Sharjil Saleem shill bidding again on Flippa

[ksusha64]

https://flippa.com/9353101-fav-com This is clear example of Sharjil Saleem shill bidding again.
He has been banned from namepros in the past. Stay away from his listings.
Flippa people please deal with this nonsense.

 

[Apprich]

going though whole thread, here is analysis of the case.

1st possiblity
Let say wrong bidder put $160,000 instead $16,000, such a mistake changes $144,000 which i think nobody on earth would honor this mistake unless he is billionaire domainer. and if wrong bidder is not shill bidder then simply would communicate with seller and say it is mistake and ask for removal. so Flippa support would solve the issue, however Flippa support decided to suspend wrong bidder account which seems to be suspicious case here.

2nd possibility
Wrong bidder put wrong bid and did not come back again and let his account suspended? that would be weird... if a person intend to put $16,000 on domain auction, i would only think this is serious domainer bid. And why would serious domainer try to buy LLL.com, put wrong bid, do not come back and let account get suspended? This doesn't make sense. Flippa makes Id verification and serious domainer would not let his account get suspended such easy. At least would try to communicate first. and it's such mistake $144k as nobody can't force you to honor it.

3rd possibility
Wrong bidder is some unknown end user or non-domainer personality, decided to check domain auction platform and put $160,000 bid on domain auction??? we all know how hard to find end user... and convince them to buy domains even for XXX - XXXX prices very diffucult... I would think any of domainer is too naive to think if this is the case or unknown person put his bid for buying domain for $160,000 from auction platform lol.. too good to be true.

so, from case analysis it seems like 1st possibility is more possible than others.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

1st possiblity
Let say wrong bidder put $160,000 instead $16,000, such a mistake changes $144,000 which i think nobody on earth would honor this mistake unless he is billionaire domainer.

The bidder wasn't required to honor their $160,000 bid since it was still under reserve.

 

[offthehandle]

Nope, I have the Exc contract with the Seller for this one.

Thanks for the follow up, good luck on the FAV sale, hope it sells soon. Do you have any idea why is it listed above also?
https://www.namepros.com/posts/6477479/

 

[offthehandle]

https://www.namepros.com/threads/bidding-on-your-own-names-at-namejet.1030874/page-62#post-6462829
https://www.namepros.com/posts/6462809/


Cache is a namejet bidder too, is it the same person on Flippa?

 

[ksusha64]

@ksusha64 based on this situation and another one I observed, and constructively thinking....
It seems to me that disallowing proxies or brokers to sell on Namepro's would solve the problem. Domain owners only. Too many people involved and too much confusion. Wouldn't that solve the problem of one authority person to sell, better communication, reserves not allowed, etc? I realize this is a bit off topic.

That’s a good idea to start with, but there is big problem here as well. This shady guy did not complete transactions clos to $20,000. That’s a serious fraud. It’s not your usual $20 names on here. He is allowed to trade on NamePros which is insane.

 

[offthehandle]

This shady guy did not complete transactions clos to $20,000.

Really?, that much was sold here on this forum you bought and were refused the transaction? That's a lot of money for this forum it seems rare those transactions I have seen in my past 17 months here. I read above some of it but do not fully understand. Was it a brokered name?, then it was pulled back from you twice after you made a firm BIN offer? Then reneged/backed out on the deals? That's what I think I read/understood.

 

[offthehandle]

Did you read what @promo wrote? how this character cheated his client for 15% and also tries to steal other brokers clients? I heard similar story from about 3 brokers already.I guess he did not know the rules" stealing is not allowed". That's his usual fake excuse for everything.

You mention another guy, I will refrain from commenting. The subject was shill bidding at the beginning of the thread. There is no evidence presented though, right?

I looked at your past grievance and see why you are upset, but as pointed out earlier you are reopening a past issue in this thread that was not resolved correctly (sale was not honored) and questioning why the banned member has returned. So I understand your frustration.

I was caught by surprise to see the outcome where whois was changed about the fantacise name thread and the comment in the thread with a clear declaration of ownership. Someone asked if they were brokered or owned, and he said he owned them. Not only did he not own them, he backed out on the sale. I don’t like the name misspelled that way (it is not American English) so personally you saved money imho.

