Domain Liquidation Platform - Seeking input for new Epik project

[DanSanchez]

Dear Namepros,

The team at Epik is exploring the development of a project that aims to shift the painful domain name expiration process into a more profitable experience for domainers. Perhaps you have read my opinions about registrars selling expired domains and refusing to help registrants in recovery. The time to disrupt this with action has come!

In the meantime, since joining Epik last month, I decided to do something about it with the help of some amazing engineers. The goal of this "name liquidate" idea is to sell domains directly to buyers that may otherwise wait to acquire these domains at expired auctions or being filled as registrar backorders which pays zero to the registrant.

The planned solution addresses two domainer pain points,
1. Liquidation of expiring inventory brings much needed capital, meaning you can renew more of your portfolio.
2. Buyers get clear title and dont waste time bidding on names that can be recovered post-expiry.

Here is the process,
1. Submit your domains: you unlock your domains, provide auth codes.
2. Seller acknowledges that a fast-transfer of the domain will occur once domain has a bid.
3. Bidders agree to non-revocable change of ownership if their bid prevails.
4. Sellers receive a large portion (80%?) of auction proceeds.

The process begins with a 7 day reverse auction counting down hourly/daily, down to $1 plus renewal/transfer for delivery. The domain doesn't have to be expired or expiring. You can submit the name multiple times during the life of the name but not more than once per year. Once the auth code is verified:
• Epik parks the domain with auction template with Make Offer pricing so retail bids can come in.
• Wholesale buyers are informed of expired auction inventory update.
• Domain goes through reverse auction in 7 days
• Domains are fast transferred to Epik as soon as one bid is made.
• If seller locks name, all domains will be removed and no further listings will be accepted from seller.
• Domains already at Epik are pre-qualified for "name liquidate" services, but you must opt in manually.
• External domains are eligible once auth codes are verified.
• Data will include number of views, expiration date, and expected delivery.
• Pre-set domain buys will give you the ability to buy any name when a price hits a certain target.
• Once a bid is submitted, it cannot be revoked. All purchases a final non-refundable.
As for brand name, we are considering NameLiquidate.com — very descriptive name and targeted at a very specific audience. That said, open to considering other names. A separate brand naming project is coming shortly for what Rob describes as the “Ultimate Digital Brand Marketplace”. This is separate.

 

[Keith]

That is called DEFAMATION. You use the word "Theft". It is a word that describes a CRIME. However, there was no crime. That makes you a FALSE ACCUSER. You see how that works.

Here is the transaction history on the domain:

Show attachment 146522

There are receipts with email time stamps for each one.

No apology needed. You were already forgiven. Best of luck.

So finally after a year or better we have a bit of proof. Thank you.

As to theft, yes, I consider any registrar that keeps property from a customer, expired or otherwise, a thief. That’s my opinion and btw, have you noticed the poll results? Most agree that you should not keep expired domains like BC30.

If you want something, compete on the open market, don’t just take it.

 

[Rob Monster]

So finally after a year or better we have a bit of proof. Thank you.

As to theft, yes, I consider any registrar that keeps property from a customer, expired or otherwise, a thief. That’s my opinion and btw, have you noticed the poll results? Most agree that you should not keep expired domains like BC30.

If you want something, compete on the open market, don’t just take it.

The pool is a contrived piece of nonsense that says the domainer equivalent of "Do you think everyone should be able to get free ice cream on hot summer days if they are too poor to afford to buy it?"

It was produced by Frank Germany who specializes in nonsense and clickbait.

 

[NicTraders]

Hi everyone. Just checked out NameLiquidate and I like what I see so far.

I have a question about listing names. Is there a way to specify the starting price? I ask because, If I'm going to liquidate a name that expires in a couple weeks, I would like to set an attractive price early instead of having the reverse auction starting at almost $1000

Also, is there an FAQ specific to NameLiquidate? Can't find it and the Knowledge Base at Epik isn't resolving (although that could be an issue on my end)

Thanks @Rob Monster and @DanSanchez , I'm really looking forward to test driving NameLiquidate

Currently you can't specify starting price. All start at $998.
They are still working on their FAQ's. Something that is definitely needed.

