auctions Task.ai did not get paid for again

[equity78]

No one wants to pay for Task.ai apparently. Task.ai was the high closing auction the previous two months at Dynadot’s .ai expiring auctions. Task.ai closed at $84,000, and it closed at $78,777 the month before. Igor Gabrielan was kind enough to let me know that …

Read More

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Last month Vincent Cate said they were going to be charging 5% deposit fee and 5% non paying fee. I wonder if they are collecting these?

I'm not sure if this is as much of a .AI issue as it is a @Dynadot auction issue.

There is a known loophole on how to lock down premium dynadot domains for cheap, and dynadot is seemingly ignoring it!

https://www.namepros.com/threads/why-esotalk-org-on-dynadot-current-bid-1m.1324078/

Why would anybody risk risking spending $$$ at Dynadot auction, when they could just spend $5 on a dynadot throwaway account, and pay the roll back price?

This seems like dynadot punishing those who play fairly, and incentivizing those who are willing to participate in roll back schemes.

Any plans on fixing this, or does dynadot recommend auction participants create throw away dynadot accounts to lock up their desired domain?

Spoiler: Dynadot's unofficial response:

 

[silentg]

Dynadot used to have issue with this. They used to force 2nd bidder to pay. Do they still have this policy?


Vince posted on Twitter that he's holding the bidder's other domains hostage until he pays.

 

[equity78]

@Caleb Tweed

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Vince posted on Twitter that he's holding the bidder's other domains hostage until he pays.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1780357675651334620

 

[MKA]

Dynadot used to have issue with this. They used to force 2nd bidder to pay. Do they still have this policy?

I'm not sure, but it would be difficult to enforce.

Let's say you're in a bidding war against a shill bidder.

Serious Bidder 1: $20,000
Serious Bidder 2: $25,000
Shill Bidder: $26,000
Serious Bidder 2: $30,000
Shill Bidder: $35,000
Serious Bidder 2: $40,000
Shill Bidder: $45,000
Serious Bidder 2: $50,000
Shill Bidder: $55,000

In other words, your second highest bid is $50,000, but if it wasn't for the shill bidding you would've paid $25,000. You're effectively getting scammed out of $25,000.

The best they could do would be to eliminate the shill-bidder from the auction list entirely and then go through the list of asking the bidders if they want to buy the domain for their previous bid. In the list above Bidder 2 would be asked to buy it for $25,000, and if he rejected Bidder 1 would be offered to buy it for $20,000 and so on.

The problem here is that it's going to affect their bottom line, because they make a % off the sales. So they'd rather try to sell it for $45,000 than $25,000. So they're unlikely to implement this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1780357675651334620

Who's being held hostage here? Is it the winner or the second guy?

If it's the winner than that's fine, if it's the second guy then it's a problem. Because a shill-bidding account is not going to have any domains.

 

[equity78]

I'm not sure, but it would be difficult to enforce.

Let's say you're in a bidding war against a shill bidder.

Serious Bidder 1: $20,000
Serious Bidder 2: $25,000
Shill Bidder: $26,000
Serious Bidder 2: $30,000
Shill Bidder: $35,000
Serious Bidder 2: $40,000
Shill Bidder: $45,000
Serious Bidder 2: $50,000
Shill Bidder: $55,000

In other words, your second highest bid is $50,000, but if it wasn't for the shill bidding you would've paid $25,000. You're effectively getting scammed out of $25,000.

The best they could do would be to eliminate the shill-bidder from the auction list entirely and then go through the list of asking the bidders if they want to buy the domain for their previous bid. In the list above Bidder 2 would be asked to buy it for $25,000, and if he rejected Bidder 1 would be offered to buy it for $20,000 and so on.

The problem here is that it's going to affect their bottom line, because they make a % off the sales. So they'd rather try to sell it for $45,000 than $25,000. So they're unlikely to implement this.


Who's being held hostage here? Is it the winner or the second guy?

If it's the winner than that's fine, if it's the second guy then it's a problem. Because a shill-bidding account is not going to have any domains.

Agreed you would have to pull all the shill bids like GoDaddy does when there are people who game their auctions.

 

[equity78]

Who's being held hostage here? Is it the winner or the second guy?

If it's the winner than that's fine, if it's the second guy then it's a problem. Because a shill-bidding account is not going to have any domains.

