that it properly qualifies as a rather poor business decision.

 

[DNVantage]

@Domainace If you see one of my previous post in this thread ... In some countries, if buyer files a claim of not receiving goods, the bank will revert the CC charge, unless the seller ( in this case, escrow provider) can prove goods (domain) has been given to the buyer, which is not always possible where seller is asked to give EPP to the buyer.

As for the amount of sale, for someone in an underdeveloped country 100s is a big amount. Maybe to a struggling seller in a developed country, 100s might make a difference.

So I guess it is ok ... if this happens to a seller, to whom it might matter ... because it does not matter to most domainers? So this is just about, 'numbers' of successful sales, rather than getting the domain escrow service you are paying for?

To me, this is not only about risk but also about getting the service I am being charged for. I guess this is too much too ask for?

 

[DNVantage]

@discobull You are looking at it from a viewpoint of a successful seller or someone who has financial ability to suffer through a rare risk, if it happens.

So is it ok for this to happen to a new seller or a struggling seller, unlucky to suffer this?

My viewpoint is simple, why is this service not provided always by all escrow providers who charge for it. ( for tlds where it is possible ).

If an established seller has no problem with risk ... why does an established seller even need escrow services, why not go all the way take 100% risk and transfer the domain to the buyer and take payment afterwards.

Are the fees based on level of acceptable risk?

If an established seller is willing to take this/other risk, maybe they should be given a discount on fees? or escrow providers should just be clear about always charging extra for domain escrow.

The whole point of escrow is to remove risk from the process. Why is this/some risk acceptable? Is it too much to ask for a standardized domain escrow process for common tlds like .com?

 

[discobull]

@discobull You are looking at it from a viewpoint of a successful seller or someone who has financial ability to suffer through a rare risk, if it happens.

So is it ok for this to happen to a new seller or a struggling seller, who happens to be unlucky to suffer this?

My viewpoint is simple, why is this service not provided always by all escrow providers who charge for it. ( for tlds where it is possible ).

If an established seller has no problem with risk ... why does an established seller even need escrow services, why not go all the way take 100% risk and transfer the domain to the buyer and take payment afterwards.

Are the fees based on level of acceptable risk?

If a established seller is willing to take this/other risk, maybe they should be give a discount on fees? or escrow providers should just be clear about charging extra for domain escrow always.

The whole point of escrow is to remove risk from the process. Why is this/some risk acceptable?

You're asking questions that assume that it's been proven that a real risk exists when in fact that has yet to be demonstrated. To expand on a previous analogy, some of your questions sound to me like asking why I'd be willing to go camping in a forest at the risk of being attacked by Big Foot. You first have to show me that big foot exists before your questions begin to make sense.

In any case, risks are always relative and the sensible course is the one that yields the greatest reward for the least risk. You clearly understand that since you're proposing a process that you consider less risky. What you're not mentioning is that even if you were to put the domains in escrow, you would still be taking a risk since it's always hypothetically possible that Sedo could turn around and screw you after taking possession of the domain. If we're to follow your logic, once we agree that a risk exists hypothetically it means that we now should take steps to eliminate that risk altogether. In this case, that would mean forgoing escrow altogether thereby leaving you with asking for upfront payment as your only option.

So why are you willing to use a full escrow service if the risk exists that Sedo or another escrow service could cheat you? My guess is that you'd answer that you're willing to take that risk because the evidence suggests that Sedo is a trustworthy company based on the fact that there is nobody complaining that they've been scammed by them. All I'm saying is that the same kind of judgments can be used to assess the amount of risk inherent in transacting escrow deals that involve delivering the domains directly to the buyer. If after thousands of transactions nobody has yet come forward to complain about a loss, then how real is the risk?

As far as the struggling seller question, the math is the same regardless of whether a seller is established or not so that issue is irrelevant.

Why wouldn't I assume 100% of the risk by dealing directly with the buyer? I'm not sure I even understand that question. There's a big difference between being willing to take a 50% chance ( made up number for illustration purposes ) of getting screwed by dealing with a buyer directly vs taking a .00001% chance of getting screwed by using escrow. That point seems self-evident to me.

To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of the status quo. I'm just like everyone else on here in the sense that I'd prefer that escrow companies take possession of the domains in every transaction. Unfortunately they don't currently do that so we have to deal with what is actually available rather than what we'd ideally like. So yeah, I think we should continue to push for a change, but in the meantime I don't think it makes sense to overstate how much risk is actually involved because that just leads to making poor choices that end up hurting us more than they benefit us.

 

[DNVantage]

hypothetically possible that Sedo could turn around and screw you after taking possession of the domain.

To me, this is not about Sedo or any one escrow provider. Sedo and other major escrow providers have established their reputation.

To me, a standardized process takes precedence over everything else. A standardized process removes ambiguity and reduces risk. A standardized process makes things easier.

Personally, as much as I don't like it, If I absolutely wanted to complete the sale and if it is absolutely required, I would provide my EPP to an escrow provider I trust, for small value sales but it would be a rare occurrence.

I trust Sedo, because they have earned the reputation.

I would not give EPP to every escrow provider or to an unknown end user.

You first have to show me that big foot exists before your questions begin to make sense.

To provide Big foot as analogy is smart but I can't relate to it directly for this scenario. Maybe it is a matter of perception? I can't visualize big foot but I can visualize the risk here.

You're asking questions that assume that it's been proven that a real risk exists when in fact that has yet to be demonstrated.

If there is no risk, than escrow providers would ask every seller to provide EPP directly to buyer, for all .com sales of any value, high or low.

I am not looking at this problem from just my viewpoint or from your viewpoint or from a seasoned sellers viewpoint. I am looking at this from 'any/every' sellers viewpoint. Why should a new seller have doubts or why should a struggling seller have concerns if providing EPP might lead to problems. Why did @poker_bears have doubts and even the need to open this thread? because @poker_bears considers it a risk?

These doubts and risks could be removed easily with a simple standard that all .com ( or any tld that can be ) will always be escrowed.

risks are always relative and the sensible course is the one that yields the greatest reward for the least risk.

Why wouldn't I assume 100% of the risk by dealing directly with the buyer?

Exactly! You are comfortable with a certain level of risk. Someone will be more comfortable with higher risk than you and some will be less comfortable than you!

This is why having a standardized process where a domain is always escrowed matters. If a domain is always escrowed, it will take out ambiguity for everyone, irrespective of each sellers risk appetite.

To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of the status quo. I'm just like everyone else on here in the sense that I'd prefer that escrow companies take possession of the domains in every transaction.

"every transaction." Nice to read that That is all I have been asking also.