Hi. I have pretty good story that might give you an idea how SnapNames & Moniker and possibly any other company under Oversee.net works and behave to their customers.
SnapNames had scandal about VP Nelson Brady aka Halvarez shill bidding to raise sales and get more of his share when SnapNames moved under wings of Oversee.net . SnapNames is the company that was sued by SnapNames auctioneers and refuse to cover damage. At that period where SnapNames refuse to pay debts to customers, Monte Cahn was head of SnapNames. You'll see this name several times in this article.
So there's 2 million $ lawsuit against SnapNames just from customers in US.
I'm not trying to suggest any conclusion. I will just tell my story, place e-mail communication with Snapnames employees, and with big boss Monte Cahn. I give you screenshots, I give you video. And let you judge. At the end of this stories, there are links to videos (screen capture) of Moniker affiliate account reseted twice.
My Snapnames story:
Long long time ago I've started project dropsdomains.com / freshsnap.com which was supporting domainers with huge data for quality domains (mostly expired) from Godaddy and Snapnames auctions.
I made some promo for my tool and many people find it really good.
I've got some nice commission from SnapNames - over 4100$ for first 2 weeks.
Affiliate commission PDF are below:
At time of payout, I've recieved just 1600$. Without any previous e-mail from Snapnames explaining this situation.
Complete e-mail communication on this issue with Snapnames employees and Monte Cahn is here.
See that e-mails and you'll find out that every time I've got commision PDF it had to be requested and was manually checked without ANY PROBLEM. And suddenly when there was high commission, Monte was unwilling to pay his debts.
Here are 3 PDFs - march partial, march FULL, march when they've realized they have to pay me significant money (Compare full march vs shavemarch to see most sales are not deleted but just lowered to 15% of original): Partialmarch.pdf March.pdf Shavemarch.pdf
After I've complained, I was threaten by Monte Cahn with BAN. READ MORE HERE:
As I've published somewhere my affiliate stats, I was contacted by domainer that recognized himself and domain purchase he made.
I sometimes exchange PM at one forum with this guy. So to be true as I don't want to lie here. He confirmed that he bought those domains and told he got account from 2004. I did mentioned that to provide you with full information, not just what "suits my story well".
But Snapnames affiliate RULE was, that they place 90 day tracking cookie to count commission and if affiliate link was clicked again later, cookie extend to full 90 days. As you can see in e-mails, Snapnames admin they don't count existing customers - rules or no rules they do what they want.
So in this case.
1. Snapnames affiliate tracking was working correctly - tracking on 90 day cookie
2. Snapnames cut my commission against their own rules, didn't explain situation before my intensive complains. Maybe I was somewhat rude but who wouldn't if they cut you 2500$ without any explanation and refuse to explain. And I was shaved as their rule was 90 day cookie tracking no matter what.
3. Monte Cahn did threat me with BAN from Snapnames affiliate system just for complaining and requesting explanation. I can say this is far from fair.
Also declared Snapnames commission was 20%. But as freshsnap.com was tracking current BID, I have some past sales in this XLS so you can see how accurate tracking was and what 20% means for Oversee.net. Check it out, really funny stuff. Maybe Monte Cahn dropped from elementary school due to mathematics.
So I was shaved once again on commission % , see the random commission percentage. OLD XLS I found here:
OK. I finally accepted what happened as I wanted to continue with their affiliate as I have some plans with freshsnap.com (while it was running fine).
As the tracking system was working correctly and tracking all sales on declared rules and Snapnames and there could be easy proof that Snapnames is shaving their affiliates. Snapnames decided to move heat to someone else and had make a deal with Essociate.com affiliate tracking company.
But once again I was shaved. At that time, even after hard shaving, not counting part of sales which was against their own rules, setting % commission on random basis. I was still earning 200-400$/month.
Then they've migrate to Essociate.com, but you would expect that currently tracked commission would migrate too as SnapNames declared 90 day tracking. No. They've offered new tracking through Essociate.com but cut existing affiliate members future commisions to 0$.
But as freshsnap.com wasn't working perfectly I didn't focus on it. I just wrote to Michele Van Tilborg - Snapnames boss for affiliate accounts if it is obligatory to swap to Essociate.
I was ignored - e-mail here:
After few months, I was just wondering if there's any commission comming. I've e-mailed them and now check out this e-mails: Check previous e-mail "how they had inform me that old tracker isn't valid".
I was shaved once again as I have no information that old tracking system isn't working and I didn't get any info, even upon my request to Michele Van Tilborg which was ignored.
