MacMan
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2020
- Topics
- 99
- Posts
- 755
- Likes
- 298
I had my 3rd conversation with
@dynatodd
last night. We talked through my situation, but I also went bigger. I told him the three fixes
@DynaDot
needs to make immediately if they want any chance of restoring trust in the domain industry.
First, I even offered a compromise position. The second bidder should have the right of first refusal. That’s the clean way to fix a tainted auction. But if they don’t want to do that, here is the middle ground that still works. When an auction is compromised by a fake bidder or anything shady, it should be rerun only for the people who were in the original auction. Opening it to the public again is the biggest screw job of all and everyone knows it.
Second, anonymous bidding has to go. Nobody wants to bid against ghosts. That’s where fraud hides. That’s where manipulation lives. If you want real money to show up, transparency has to come first.
Third, every auction over a certain level needs human review. Five thousand, ten thousand, whatever number they choose. Real money deserves real oversight. And if they want to get ahead of it, AI can flag suspicious patterns long before a human even looks.
That’s the blueprint. If they want to fix this, it starts right there. And if they choose not to, then everyone will finally understand exactly where the real problem is.
it should be rerun only for the people who were in the original auction. Opening it to the public again is the biggest screw job of all and everyone knows it.
Second, anonymous bidding has to go. Nobody wants to bid against ghosts. That’s where fraud hides. That’s where manipulation lives. If you want real money to show up, transparency has to come first.
Here's my suggestions:I am open to changing our auctions. Over the years we have made numerous changes for our customers. Believe me I am hearing and listening to everyone's feedback. That is why I am on Twitter.
When we make changes to our systems, we have a process where we consider all the pros and cons. Product designers do research. UI designers make mockups. Engineers write code. And then we need to communicate the new rules to everyone. We can't really change our system in the middle of an auction for one person.
Great ideas thank youHere's my suggestions:
Show bidder id (different from login username)
Rerun the auction for everyone if you detect fraudulent bids.
Show age of bidder account and amount spent (like NameCheap)
Verified badge bidder id.
I am open to changing our auctions. Over the years we have made numerous changes for our customers. Believe me I am hearing and listening to everyone's feedback.
Yes, that is our current process, except that the re-auction is 7 days instead of 1 day. We can look into shortening it.As others have stated:
1) Offer it to the bidder at the (unfortunately) inflated end price, but stating that if this price is not accepted then Dynadot will:
2) Delete all the shill/fake bids and restart the auction for 24-hours beginning at the last valid bid.
It's really the only fair way to do it, as when places like GD delete all fake bids and offer the domain for an undervalued price, this just encourages scammers to use fake-bidding, multi-party strategies to really game the system (like getting premium domains for $50-$100).
This secondary auction also needs to be quick (i.e. 24 hours) so as not to waste any more time. It starts near the end anyway, with the last valid bid, so 1 day is more than enough.
On the flip side, asking a 'high bidder' like Rick to pay an scammer or deadbeat-inflated price is not fair either, unless he or she chooses to.
Yes, that is our current process, except that the re-auction is 7 days instead of 1 day. We can look into shortening it.
I see your point thank youThe problem with another 7-days for restarting an existing auction and an existing price, is a) it needlessly wastes bidders time and b) what if the fraud/deadbeat bidding happens again? Even more wasted time.![]()
![]()
I see your point thank you