The winner

 

[bmugford]

Seems like there is some monkey business going on with these auctions.

Brad

 

[pb]

Seems like there is some monkey business going on with these auctions.

One could say, the bidding seems artificial.

 

[D Haynes]

I'm not sure, but it would be difficult to enforce.

Let's say you're in a bidding war against a shill bidder.

Serious Bidder 1: $20,000
Serious Bidder 2: $25,000
Shill Bidder: $26,000
Serious Bidder 2: $30,000
Shill Bidder: $35,000
Serious Bidder 2: $40,000
Shill Bidder: $45,000
Serious Bidder 2: $50,000
Shill Bidder: $55,000

In other words, your second highest bid is $50,000, but if it wasn't for the shill bidding you would've paid $25,000. You're effectively getting scammed out of $25,000.

The best they could do would be to eliminate the shill-bidder from the auction list entirely and then go through the list of asking the bidders if they want to buy the domain for their previous bid. In the list above Bidder 2 would be asked to buy it for $25,000, and if he rejected Bidder 1 would be offered to buy it for $20,000 and so on.

The problem here is that it's going to affect their bottom line, because they make a % off the sales. So they'd rather try to sell it for $45,000 than $25,000. So they're unlikely to implement this.


Who's being held hostage here? Is it the winner or the second guy?

If it's the winner than that's fine, if it's the second guy then it's a problem. Because a shill-bidding account is not going to have any domains.

Agreed you would have to pull all the shill bids like GoDaddy does when there are people who game their auctions.

I'm not sure what the correct way of dealing with shills is.

Do you do it as Dynadot currently are by offering (not forcing) the second highest bidder the name at the higher price or risk being gamed like GD by removing all the shills bids (which in a lot of the GD auctions would make the name almost free).

Some marketplaces require store credit to be used in some way or maybe have a credit card on account that can be charged.

Either way, someone somewhere usually loses out.

 

[equity78]

I'm not sure what the correct way of dealing with shills is.

Do you do it as Dynadot currently are by offering (not forcing) the second highest bidder the name at the higher price or risk being gamed like GD by removing all the shills bids (which in a lot of the GD auctions would make the name almost free).

Some marketplaces require store credit to be used in some way or maybe have a credit card on account that can be charged.

Either way, someone somewhere usually loses out.

Within the domain industry it really is a question that is one for the ages. No one seems to be in agreement from platform to platform. There is no almost universal agreement between domainers, but it would be nice if these companies got together and try to do something on a collective, universal basis.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

There is a known loophole on how to lock down premium dynadot domains for cheap, and dynadot is seemingly ignoring it!

Looks like I'm wearing the dunce cap on this one.

@Caleb Tweed sent me a DM saying he tried have the EsoTalk thread reopened so he could reply publicly. Related to roll backs, he said:

I just wanted to mention that we [dynadot] do NOT do a rollback system for our Auctions, so the second place bidder still needs to pay their highest bid if they want the domain. We do this system to prevent people scamming the system with the way you mentioned.

While I am glad to know the rollback scam is blocked by Dynadot, the latter (dynadot profiting from the shill bid) isn't any better. ie:

In other words, your second highest bid is $50,000, but if it wasn't for the shill bidding you would've paid $25,000. You're effectively getting scammed out of $25,000.

I love dynadot. It's our preferred registrar holding thousands of our domains. But I haven't been able to bring myself to participate in their auctions. Watching domains like EsoTalk.org finish over $1million doesn't give me the feeling that dynadot has much oversight on bidder verified funds.

Why not require preloaded funds to bid?

 

[silentg]

NameCheap had similar policy of asking 2nd bidder to pay. Posting on Twitter with screenshots of auctions got them to change but It took more than 1 year to get them to change their policy. Now they run the auction again.

Ai registry Vince said they don’t remove shill bids where the shill bidder wasn’t the winner.

Not a good policy at Ai registry and at Dynadot.

 

[sashilover]

Maybe Dynadot is the one who placed those shill bids to push the price as high as possible.

 

[Caleb Tweed]

I love dynadot. It's our preferred registrar holding thousands of our domains. But I haven't been able to bring myself to participate in their auctions. Watching domains like EsoTalk.org finish over $1million doesn't give me the feeling that dynadot has much oversight on bidder verified funds.

Why not require preloaded funds to bid?