Also I did request manual calculation of my earnings as I was ignored once again.
So I've lost few 100$ each month.
I've contacted snapnames.com and essociate.com to find out if it's possible to track old sales done through old Snapnames affiliate URL. Even after migration, essociate still redirects traffic to snapnames with old affiliate URLs so tracking MUST still work. And I must say that it's CERTIFIED SCAM. This link is essociate affiliate URL: http://go.essociate.com/1001202.0.1021?dom=domain.com
You see that it have redirected you to: https://www.snapnames.com/store/basic.action?aff=5376&dom=domain.com which is OLD SNAPNAMES affiliate URL. So old tracker is really running.
Then I've switched to Essociate. Using same traffic sources - domainer & webmaster blogs and forums. In old days 100 visitors to my site made few instant sales and also future commissions. In Snapnames rules under essociate.com, there's declared 20% commission for new members referred and 5% for existing members. COMMISSION RULES
I've send them almostover 3000 UIPs, all domainer and webmaster related traffic. And I've got 0$ commission.
So I've contacted Essociate to check my account. And guess what. I've got official e-mail where they indirectly admit they they don't count 5% commission for existing members even if it's in their rules.
READ E-MAILS: They're saying that existing members don't usually buy domains=megabullshit
That's certified shaving by Essociate. With "go ahead" of Snapnames & Oversee.net.
My Moniker story.
I've also joined Moniker affiliate program way back.
There were often small miscalculations. Anytime I wrote to [email protected] I never got any reply. So I've e-mailed Monte several times and he always replies that he send that to technicians to fix it. Never got feedback on fixing that issue & never got my commission updated. But it was few $ a month so I didn't care much.
But on 02.may 2010 I've referred member that prepaid 167,000$ and was spending 10,000-20,000$ a day. As it was bulk registration for sure (about 3000$ each purchase) and Moniker margin was lower I've accepted about 1,6% commission instead of usual 10% commission.
But on 02.may there were few sales with miscalculated commission - 3000$ sale with 0$ commission for me. After I've reported it, on 04.may Moniker had maintenance for maybe 24 hours.
After that nobody finds any problem with tracked commission for me (200-600$ a day).
I've reported other miscalculations again to Monte, I've put all the transaction IDs where I believed were miscalculated and I even marked transaction I believe are credited FINE. Nobody sees any problems in commissions.
And whooops, one they they've noticed that I've got credited commission for accounts I wasn't supposted to get. Suddenly they've noticed what they didn't noticed on numerous manual commission checking before - that I'm credited for accounts I'm not supposed to as I've joined Moniker affiliate program in 2008 and those accounts were created from 2005 to 2007.
Do you believe that? That several times my commissions were manually checked nobody notice 2005 accounts credited to 2008 affiliate? Do you believe there's affiliate tracking system that will even allow such bullsh!t?
He're e-mail communication with Monte Cahn and John Inghem (technician).
He're XLS of "badly credited member accounts" - you see, 13 different account creation dates before 2008. That means atleast 13 different badly credited accounts. Notice that account ID's are removed so it's impossible to verify if Moniker is telling truth.
Let's do some math & statistics. My affiliate ID is 2148, it's 2010, so actually there's maybe 2500 moniker affiliates. Let's just suppose that there are on average 13 badly credited moniker accounts for each affiliate member.
(2500 affiliates ) * (13 badly credit accounts)=32500 badly credited accounts - for years. Do you believe that?
So once again, another company under Oversee this shaved me 2100$ + some sales I've got 0$ commission - that's 2800$ shave for less then 2 weeks.
But to be fair, let's be naive and take that everything as an accident. The main rule of business is (italian "cu sgarra paga") - Who fails he pays.
Snapnames & Moniker are constantly failing and everytime, member who makes effort pay for their problems.
And I really don't believe anything of mentioned above was accident. As Snapnames did admit in 2009 that they don't count commissions by their own rules. Essociate.com (company to take heat from Snapnames) admit in official e-mail that they don't count commissions by their own rules.
So I've described Snapnames & Moniker business model.
And now, let's get back to Nelson Brady aka Halvarez. Was he shill bidding himself without anyone knowing it?
European law system makes decisions really slow. Anglo saxon law system (the common law) makes decisions more on "influnce on commission".
The best law system was probably way back in Rome. Roman lawyers thousands years ago made pure law & justice model (OK there were slaves, there were emperoros those were different times).
