Comments on: Social.org Sale Falls Through http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/ Domain blog featuring domain investing strategy, domain valuation, and domain development commentary from Elliot Silver, founder of Top Notch Domains, LLC. Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:16:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.7.3 By: Elliot Silver http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70521 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:57:16 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70521 @ Fishy

If I was an under bidder in an auction and the winner doesn’t pay, I wouldn’t buy the name unless I need it or think it’s a hell of a deal. My instinct is to assume the worst in those cases, so I wouldn’t be willing to take the risk. I can only assume bidders 2 and 3 felt the same as me.

]]>
By: Fishy auction anyway http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70519 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:53:54 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70519 That price seemed ridiculous anyways. For someone to think that Social.org is worth over 200K because Social.com sold for over 2 million is beyond bad.

Why is it that in 95 percent of these fishy auctions, the other bidders never end up wanting the name? Something stinks. If the name was legitimately worth over 200K then I find it hard to believe that the first three bidders would all bail out.

You NEVER see a sale that is a great bargain for the buyer fall through. Funny, isn’t it. I wonder why?

]]>
By: ADvermain - Mike http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70514 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:18:47 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70514 @ Scott….LOL

]]>
By: Scott http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70512 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:46:57 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70512 Another contest Elliot? Guess the reneged sale price of Social.org? ;)

]]>
By: ADvermain - Mike http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70509 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:13:15 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70509 If I was the owner of Social.org I would now sit on the domain for a while after that. I feel the name is worth more but like Rick said “I would be shocked if social.org now sells for 6 figures.” If he trys to re-list it right away I think he will not get anywhere close to $228,600. What do you think it will sell for if he does re-list the domain right away?

]]>
By: Gnanes http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70505 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:34:40 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70505 Shill bidder ruined the auction on purpose and no legal action is taken against him/her. This is just wrong.

Namejet needs to take action against those who refuse to pay and those who refuse to transfer domains after a sale.

]]>
By: andrew http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70503 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:10:17 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70503 This is a real bummer for the seller, because I don’t think the domain is worth close to that amount.

]]>
By: Acro http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70500 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:12:41 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70500 Deadbeat bidders should be castrated.

]]>
By: Rick http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70484 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:26:55 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70484 Name names? Huh?? Thats potentially the worst idea I have heard to date. If I am selling my name with an auction house and they fail to secure a reliable bidder, they are at fault. These auction houses would lose a tremendous amount of business if they lose the shill bidders and the like. I wish the conversation would turn to legal action against namejet. I would be shocked if social.org now sells for 6 figures. Namejet should pay them the difference. They have damaged the value of the domain immensely.

]]>
By: Vincent DiAngelus http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70481 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 02:56:26 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70481 At a minimum they need to name names, shame the person publicly and let others know so they can decide if it’s worth it do business with the person again.

An auction house blacklist to suspend them across the industry houses.

]]>
By: Snoopy http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70473 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 01:31:10 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70473 “The auction sites should require that anyone who wants to bid over a certain $$$ amount have funds on deposit similar to a broker dealer.”

//////////////////////////

A lot of buyers simply wouldn’t do that, it would result in lower prices. There a fine balance here any impediment to bidding lowers prices. I think Sedo for example has gone to far with their requirements.

]]>
By: Elliot Silver http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70470 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:41:43 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70470 @ John

It sounds like a good idea, but I’m not sure if there are legal regulations with respect to collecting money and holding it. In addition, some companies may wish to bid anonymously, and they might have a problem leaving a deposit, which would reveal their hand.

]]>
By: John http://www.domaininvesting.com/social-org-sale-falls-through/#comment-70469 Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:38:37 +0000 http://www.domaininvesting.com/?p=14496#comment-70469 The auction sites should require that anyone who wants to bid over a certain $$$ amount have funds on deposit similar to a broker dealer. No Money No Trading.
Definitely a good idea i think for auctions going over $50K.
Too many wanna be players out there

]]>