So for the .AI Auctions, the bidding system works the same as the .AI Registry in that we do require at minimum prepay of $100 (or %5 of the total bid, whichever's greater) to be put into the account, and the second bidder does not get the option to pay like our regular auctions.

Regarding our regular auctions, when you say "preloaded funds", do you mean for the user to have their entire potential bid preloaded onto the account already, or just a minimum like the AI Auctions?

 

[D Haynes]

So for the .AI Auctions, the bidding system works the same as the .AI Registry in that we do require at minimum prepay of $100 (or %5 of the total bid, whichever's greater) to be put into the account, and the second bidder does not get the option to pay like our regular auctions.

Regarding our regular auctions, when you say "preloaded funds", do you mean for the user to have their entire potential bid preloaded onto the account already, or just a minimum like the AI Auctions?

So for the $84K bid the user had to prepay $4.2K into his account funds? Is that then forfeit if the ballance isn't payed?

 

[Caleb Tweed]

So for the $84K bid the user had to prepay $4.2K into his account funds? Is that then forfeit if the ballance isn't payed?

That's correct!

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Regarding our regular auctions, when you say "preloaded funds", do you mean for the user to have their entire potential bid preloaded onto the account already, or just a minimum like the AI Auctions?

I'm glad you asked, It'd be great to have a transparent conversation with a registrar about this.

Respectfully, I think a 5% minimum ie the AI auction requirement is a joke, on top of the even bigger joke: $5 throw away accounts.

Here's my reasoning:

Domain auctions can be intense! -- chasing reserves, bidding wars, extended auction times, domain attachment, buying for a friend, and who knows maybe even squirrels. Buying domains can be just as addicting or profitable as sports betting; auctionHouse is the casino, the bidders are the gamblers.

Casinos issue lines of credit, but do they allow you to bet on todays superbowl extending you the option of:

(a) Fund 100% of your wager within 48 hours after the superbowl ends to keep your account
OR
(b) Forfit your 5% deposit if you fail to fund your wager, and still keep your account.
OR
(c) Forfit your $5 account if you fail to fund your wager.

///

I've won my fair share of domain auction bidding wars that I wish I hadn't won. Had I been given the option to forfit 5% the next day instead of paying the full amount, there are times I gladly would have accepted the insurance option.

Within the domain industry it really is a question that is one for the ages. No one seems to be in agreement from platform to platform.

IMO, I think nameSilo has the best handle on verified bidder funds. Here's a look at two different namesilo accounts, with an example auction:

Spoiler: Bidding Limits Explained

Bidding on expired domains requires an adequate amount of Account funds to cover your bid, the renewal cost of this domain, as well as enough funds to pay for all of your active auctions (and their renewals) in which you have the current highest bid.

The table above shows the following information:

• Account Balance: Your current total account funds balance
• Credit Limit: The credit limit your account currently qualifies to receive. This limit is based upon a number of factors, most notably how long you have been a NameSilo customer. This number is automatically computed and cannot be negotiated. The longer you are a customer with order history (no chargebacks, disputed transactions, etc.), the higher your credit limit will be.
• Outstanding Bids: The total amount of bids you have submitted plus renewal fees for all expired domain auctions for which you are currently the leader (not including this auction).
• Domain Renewal: The renewal price for the domain associated with this auction.
• Bid Range: A range of the bid amounts you can submit for this auction:
  • The low end of the range is determined by the current bid price. Higher current bids require higher bid intervals.
  • The bid range is the amount ranging from the current bid price to the amount that is your account balance plus your credit limit, minus the renewal fee and the outstanding balances (your active bids in other auctions). To increase the max amount available for bidding you can add account funds.

Account #1:

Account #2:

For the FraudHunter auction:

Account #1: Can bid up to $5,000 before having to prefund the account with 100% of their desired bid.
Account #2: Can bid up to $209.88 (Account Balance - Outstanding Bids) before having to deposit more funds or wait until the outstanding bids expire, to bid more than $209.88.

This makes the bidder feel like the auction house has a good handle on bidder verified funds, prevents the marketplace from profiting on bids from unverified funding, and ensures a very high number of auctions are paid for. Going back to the casino analogy, imagine how fair it would be if you found out you were playing poker against somebody who promised to pay for their chips but never went back and paid for them!