When Roman laywer was seeking for truth he asked only one question: Cui bono - To whose benefit?
Now ask yourself, to whose benefit was Brady's shill bidding - you got it. It was Snapnames. Snapnames is same company that refuse to fully cover damage caused.
And just one imaginary variant: Let's apply Brady's model on Moniker brokerage. Are you sure nobody abuse discrete information to rise price high. Higher price, higher commission for company that has information both from seller and buyer. This is just imaginary. Might be possible.
I've told you my story and support it with enough evidence. I believe there are smart guys in webmaster & domainer industry so I don't make any conclusion at the end.
I let you decide.
No matter if you were buying domains through Snapnames or you used Moniker brokerage. Or you're Snapnames or Moniker affiliate. Who knows what Domainsponsor does?
Think about it for a second. And maybe you'll find out what's going on and get serious suspicion that you've lost huge amount of money.
And if you believe so and possible damage is significant, just contact your lawyer, and make Attornet general find out and judge and commission to decide.
HOT NEWS: I gained e-mail contact for Lawrence Ng - founder of Oversee.
I've e-mailed him about this case explaining everything and supporting him with evidence.
And guess what happened. I was ignored.
There are two options:
a) Shaving is company business model
b) Lawerence know but turns blind eye while $ is comming. Who cares about customers.
Also I want to make another point, financial damage + bad intention (you judge if above mentioned is bad intention)=criminal.
Do we like to support criminals (you judge). I bet you don't. We are honest internet businessmen. Those who runs their business and try to focus just on it. Or are you willing to doeblecheck every income and every expense to be sure?
Say HELL NO to Monte Cahn, Lawrence Ng, SnapNames, Moniker, DomainSponsor and Oversee.net
If you think your friends or your blog readers are in danger of rip-off, tell them, write article. Make pressure on Lawrence to kick out every scumbag from company. We need reliable Moniker, we need SnapNames without shill-bidding, we need DomainsSponsor to be under respected company.
Videos of Moniker manual account reset ordered by Monte Cahn or should I rather say Cohn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_eWbxuruZ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pggc3R57apg
Original article:
http://www.freshsnap.com/2010/05/is...usiness-model-of-snapnames-oversee-you-judge/
SnapNames had scandal about VP Nelson Brady aka Halvarez shill bidding to raise sales and get more of his share when SnapNames moved under wings of Oversee.net . SnapNames is the company that was sued by SnapNames auctioneers and refuse to cover damage. At that period where SnapNames refuse to pay debts to customers, Monte Cahn was head of SnapNames. You'll see this name several times in this article.
So there's 2 million $ lawsuit against SnapNames just from customers in US.
I'm not trying to suggest any conclusion. I will just tell my story, place e-mail communication with Snapnames employees, and with big boss Monte Cahn. I give you screenshots, I give you video. And let you judge. At the end of this stories, there are links to videos (screen capture) of Moniker affiliate account reseted twice.
My Snapnames story:
Long long time ago I've started project dropsdomains.com / freshsnap.com which was supporting domainers with huge data for quality domains (mostly expired) from Godaddy and Snapnames auctions.
I made some promo for my tool and many people find it really good.
I've got some nice commission from SnapNames - over 4100$ for first 2 weeks.
Affiliate commission PDF are below:
At time of payout, I've recieved just 1600$. Without any previous e-mail from Snapnames explaining this situation.
Complete e-mail communication on this issue with Snapnames employees and Monte Cahn is here.
See that e-mails and you'll find out that every time I've got commision PDF it had to be requested and was manually checked without ANY PROBLEM. And suddenly when there was high commission, Monte was unwilling to pay his debts.
Here are 3 PDFs - march partial, march FULL, march when they've realized they have to pay me significant money (Compare full march vs shavemarch to see most sales are not deleted but just lowered to 15% of original): Partialmarch.pdf March.pdf Shavemarch.pdf
After I've complained, I was threaten by Monte Cahn with BAN. READ MORE HERE:
As I've published somewhere my affiliate stats, I was contacted by domainer that recognized himself and domain purchase he made.
I sometimes exchange PM at one forum with this guy. So to be true as I don't want to lie here. He confirmed that he bought those domains and told he got account from 2004. I did mentioned that to provide you with full information, not just what "suits my story well".
But Snapnames affiliate RULE was, that they place 90 day tracking cookie to count commission and if affiliate link was clicked again later, cookie extend to full 90 days. As you can see in e-mails, Snapnames admin they don't count existing customers - rules or no rules they do what they want.
