Two Letter BIG BID happening at Snapnames

[gazzip]

For ------ FT.net

This has just started and it is already $40,250.00 !!!!!!

I don't think I will win this one !! :lol:

Anyone want to guess how much this will end at ?

200 namebucks to the closest $ amount at end of sale (1 person only - so don't post the same amount as anyone else !)

Conditions - You have to post your amount here within the next 48 hrs

PS - you may have to tell me how to send my NP as I am not sure yet what to do

 

[mole]

yes, it looks like a submarine job.

 

[equity78]

From another forum

I was in this auction and wanted to buy this name, but due to couple of idiots running the bid upto and beyond $40,000 in a matter of minutes I did not get the chance to even place a reasonable bid.

I emailed the following letter to Snapnames, wanting to know why the name was not put back up for auction.


Quote:
Summary: I need some support acct: ##### allias: ######
Please verify your email address...: [email protected]
Date Created: 09/18/2005 02:32 PM
Last Updated: 09/18/2005 02:32 PM
Status: Unresolved
Registrar:

Internal Notes



Discussion Thread
Customer 09/18/2005 02:32 PM
I am high and utterly pissed.

FT.net was a fraudulent auction, and you all let it go to one of the
idiots that
ran the price up.

5 mins into the auction they ran it to 40K giving no one else a chance
to bid.

Then you let one of them have it at 10k.


Is this how snapnames is going to operate in the future for fraud
auctions?


I should of had a fair chance to make my bids when that person was
removed and
the other bidder should of been removed as well for running the auction
up.


I might not be vaxis or quervo spending 50k a week there, but I deserve
the same
fair rights to be in the auctions I back order as everyone else.

else I will take my money to pool or enom.


EDwin Collins
Account: ########
alias: ########



I got this email in response:

Basically they gave it to there long time friend and person instead of giving all other bidders a fair chance at the name.

THIS IS FROM : [email protected]


Quote:
There was one fraudulent bidder in the auction that set a high proxy and
cause the bidder to whom we gave the name to big up. He was willing to
pay to the point where he bid. We know this because he is a long time
customer and had paid us many thousands for names many times.
To you he may be an idiot, but he is a successful idiot and his bids
were legitimate. We have 2 options in such cases. Give the name to the
next bidder at the point were the prices is supported by another bidder
we know is good for that price, or we can re-run the auction. In our
experience re-running the auction is of no value because the other
bidders have already seen what this bidder is willing to pay and so most
do not even bother. If you in fact were willing to pay more than $40k
for the name then we definitely made the wrong choice. If it had been
you in the same situation and we knew you to be good for the bid we
would have treated you exactly the same. We do not play favorites by
dollar volume, unlike pool who gives high volume discounts and other
special treatement. We also were the first company to have completely
observable bidding by those in the auction so that people could see all
that went on, including what occured in this auction.

I am sorry if you feel unfairly treated. It was certainly not our
intent. We are not happy with the outcome either as we expected to get
somewhere over $25k for the name but the situation did not work out that
way.




They are about as unethical of a bunch of low down scum as I have ever seen.!

I will see if pool will welcome me with open arms, maybe they do better check ups on who is bidding on names there.!

Quoted from last email from Nelson Bradley from Snapnames.com


Quote:
I am not sure why you think we would consciously choose to deprive
ourselves of more revenue to do a favor for one customer. Most of the
big money pros know the bidder we gave the name too and know his bids
were serious. Since you think otherwise and would have been willing to
spend more than 10k then we screwed up is all I can say. It was an
honest judgement error, completely my fault, no one else to blame. If
you choose to think otherwise I can see your point of view. All I can
say is I am sorry.

You are mistaken on one thing. We did remove all the fraudulent bids
that had an effect. The point we rolled the auction back to was the
point just above another bidder we knew was good for that price. At
that point we had 2 bidders at a supported price point. This has been
done many times though usually the dollar amount is much smaller and has
been widely considered fair.

I also saw your other email. If you feel we have committed an conscious
injustice then I would certainly expect you to publish that. We have
the best reputation for fairness in this industry by a wide margin. One
reason for that is we are willing to say so if we screw up. In the
interest of total fairness, when you publish you may quote me as saying
that I screwed up. Note this was my decision. No one else at SnapNames
had anything to do with making this call.

 

[Xyzer]

WOW, that went for a lot of money. I couldnt afford that, brave person, whoever let it go.

 

[mole]

Snapnames could have got more money for the name easy, and I think what they did they believed was a fair call to a fair customer, at the expense of lesser revenue.

Yes, Snaps could have taken 2 options, it is totally their call - they apparently chose to take the one that brought them less money.

And they did this out of consideration to a loyal customer who could have ended up paying much much more just because of a shiller gone mad.

Nelson did say Snaps was expecting around $25k for that name, the shiller made an honest customer jump twice that amount.

Could the rest have followed, maybe, but the auction data showed nobody had the guts to do hoop-the-hoop.

On the other hand, and this is a big worry, what happens if that 'customer' was dishonest and did the submarine job i.e. parallel bidding using different proxies landing off with the final 'fraud' bid, to discourage competition using "aggressive" styles, then hope that SN would give him the bid?

What is there to lose? At the very least, a reauction. At the most, a savings of $15k over what Snaps expected. The stakes are high enough to be worth playing the submarine game.

I think Snapnames needs to relook at this decision for the future to discourage a spread of the submarine tactic. Any fraud bidders, and it is automatic reauction, again and again if necessary, to stamp those shill bidders out.

 

[equity78]

You are 100% right IMO MOLE