The credit limit system allows:
-- Credit limits are earned, developed, or limited to account funds.
-- New account bids have to be 100% funded prior to bidding.
-- Nonpayment reduces and/or cancels available account credit

The 5% system allows:
-- Credit is 20X your account funds
-- No benefit for established accounts
-- Nonpayment forfits your your 5% bid deposit.

The $5 system allows:
-- Unlimited credit?
-- New accounts require at least $5 in account spending
-- Nonpayment forfits your ability to bid with that account?

@Caleb Tweed -- For discussion purposes, please try and convince me why the $5 or 5% system is superior.

---

---

When I saw the thread asking why the EsoTalk.org auction was over $1million, it was shocking how namePros members were seemingly raising more red flags than anybody working at Dynadot.

@Caleb Tweed Did EsoTalk.org get paid for? It just seems that the top auctions of the week should be monitored, with some sort of belief that million dollar bids are verified or held accountable to some degree.

@Caleb Tweed -- I know you might be limited in what you can provide, but if you could provide some internal marketplace statistics about what percentage of auctions end up paid for, that'd go a long way to alleviating some of my concerns with dynadot auctions. Specifically:

What percentage of expired auctions are paid for in the following tiers:

$1 to $20 = 90% paid for?
$21 to $50 = 85% paid for?
$50-$99 = 82% paid for?
$100-$499 = 75% paid for?
$500-$999 = example 66% paid for?
$1000 - $5000 = 60% paid for?
$5001-$24999 = 50% paid for?
$25,000 - $100,000 = 42% paid for?
$100,000+ = 33% paid for?

Full Disclose: I haven't monitored what dynadot auctions get bids compared to what ends up getting listed in dynadots last chance auction to have any realistic idea as to what percentage of dynadot auctions are paid for vs are not.

Spoiler: Unrelated Suggestion re Last Chance Auctions

One suggestion I personally have unrelated to verified funds, is I would like to see Last Chance Auctions be moved to a different time zone. I enjoy nameSilo auctions because they finish at midnight California time, which is about 12 hours past normal domain auction end times. The benefits are: Night time auctions attract bidders from different time zones and it gives US domainers something to do in the middle of the night/early morning.

 

[Caleb Tweed]

I'm glad you asked, It'd be great to have a transparent conversation with a registrar about this.

Respectfully, I think a 5% minimum ie the AI auction requirement is a joke, on top of the even bigger joke: $5 throw away accounts.

Here's my reasoning:

Domain auctions can be intense! -- chasing reserves, bidding wars, extended auction times, domain attachment, buying for a friend, and who knows maybe even squirrels. Buying domains can be just as addicting or profitable as sports betting; auctionHouse is the casino, the bidders are the gamblers.

Casinos issue lines of credit, but do they allow you to bet on todays superbowl extending you the option of:

(a) Fund 100% of your wager within 48 hours after the superbowl ends to keep your account
OR
(b) Forfit your 5% deposit if you fail to fund your wager, and still keep your account.
OR
(c) Forfit your $5 account if you fail to fund your wager.

///

I've won my fair share of domain auction bidding wars that I wish I hadn't won. Had I been given the option to forfit 5% the next day instead of paying the full amount, there are times I gladly would have accepted the insurance option.



IMO, I think nameSilo has the best handle on verified bidder funds. Here's a look at two different namesilo accounts, with an example auction:

Show attachment 255788

Spoiler: Bidding Limits Explained

Bidding on expired domains requires an adequate amount of Account funds to cover your bid, the renewal cost of this domain, as well as enough funds to pay for all of your active auctions (and their renewals) in which you have the current highest bid.

The table above shows the following information:

• Account Balance: Your current total account funds balance
• Credit Limit: The credit limit your account currently qualifies to receive. This limit is based upon a number of factors, most notably how long you have been a NameSilo customer. This number is automatically computed and cannot be negotiated. The longer you are a customer with order history (no chargebacks, disputed transactions, etc.), the higher your credit limit will be.
• Outstanding Bids: The total amount of bids you have submitted plus renewal fees for all expired domain auctions for which you are currently the leader (not including this auction).
• Domain Renewal: The renewal price for the domain associated with this auction.
• Bid Range: A range of the bid amounts you can submit for this auction:
  • The low end of the range is determined by the current bid price. Higher current bids require higher bid intervals.
  • The bid range is the amount ranging from the current bid price to the amount that is your account balance plus your credit limit, minus the renewal fee and the outstanding balances (your active bids in other auctions). To increase the max amount available for bidding you can add account funds.