So in this case.
1. Snapnames affiliate tracking was working correctly - tracking on 90 day cookie
2. Snapnames cut my commission against their own rules, didn't explain situation before my intensive complains. Maybe I was somewhat rude but who wouldn't if they cut you 2500$ without any explanation and refuse to explain. And I was shaved as their rule was 90 day cookie tracking no matter what.
3. Monte Cahn did threat me with BAN from Snapnames affiliate system just for complaining and requesting explanation. I can say this is far from fair.
Also declared Snapnames commission was 20%. But as freshsnap.com was tracking current BID, I have some past sales in this XLS so you can see how accurate tracking was and what 20% means for Oversee.net. Check it out, really funny stuff. Maybe Monte Cahn dropped from elementary school due to mathematics.
So I was shaved once again on commission % , see the random commission percentage. OLD XLS I found here:
OK. I finally accepted what happened as I wanted to continue with their affiliate as I have some plans with freshsnap.com (while it was running fine).
As the tracking system was working correctly and tracking all sales on declared rules and Snapnames and there could be easy proof that Snapnames is shaving their affiliates. Snapnames decided to move heat to someone else and had make a deal with Essociate.com affiliate tracking company.
But once again I was shaved. At that time, even after hard shaving, not counting part of sales which was against their own rules, setting % commission on random basis. I was still earning 200-400$/month.
Then they've migrate to Essociate.com, but you would expect that currently tracked commission would migrate too as SnapNames declared 90 day tracking. No. They've offered new tracking through Essociate.com but cut existing affiliate members future commisions to 0$.
But as freshsnap.com wasn't working perfectly I didn't focus on it. I just wrote to Michele Van Tilborg - Snapnames boss for affiliate accounts if it is obligatory to swap to Essociate.
I was ignored - e-mail here:
After few months, I was just wondering if there's any commission comming. I've e-mailed them and now check out this e-mails: Check previous e-mail "how they had inform me that old tracker isn't valid".
I was shaved once again as I have no information that old tracking system isn't working and I didn't get any info, even upon my request to Michele Van Tilborg which was ignored.
Also I did request manual calculation of my earnings as I was ignored once again.
So I've lost few 100$ each month.
I've contacted snapnames.com and essociate.com to find out if it's possible to track old sales done through old Snapnames affiliate URL. Even after migration, essociate still redirects traffic to snapnames with old affiliate URLs so tracking MUST still work. And I must say that it's CERTIFIED SCAM. This link is essociate affiliate URL: http://go.essociate.com/1001202.0.1021?dom=domain.com
You see that it have redirected you to: https://www.snapnames.com/store/basic.action?aff=5376&dom=domain.com which is OLD SNAPNAMES affiliate URL. So old tracker is really running.
Then I've switched to Essociate. Using same traffic sources - domainer & webmaster blogs and forums. In old days 100 visitors to my site made few instant sales and also future commissions. In Snapnames rules under essociate.com, there's declared 20% commission for new members referred and 5% for existing members. COMMISSION RULES
I've send them almostover 3000 UIPs, all domainer and webmaster related traffic. And I've got 0$ commission.
So I've contacted Essociate to check my account. And guess what. I've got official e-mail where they indirectly admit they they don't count 5% commission for existing members even if it's in their rules.
READ E-MAILS: They're saying that existing members don't usually buy domains=megabullshit
That's certified shaving by Essociate. With "go ahead" of Snapnames & Oversee.net.
My Moniker story.
I've also joined Moniker affiliate program way back.
There were often small miscalculations. Anytime I wrote to [email protected] I never got any reply. So I've e-mailed Monte several times and he always replies that he send that to technicians to fix it. Never got feedback on fixing that issue & never got my commission updated. But it was few $ a month so I didn't care much.
But on 02.may 2010 I've referred member that prepaid 167,000$ and was spending 10,000-20,000$ a day. As it was bulk registration for sure (about 3000$ each purchase) and Moniker margin was lower I've accepted about 1,6% commission instead of usual 10% commission.
But on 02.may there were few sales with miscalculated commission - 3000$ sale with 0$ commission for me. After I've reported it, on 04.may Moniker had maintenance for maybe 24 hours.
After that nobody finds any problem with tracked commission for me (200-600$ a day).
I've reported other miscalculations again to Monte, I've put all the transaction IDs where I believed were miscalculated and I even marked transaction I believe are credited FINE. Nobody sees any problems in commissions.