 

[Rob Monster]

For possible clarification (with respect, as I understand English is not your primary language).

I didn't see anything defamatory in your edited screenshot. (added below for reference)

Show attachment 146535

However, Rob said your actions, so he could be referring to other posts.

Lastly, and getting back on track to this thread, looking into the above domain sale, regarding the March 2014 acquisition, and I'm not sure if it was already mentioned, or if this is the reasoning for @frank-germany mentioning it in this thread is that 2014 domain might have been acquired in similar warehousing fashion of BC30, through and after the acquisition of IntrustDomains.com (unfortunately there isn't an updated historical WHOIS entry in DomainIQ to be more specific, however the first 2010 entry shows IntrustDomains.com WHOIS server, similar to BC30)

Show attachment 146537

It was a dropcatch name- -- caught for a customer who then did not renew.

Awareness of NameLiquidate is increasing quickly.

Usability and functionality is also improving quickly.

The new API should help a ton:

https://docs.userapi.epik.com/v2/#/Liquidate/liquidateAddDomain

There are 3 API methods so really anyone with names that they are not renewing should liquidate them and get 91% of the proceeds in the process.

It is opt-in but we are making it as painless as possible.

 

[Rob Monster]

really ???
promotion again ????

What promotion?

Solutions to problems.

Got a better solution to registrants not monetizing their own expiry streams? I have yet to come across too many but am looking pretty hard.

 

[Rob Monster]

What if awareness doesn't maintain, or worse, doesn't bring in a customer base?



How can we opt in to receive a percentage of the 75% that SnapNames expired auctions pays out?

Is it possible to work out a deal with GoDaddy auctions instead of SnapNames, and split the proceeds of our expired domains that are sent to GoDaddy auctions instead of SnapNames (assuming GoDaddy has a larger customer base.)

For those wondering, here is a May 2018 excerpt from @Joe Styler regarding GoDaddys stance on warehousing expired domains.

I am very close to dropping Snapnames entirely.

Revenue-wise, it is relatively chump change anyway.

This way it would go like this:

- Registrants can liquidate anyttime

- Day 44, we send to Daily Diamonds

- We'll add an option to let customers auto-submit domains to NameLiquidate, e.g. up to 15 days after expiry but they can send it earlier if they want.

What do you think?

 

[Chris Hydrick]

What do you think?

Likely dependent on customer base and execution.

@DanSanchez is the man.

But it might require more resources than available.

Registrant revenue share with a auction house like GoDaddy might welcome shill bidding, especially when the registrant is to receive a portion of the profits. Something I imagine their legal team has or would consider prior to implementation.

So I imagine, while this is a much needed void to fill, it will likely require much oversight, hopefully AI powered, shill bidding monitoring, and protection; not to be taken lightly given the monetary incentive within the revenue share.

 

[Rob Monster]

Likely dependent on customer base and execution.

@DanSanchez is the man.

But it might require more resources available.

Registrant revenue share with a auction house like GoDaddy might welcome shill bidding, especially when the registrant is to receive a portion of the profits. Something I imagine their legal team has or would consider prior to implementation.

So I imagine, while this is a much needed void to fill, it will likely require much oversight, hopefully AI powered, shill bidding monitoring, and protection; not to be taken lightly given the monetary incentive within the revenue share.

As you know, NameLiquidate and Daily Diamonds are both reverse auctions.

No shill bids.

We did that for a reason.

Nobody likes being left holding the drippy bag of a chargeback on a transaction where the commission was a mighty skinny 9%.

So, by rooting out fraud, keeping overhead low, and automating processes, we can achieve scale and create value at the same time.

Godaddy is actually in trouble. I think they secretly know it too. Uniregistry was a hail Mary and with Arnold Blinn's resignation it is looking DOA.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

As you know, NameLiquidate and Daily Diamonds are both reverse auctions.

No shill bids.

We did that for a reason.

Great, but not full proof.

How to combat against false bids placed to entice other bidders or to gain views?

If I recall, NameLiquidate didn't pull from my Epik account funds when I won an auction, rather I think I was charged from a separate source at the point of sale.