Account #1:
Show attachment 255789
Account #2:
Show attachment 255785

For the FraudHunter auction:

Account #1: Can bid up to $5,000 before having to prefund the account with 100% of their desired bid.
Account #2: Can bid up to $209.88 (Account Balance - Outstanding Bids) before having to deposit more funds or wait until the outstanding bids expire, to bid more than $209.88.

This makes the bidder feel like the auction house has a good handle on bidder verified funds, prevents the marketplace from profiting on bids from unverified funding, and ensures a very high number of auctions are paid for. Going back to the casino analogy, imagine how fair it would be if you found out you were playing poker against somebody who promised to pay for their chips but never went back and paid for them!

The credit limit system allows:
-- Credit limits are earned, developed, or limited to account funds.
-- New account bids have to be 100% funded prior to bidding.
-- Nonpayment reduces and/or cancels available account credit

The 5% system allows:
-- Credit is 20X your account funds
-- No benefit for established accounts
-- Nonpayment forfits your your 5% bid deposit.

The $5 system allows:
-- Unlimited credit?
-- New accounts require at least $5 in account spending
-- Nonpayment forfits your ability to bid with that account?

@Caleb Tweed -- For discussion purposes, please try and convince me why the $5 or 5% system is superior.

The low-bar was mainly for accessibility to users. It allows people who would otherwise not be familiar with Dynadot but might see an interesting name on the Expired Auctions/AI Auctions and still be able to participate, without having to dunk a huge amount of money that would want to be refunded if they ended up losing the auction. I can certainly see how this has become an issue though in cases like this where an enormous amount has been bid and the user may not have any intention of paying.

Hypothetically, if we were going to go the credit route similar to NameSilo, which do you think should take priority in deciding how much credit an account has to bid with? Account age, or Yearly (or lifetime) spending in the account?

---

---

When I saw the thread asking why the EsoTalk.org auction was over $1million, it was shocking how namePros members were seemingly raising more red flags than anybody working at Dynadot.

@Caleb Tweed Did EsoTalk.org get paid for? It just seems that the top auctions of the week should be monitored, with some sort of belief that million dollar bids are verified or held accountable to some degree.

@Caleb Tweed -- I know you might be limited in what you can provide, but if you could provide some internal marketplace statistics about what percentage of auctions end up paid for, that'd go a long way to alleviating some of my concerns with dynadot auctions. Specifically:

What percentage of expired auctions are paid for in the following tiers:

$1 to $20 = 90% paid for?
$21 to $50 = 85% paid for?
$50-$99 = 82% paid for?
$100-$499 = 75% paid for?
$500-$999 = example 66% paid for?
$1000 - $5000 = 60% paid for?
$5001-$24999 = 50% paid for?
$25,000 - $100,000 = 42% paid for?
$100,000+ = 33% paid for?

Full Disclose: I haven't monitored what dynadot auctions get bids compared to what ends up getting listed in dynadots last chance auction to have any realistic idea as to what percentage of dynadot auctions are paid for vs are not.

I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to disclose, but I'll do some digging and see what I can find out for you.

Spoiler: Unrelated Suggestion re Last Chance Auctions

One suggestion I personally have unrelated to verified funds, is I would like to see Last Chance Auctions be moved to a different time zone. I enjoy nameSilo auctions because they finish at midnight California time, which is about 12 hours past normal domain auction end times. The benefits are: Night time auctions attract bidders from different time zones and it gives US domainers something to do in the middle of the night/early morning.

Not a bad idea! We mainly have most of our auctions around the same time so we can have a dedicated window where we don't do any server maintenance in the day/it just keeps everything fairly uniform, but I'll pass that along to the team for consideration regardless!

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Hypothetically, if we were going to go the credit route similar to NameSilo, which do you think should take priority in deciding how much credit an account has to bid with? Account age, or Yearly (or lifetime) spending in the account?

As a bidder, I personally think bids should primarily be 100% funded prior to bidding, and credit above $X,XXX should be extended/guaranteed by a third party lending company using whatever standards they have for issuing unsecured credit/loans, likely heavy KYC and other standards.

Thoughts on potential dynadot extended credit:

-- account age shouldn't matter too much

--account history prevnts folks from pushing large amounts of domains to new accounts in attempts at resetting their auction credit to what it was before being dinged for auction nonpayment.