And whooops, one they they've noticed that I've got credited commission for accounts I wasn't supposted to get. Suddenly they've noticed what they didn't noticed on numerous manual commission checking before - that I'm credited for accounts I'm not supposed to as I've joined Moniker affiliate program in 2008 and those accounts were created from 2005 to 2007.
Do you believe that? That several times my commissions were manually checked nobody notice 2005 accounts credited to 2008 affiliate? Do you believe there's affiliate tracking system that will even allow such bullsh!t?
He're e-mail communication with Monte Cahn and John Inghem (technician).
He're XLS of "badly credited member accounts" - you see, 13 different account creation dates before 2008. That means atleast 13 different badly credited accounts. Notice that account ID's are removed so it's impossible to verify if Moniker is telling truth.
Let's do some math & statistics. My affiliate ID is 2148, it's 2010, so actually there's maybe 2500 moniker affiliates. Let's just suppose that there are on average 13 badly credited moniker accounts for each affiliate member.
(2500 affiliates ) * (13 badly credit accounts)=32500 badly credited accounts - for years. Do you believe that?
So once again, another company under Oversee this shaved me 2100$ + some sales I've got 0$ commission - that's 2800$ shave for less then 2 weeks.
But to be fair, let's be naive and take that everything as an accident. The main rule of business is (italian "cu sgarra paga") - Who fails he pays.
Snapnames & Moniker are constantly failing and everytime, member who makes effort pay for their problems.
And I really don't believe anything of mentioned above was accident. As Snapnames did admit in 2009 that they don't count commissions by their own rules. Essociate.com (company to take heat from Snapnames) admit in official e-mail that they don't count commissions by their own rules.
So I've described Snapnames & Moniker business model.
And now, let's get back to Nelson Brady aka Halvarez. Was he shill bidding himself without anyone knowing it?
European law system makes decisions really slow. Anglo saxon law system (the common law) makes decisions more on "influnce on commission".
The best law system was probably way back in Rome. Roman lawyers thousands years ago made pure law & justice model (OK there were slaves, there were emperoros those were different times).
When Roman laywer was seeking for truth he asked only one question: Cui bono - To whose benefit?
Now ask yourself, to whose benefit was Brady's shill bidding - you got it. It was Snapnames. Snapnames is same company that refuse to fully cover damage caused.
And just one imaginary variant: Let's apply Brady's model on Moniker brokerage. Are you sure nobody abuse discrete information to rise price high. Higher price, higher commission for company that has information both from seller and buyer. This is just imaginary. Might be possible.
I've told you my story and support it with enough evidence. I believe there are smart guys in webmaster & domainer industry so I don't make any conclusion at the end.
I let you decide.
No matter if you were buying domains through Snapnames or you used Moniker brokerage. Or you're Snapnames or Moniker affiliate. Who knows what Domainsponsor does?
Think about it for a second. And maybe you'll find out what's going on and get serious suspicion that you've lost huge amount of money.
And if you believe so and possible damage is significant, just contact your lawyer, and make Attornet general find out and judge and commission to decide.
HOT NEWS: I gained e-mail contact for Lawrence Ng - founder of Oversee.
I've e-mailed him about this case explaining everything and supporting him with evidence.
And guess what happened. I was ignored.
There are two options:
a) Shaving is company business model
b) Lawerence know but turns blind eye while $ is comming. Who cares about customers.
Also I want to make another point, financial damage + bad intention (you judge if above mentioned is bad intention)=criminal.
Do we like to support criminals (you judge). I bet you don't. We are honest internet businessmen. Those who runs their business and try to focus just on it. Or are you willing to doeblecheck every income and every expense to be sure?
Say HELL NO to Monte Cahn, Lawrence Ng, SnapNames, Moniker, DomainSponsor and Oversee.net
If you think your friends or your blog readers are in danger of rip-off, tell them, write article. Make pressure on Lawrence to kick out every scumbag from company. We need reliable Moniker, we need SnapNames without shill-bidding, we need DomainsSponsor to be under respected company.
Videos of Moniker manual account reset ordered by Monte Cahn or should I rather say Cohn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_eWbxuruZ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pggc3R57apg
Original article:
http://www.freshsnap.com/2010/05/is...usiness-model-of-snapnames-oversee-you-judge/
Last edited:
We can see here, that DNforum is fair and h@ppy domainer is more important then h@ppy megacorporation. Now I know why they've losed 50-60% of active members within 3-6 months.