What if I was a non payer? Doing so specifically to put a false reserve.

Why not put a hold on (and draw from) my epik funds, similar to backorders?

 

[Rob Monster]

Great, but not full proof.

How to combat against false bids placed to entice other bidders or to gain views?

If I recall, NameLiquidate didn't pull from my Epik account funds when I won an auction, rather I was charged from a separate at the point of sale.

What if I was a non payer? Doing so specifically to put a false reserve.

Why not put a hold on (and draw from) my epik funds, similar to backorders?

The auction is not actually won until the buyer pays. The only way someone could game the system is to use a stolen credit card or do a chargeback. I don't recommend either of those.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

The auction is not actually won until the buyer pays. The only way someone could game the system is to use a stolen credit card or do a chargeback. I don't recommend either of those.

So you're saying, once a bid is placed, there is a hold on the funds for the amount of the bid?

 

[Samer]

So you're saying, once a bid is placed, there is a hold on the funds for the amount of the bid?

Dan said once a buyer didnt pay, then it went to the next guy highest bidder who could.

Be ready to pay and ban those deadweights.
or penalize them!

Samer

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Example...

I want to liquidate a domain I paid $500 for.

I don't want to take less than $500, but for the sake of liquidating, I might be willing to go down to $350.

Do I have a friend place a bid of $350 to ensure I don't lose it?

Can I set a reserve?

Or do I have to be manually available, at the hour it drops to a price I am not willing to accept, and at that point, even if there is a bid for $300 and the bid is at $333, I could pull the auction, and try to get $400 on nP or somewhere that might have a better customer base?

 

[Rob Monster]

So you're saying, once a bid is placed, there is a hold on the funds for the amount of the bid?

A bid that has no method of payment is a non-bid.

If your bid comes up and the system can't successfully charge a payment method on file, the bid is null and void and the next bid is taken or the price drops.

Critique welcome but perhaps study it a bit. @DanSanchez has an updated FAQ he should share.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Dan said once a buyer didnt pay, then it went to the next guy highest bidder who could.

Be ready to pay and ban those deadweights.

I wonder how many times that has happened. Dan could have been referring to a different auction, but this example happened to me at nameliquidate.

As that could be perceived as a false reserve, or could have been done so to entice me to bid more.

Here's how it played out (according to my email history):

///

I remember thinking, ahh good. What was I doing bidding $9 on that domain? Not saying I'm not happy to win at $9. But at that moment, it was the relief of $9 opening up, and not being attached to another domain. Typical domainers should I buy, or should I leave it, questioning oneself, that left me thinking, should I bid more?

///

Then, about five hours later, a few minutes before the auction ended, two more emails come in:

Currently at $11

//

Currently at $34

///

Then, to my surprise, a few minutes later I receive:

For how much you ask?

 

[Rob Monster]

I wonder how many times that has happened. Dan could have been referring to a different auction, but this example happened to me at nameliquidate.

As that could be perceived as a false reserve, or could have been done so to entice me to bid more.

Here's how it played out (according to my email history):

Show attachment 146540

///

I remember thinking, ahh good. What was I doing bidding $9 on that domain? Not saying I'm not happy to win at $9. But at that moment, it was the relief of $9 opening up, and not being attached to another domain. Typical domainers should I buy, or should I leave it, questioning oneself, that left me thinking, should I bid more?

///

Then, about five hours later, a few minutes before the auction ended, two more emails come in:

Currently at $11
Show attachment 146541

//

Currently at $34
Show attachment 146543

///

Then, to my surprise, a few minutes later I receive:

Show attachment 146544

For how much you ask?

Show attachment 146545

Good example:

If there is a shill bid that does not fund, then their bid is a non-bid.

We'll definitely be adding some AI to detect nonsense.

So far not seeing much of that -- I see folks getting deals and I see sellers getting value for names that would have otherwise gotten them zero.

I have to believe that Godaddy is not loving the idea of this going mainstream. Oops.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

If there is a shill bid that does not fund, then their bid is a non-bid.

That seems to be a problem.

"If there is a shill bid..."