I have 27 years of business experience with hundreds of sales people, independent mfg reps, RE and equip brokers. I have found only a a small percentage are trustworthy. Caveat emptor.

Your word is your bond. You break your word, you malalign your reputation.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/fantasize-com-bid-now.874975/#post-4974614

https://www.namepros.com/threads/fantasize-com-bid-now.874975/page-2#post-4993628

I see your point. Well the list of people I am counting who have dubious business practices seems to keep increasing. I can now count 6 people whose names keep being listed in the domain “news” with interesting ways they play the game.
These threads are educational.

 

[offthehandle]

• Brokering is not a problem on NamePros. There is 1 report a year on average, if that, relating to brokering of domains. There are hundreds of brokers on NamePros doing transactions without any problems.

That's a really good record for brokers Eric. If this forum wasn't operated like you do, it wouldn't be only one report a year. But it's because you run a tight ship here with strict rules, out in the wild it isn't the same. Well managed, my compliments.

Leaving the threads wide open like you do that they have been certainly allow everyone to realize who they are dealing with too.

it's the exact same offense whether that deal was for $100 or $100,000. It makes no difference.

Well put. Integrity has nothing do with the value of the transaction, it is the individual's honor.

All of the issues that happened on NamePros, that we were informed about, have been resolved or expired. Deals backed out of can't typically be resolved but they expire.

That statement confuses me. Does that mean the past trade record is erased and wiped clean once a banned member rejoins with a new username at some arbitrary future date? How does @ksusha64's issue with the subject person's transaction expire? he raised a valid point of several things that occurred in the past though it had nothing to do with the title of this thread. Personally, I am glad he posted that as I would never bid or do business with someone who backs out or does not honor their word- that means forever- I don't give expiration dates to non-payers, deadbeats or dishonorable business people.

 

[equity78]

We suspended the $160k bidder until they confirmed their intended bid price. They contacted us and said they meant to bid $16k rather than $160k. We removed the bid and unsuspended the user.

Thanks for updating things.

 

[offthehandle]

We suspended the $160k bidder until they confirmed their intended bid price. They contacted us and said they meant to bid $16k rather than $160k. We removed the bid and unsuspended the user.

Sure is confusing. Now the FAV sale is suspended and not only that the Seller is Banned.

@FlippaDomains

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Auction now shows 5 bids (+2 pending) https://flippa.com/9353101-fav-com

 

[Chris Hydrick]

5 bids (+3 pending)

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Does it seem as if the previous $15,000 bid by bidder 2 was removed as well as the $160,000 bid by bidder 1? Or just the bid time change after it was reinstated? The three pending bids had processed. The previous bid $15,000 bid said 6 days ago. Both by new members.

Also, the previous bid of $160,000 (which Flippa said the bidder meant $16,000) was from a new bidder. The current $16,000 bid is from a bidder with $4,45k in sales. I thought they would have simply replaced the bidders $160,000 bid with a bid of $16,000 bid rather than what the auction log is now showing. Maybe this is just technical glitches given the abnormality of this auction? Or are they new bids?

I am still very curious as to what the reserve is/was. I understand the possible mistake of entering an extra zero resulting in a $160,000 bid when it was meant to be a $16,000 bid. Though, at the same time, the concern with questionable bids under the reserve, is that if they are near the reserve, and as bidders aren't supposed to know the exact reserve, a bid near the reserve can sometimes validate another bidder into believing the domains value. Thus, it is important (for trickle down effects) that all bids are legit.

If the reserve price was no where near the $160,000 bid (say for instance the reserve was $300,000) then the $160,000 bid would look a lot less suspicious. Even though, there are practices such as lowering the reserve so the next bid meets reserve, which would in essence leverage the $160,000 bid to their advantage. ie bid minimum bid above the next highest bidder, and you will win this domain if no more bids! The difference being the bid below reserve is a "safe bid" and as such isn't binding. Still this is speculative. One would need to determine if the seller utilizes the lowering reserve practice to suggest that route. Thus, Flippa is in an obvious advantage position to investigate this, given they have access to the reserve price, sellers history, and other facts we don't have access to.