cambler said:eNom now requires positive identification of anyone who wishes to bid more than $200 on a name. If a bid is not paid, we can then ban you from bidding in the future, and with positive ID required, creating throw-away accounts is not an option.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's a start. I'd love to hear your ideas on what else we could do (including, please, how it would be done. It's one thing to say "ban them" but another to explain how we know who "them" are).
It's b0ys.net I think and your suggestion is pretty insane imo. They can't simply lock their client's domains up.TopNames.com said:My suggestion: Lock the bidders account with all their domains. That should stop the fake bids & non-payments.
For example boys.net has been through the auction cycle 3 times already.
Steen said:It's b0ys.net I think and your suggestion is pretty insane imo. They can't simply lock their client's domains up.
I still think Pool does it the best by awarding it to the 2nd highest bidder. This is the most equitable way of awarding a domain when the high bidder fails to pay.
TopNames.com said:It's not insane...what's insane is the number of domains not being paid for which affects all of us who took the time to research the drops and had the opportunity to bid on the domain in a private auction. Then when the bidder fails to pay, it goes to public auction where any wingnut can bid. Not to mention Enom lists the domain at the non-payment price. It *should* go back to "0" or to at least the next bidders highest price before the fake bids were applied.
Today UniversityofMiami.com closed at $9,900. I stopped bidding at $6,100 (Christopher Ambler can verify my bid) because I thought the bidder might just be pumping up the price...so now it's starting to hit Enom in the pockets as well. I know I'm not the only one holding back because this has been discussed by a few buyers. The buyer was real...but we didn't know that at the time.
I still think Pool does it the best by awarding it to the 2nd highest bidder. This is the most equitable way of awarding a domain when the high bidder fails to pay.
.
nitronet said:Unfortunately, with Enom allowing this and some even believing they are in the mix bidding themselves, there will probably never be a resolution to this problem because now there is no trust.
cambler said:I have yet to hear a single person go on record as saying that they believe that eNom bids up its own names.
Do you believe this? Does anyone wish to go on record as believing this? Because by saying that, you're making a pretty big accusation, especially after I've said, categorically, that it doesn't happen.
So are you prepared to level the accusation, or produce someone who is? If not, saying "some even believing..." is just you making that up.
Anyone?
nitronet said:I don't think they are bidding but I've certainly heard people in the forums mention that they think they might be.
I said some believe this is happening and I'm sure some do.
cambler said:I haven't heard a single person say that they think this. You are intentionally trying to cast doubt, and it's not appreciated.
If anyone truly believes this, please speak up!
Whois-Search said:With so many auctions going wrong at Enom someone must be doing it deliberately weather its an insider or an outsider