-- lack of chargebacks + good account history is a sign of trust. But there's a difference in trusting somebody with a $5,000 credit limit compared to a $1,000,000 credit limit.

-- total account spending should help build trust, but taken with a grain of salt since you can't hold other domains hostage.

-- similarly, the amount of domains in somebody's account should also be taken with a grain of salt. albeit if holding a minimum of X amount of names in Dynadot account + lengthy account history/use equated to being extended X amount of auction credit, then that may be an incentive for active domain buyers to hold more domains at dynadot. Thus dynadot absorbs the credit/failed payment risk as a marketing benefit.

I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to disclose, but I'll do some digging and see what I can find out for you.

Looking forward to the transparency!

 

[Chris Hydrick]

bids should primarily be 100% funded prior to bidding, and credit above $X,XXX should be extended/guaranteed by a third party lending company using whatever standards they have for issuing unsecured credit/loans, likely heavy KYC and other standards.

I realize a 3rd party lender might be too many moving parts, whereas somebodies internal payment history established at dynadot may be the best metric. Such as if somebody regularly sells high value domains, after sucessfully completing prefunded purchases, that may be substantial enough to grant them a higher credit limit.

Continuing with the casino analogy, why not adopting some parts from the casino credit playbook:

Spoiler: Google Gemini Prompt: How do casinos decide to extend somebody credit?

Casinos use a complex system to determine if a player is eligible for a credit line (also known as a marker). Here's a breakdown of the key factors:

1. Application and Verification:

• Detailed Application: Players interested in a credit line must fill out an extensive application providing financial information (bank accounts, assets, income, existing credit lines).
• Background Check: Casinos thoroughly investigate the player's financial history. This includes credit reports to assess creditworthiness and any outstanding debts.
• Bank Verification: Casinos contact the player's banks to verify account balances and financial standing.

2. Gaming History and Potential:

• Average Bet Size: Casinos track a player's betting patterns, particularly their average bet size. Those with higher average bets are seen as more favorable candidates for credit.
• Game Preference: Table game players are sometimes considered more creditworthy than slot machine players, as table games often have higher bet limits.
• Expected Winnings/Losses: Casinos use statistical models to estimate a player's theoretical win/loss over time, taking into account their bet size and the house edge of the games they play.

3. Overall Risk Assessment:

• Creditworthiness vs. Risk: Casinos weigh the player's verified financial capacity against the potential risk of extending credit.
• Loss Tolerance: Casinos try to establish how much loss the player can realistically handle before defaulting on a credit line.

Important Considerations:

• Casinos are Businesses: The primary goal is to make a profit, which includes extending credit to players likely to pay it back.
• Regulations: Casinos must adhere to strict regulations regarding credit lines and debt collection.
• Relationship Building: Casinos often extend credit to foster loyalty and attract high-rolling players.

///

One main challenge to requiring 100% prefunded bids likely be be the holding of funds. Nobody wants another masterbucks situation, so if dynadot excpects users to hold $XX,XXX balances on their accounts for bidding, there probably needs some assurances that the money is housed legally and safely guarded against Monsters.

When a bidder without a credit limit is outbid at namesilo, they need to keep adding funds to their account to bid more. While the microtransaction fee's may add up, dynadot profit margain should be able to sustain that (at least in their expired auctions where they get 100% of the sale price). Namesilo's opt in discount renewal program requires $50 minimum deposits which counters somebody from adding $5 to their account everytime they're outbid.

Not a bad idea! We mainly have most of our auctions around the same time so we can have a dedicated window where we don't do any server maintenance in the day/it just keeps everything fairly uniform, but I'll pass that along to the team for consideration regardless!

That is one downside. Namesilo has had some glitchy moments right around auction close time, unsure if that's related to maintenance, but it's definitely frustrating when you're manually bidding instead of using reserves.

One downside of holding Last Chance auctions in a different time zone is the original bidders may be sleeping then. Spurring a possible motive for shennangans to mess up auction#1 in order to have auction#2 moved to somebodies preferred time zone. In which case original auction bidders may need to start using the reserve system, or post their maximum bid hours before auction close instead of minutes before auction close.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

I'm not sure what the correct way of dealing with shills is.

Within the domain industry it really is a question that is one for the ages. No one seems to be in agreement from platform to platform. There is no almost universal agreement between domainers, but it would be nice if these companies got together and try to do something on a collective, universal basis.

