Suspicion and Inuendo Lead to a Kerfuffle..

When Jay Westerdal of Domaintools recently posted about .mobi names being resold after already crossing the block once at the previous Moniker Auction.. it created a bit of a firestorm as those mentioned in his post saw his facts as incorrect and interpreted his post to be self serving.

I know Jay would never say ill-things of another person to financially benefit himself.. and as a major bidder at the Moniker auctions I not only admire Monte Cahn’s work ethic, but view his auctions as honest, and well run. In an effort to clear the air, Monte has said that he’s never given any form of ‘credit’, rebate etc to anyone and that all names which cross his auction block do so at the prices posted.

To be fair to all auction houses, it’s exceedingly difficult to stop shill bidding.. anyone who is so inclined can register for a bidder’s paddle and force prices up across the board if they know that others in attendance are willing to pay. We have all surely spent collective millions over the years being run up by less than sincere bidders at assorted auction houses. That’s the price you pay for attending an auction I guess .. and in the end, the mix is still right or we wouldn’t attend. I was probably shill bid higher somewhere, at some point between 2003 and 2007, but I wouldn’t ask for my money back on a single domain name.

At Snapnames.com when an auction fails because the bidder can’t complete, the sale is re-run from zero for the benefit of all other bidders. It’s not fair to pick up at the last highest bid if an incapable/insolvent bidder runs up the price from zero along with the pack. That extra party’s momentum can drive the others higher than they intended to go as a result of momentum/auction fever. It would probably be best for the auction house to simply restart names which didn’t complete as a result of non-payment (whatever the non-payment reason might be).

As for Jay and Monte.. I think these two gents will work out their differences and the lessons they learn from this misunderstanding will strengthen the domain secondary market as a result. More transparency ultimately drives sales prices higher.. The irony is that I think both these folks are passionate about the same thing … a stronger more honest, and thriving name market. If it was just about money I don’t think either would work so hard.

This entry was posted by frankschilling on Sunday, November 11th, 2007 at 8:30 PM and is filed under Domain Names (Domains), Friends and Family. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

David Wrixon says:

November 11, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Dot Mobi is a highly contentious namespace, and I believe that its launch has been deeply flawed from day one. People on both sides of the argument have struggled to understand or even trust the motivation of those on the other side of the argument.

I personally believe that the naysayers will carry the day on this one, but I believe everyone concerned has now had adequate access to all the arguments to form a sensible opinion one way or another. I think it is probably time for everyone to step back from the abyss, and attempt to respect their difference.

I am a strong advocate of a more transparent market place, and feel it would be in everyone’s interest to attempt to resolve differences over these issues in an equitable fashion for the wider good of the Industry.

Transparency, in its wider sense also means the dissemination of much more objective information. To date, most of the information being promoted has been the opinions of a tight knit bunch of vested interests. What we need more of is the kind of objective analysis provided by DNJournal. Ron does an excellent job, but his efforts alone are in my view insufficient to counter a great deal of propaganda for which we are probably all responsible to a greater or lesser degree. Wall Street runs on Analysts’ Reports. Companies are very complicated investments to understand, and those active in the markets rely heavily on such analysis. Whilst the information provided is not always reliable, it does give Wall Street an under-pinning that the domain space lacks.

To take the market place forward, we need informed investors. The responsibility for ensuring that investors have access to objective unbiased information, at this stage of the game, must fall to market makers.

***FS*** Well said comment sir.

Kiwi Domains says:

November 11, 2007 at 9:47 PM

The most interesting part of this free for all is the below exchange between Jay and Monte which Jay posted in the comments of his piece.

Jay makes a very serious accusation. This is the real story. Dot Mobi Dot Shmobi. Who was asked to shill bid in New York?

Jay writes:

“Monte,
I can’t really trust you. I know for a fact you asked a very close person to you to Shill bid in New York. You can’t trust everyone, that includes the people that you think you can ask those favors of. A lot of know the trust but don’t talk about it.”

Jay

Monte Responds:

“Well that seems to be the problem with your reporting. Your notes are WRONG….VERY WRONG.”

Best Regards,
Monte Cahn
Founder / CEO
Moniker.com is the world leader in Domain Asset Management including Domain Auctions & Sales, Escrow, Appraisal, Monetization, Registration, Brand Protection, Acquisition, and Portfolio Management.
Toll Free: 1-800-688-6311
O: 954-984-8445
F: 954-969-9155
ICQ: 292961812
MSN: moniker-man@hotmail.com
AIM/Yahoo: MonikerDotCom