How would domainers go about initiating a conversation with registrars about the fairness of their auctions?

@bmugford - Is this something the ICA discusses?

What would that ICA do that namePros members couldn't do? Besides having direct contacts to registrars, how would the begin the conversation?

Perhaps the community could help push the envelope with either:

(a) World famous namePros blogger, @Bob Hawkes detailing how to bid on each major domain marketplace, with detail into how marketplaces verify bidder funds, and what happens to auctions that go unpaid for?

(b) The Domains Pulitizer prize front runner @equity78 diving into a hard hitting domain auction report with requests for comments from multiple registrars?

(c) I could gurgle up a bunch of screenshots, links, overly written words demonstrating how bidding limits are handled at each expired auction registrar?

(d) We create a new thread, creating a psuedo research group to write a detailed collective report on domain auction rules, processes, bidding limits and possibly assigning grades to current registrar practices. Registrars who receive F- scores in certan categories may take notice at registrar policies who receive A+ scores. #RegistrarReportcard

Questions domainers may want to ask when grading registrar auctions:
(a) does the auction show bid logs w/ bidder IDs?
(b) how are bidding limits enforced? Bids above X amount require Y for Z bidder.
(c) how is nonpayment enforced?
(d) what expiration day does a registrar auction a domain off?
(e) how easy does the registrar make it for the registrant to renew/transfer before losing the domain to auction?
(f) are all auction participants notified when a domain is renewed by the registrant?
(g) are all auction partificants notified when the auction winner doesn't pay for the domain?
(h) what happens when a auction goes unpaid for?
(i) how/when are bidder funds verified? On registrar credit with no limits? X amount deposit required?

Categories Registrar auctions may be graded in:
(a) Transparency
(b) Bidder Verified Funds
(c) Ability to deliver the domain
(d) Risk of shenanigans, such as roll back scams and fraudulent bidding

Culminating to a: Registrar Auction Risk and Fairness Score

 

[equity78]

How would domainers go about initiating a conversation with registrars about the fairness of their auctions?

@bmugford - Is this something the ICA discusses?

What would that ICA do that namePros members couldn't do? Besides having direct contacts to registrars, how would the begin the conversation?

Perhaps the community could help push the envelope with either:

(a) World famous namePros blogger, @Bob Hawkes detailing how to bid on each major domain marketplace, with detail into how marketplaces verify bidder funds, and what happens to auctions that go unpaid for?

(b) The Domains Pulitizer prize front runner @equity78 diving into a hard hitting domain auction report with requests for comments from multiple registrars?

(c) I could gurgle up a bunch of screenshots, links, overly written words demonstrating how bidding limits are handled at each expired auction registrar?

(d) We create a new thread, creating a psuedo research group to write a detailed collective report on domain auction rules, processes, bidding limits and possibly assigning grades to current registrar practices. Registrars who receive F- scores in certan categories may take notice at registrar policies who receive A+ scores. #RegistrarReportcard

Questions domainers may want to ask when grading registrar auctions:
(a) does the auction show bid logs w/ bidder IDs?
(b) how are bidding limits enforced? Bids above X amount require Y for Z bidder.
(c) how is nonpayment enforced?
(d) what expiration day does a registrar auction a domain off?
(e) how easy does the registrar make it for the registrant to renew/transfer before losing the domain to auction?
(f) are all auction participants notified when a domain is renewed by the registrant?
(g) are all auction partificants notified when the auction winner doesn't pay for the domain?
(h) what happens when a auction goes unpaid for?
(i) how/when are bidder funds verified? On registrar credit with no limits? X amount deposit required?

Categories Registrar auctions may be graded in:
(a) Transparency
(b) Bidder Verified Funds
(c) Ability to deliver the domain
(d) Risk of shenanigans, such as roll back scams and fraudulent bidding

Culminating to a: Registrar Auction Risk and Fairness Score

Good points Chris and I was thinking about a couple articles on this. I do believe the fractured nature of the industry is one of the problems. Like in certain industries every major player forms a group to say how they will handle certain situations as an industry.

I think there probably are some that don't want to collaborate with others.

Number 2 do people really give a crap deep down, internally, not the surface level forum or Twitter comment, but do registrars and marketplaces actually care about domain investors or are they just taken for granted?