There shouldn't be shill bids. Why acknowledge shill bids could be funded?

Every bid should fund. Shouldn't be a matter of if funded or not.

Otherwise... how to combat against false bids when there is a monetary incentive involved?

 

[Rob Monster]

That seems to be a problem.

"If there is a shill bid..."

There shouldn't be shill bids. Why acknowledge shill bids could be funded?

Every bid should fund. Shouldn't be a matter of if.

Otherwise... how to combat against false bids when there is a monetary incentive involved?

@Grilled - There are no shills. I am saying that shilling is impossible by design. That is why we did the Reverse auction format. It is a superior method that prevents nonsense.

 

[Keith]

[QUOTE="Rob Monster, post: 7661045, member: 186004""Do you think everyone should be able to get free ice cream on hot summer days if they are too poor to afford to buy it?".[/QUOTE]
Free ice cream? The driver gets free ice cream by default. Seems the same in the domain biz. Those at the top seem to always take...

 

[Chris Hydrick]

@Keith -- Your post above seems to have an error in it, as the text isn't formatting properly. I also wanted to discuss that question.

@Grilled - There are no shills. I am saying that shilling is impossible by design. That is why we did the Reverse auction format. It is a superior method that prevents nonsense.

Now that this discussion has been moved into the proper place,

I will continue to say that the design is not full proof.

I presented holes. You can fix those holes, or you could ignore them as irrelevant, and wait and see what, if anything crawls through, but if leaks happen, don't be saying you weren't aware, if buyers were to be falsely enticed to bid more, through nonfunding bids, prior to, or should the case arise of a complaint.

Critique welcome but perhaps study it a bit.

I'm happy to critique it. But before you go pointing the finger at me to study it more, with respect it might be best to move any fanboys that may be standing in front of whats right in front of you, and heed your own advice.

The question I was asking, was simply doubling down to confirm your stance. Despite what it may appear, sometimes I like to confirm I'm understanding, prior responding.

As was shortly indicated otherwise, after posting the screenshots of me winning Prrotect, despite being outbid multiple times, I wasn't entirely clueless of how nameliquidate work(ed)s. And any understanding I don't have of it, could be chalked up to poor information distribution on the home page.

Further, and back to point, If I were to outbid those nonfunded bids who outbid me, I don't imagine you'd be very willing to roll the price back to what I actually ended up paying for it, after the other $$ bids failed to fund. But maybe I'm mistaken.

Though, I don't imagine I'd have the fortitude to ask for both the domain, and my bid to get rolled back, without being privy to likely nonpublic information. In this case, I have the accountability of Epiks systems to thank, which I think (epiks record keeping) might go unthanked as a whole. So thank you for the transparency of a well functioning notification system! And, while we're at it, thank you for all of the other transparency! Now that the fanning is over, can we please clog some holes? ... preferably not with bubble gum.

 

[Rob Monster]

@Keith -- Your post above seems to have an error an it, as the text isn't formatting properly. I also wanted to discuss that question.



Now that this discussion has been moved into the proper place,

I will continue to say that the design is not full proof.

I presented holes. You can fix those holes, or you could ignore them as irrelevant, and wait and see what, if anything crawls through, but if leaks happen, don't be saying you weren't aware, if buyers were to be falsely enticed to bid more, through nonfunding bids, prior to, or should the case arise of a complaint.



I'm happy to critique it. But before you go pointing the finger at me to study it more, with respect it might be best to move any fanboys that may be standing in front of whats right in front of you, and heed your own advice.

The question I was asking, was simply doubling down to confirm your stance. Despite what it may appear, sometimes I like to confirm I'm understanding, prior responding.

As was shortly indicated otherwise, after posting the screenshots of me winning Prrotect, despite being outbid multiple times, I wasn't entirely clueless of how nameliquidate work(ed)s. And any understanding I don't have of it, could be chalked up to poor information distribution on the home page.

Further, and back to point, If I were to outbid those nonfunded bids who outbid me, I don't imagine you'd be very willing to roll the price back to what I actually ended up paying for it, after the other $$ bids failed to fund.

But maybe I'm mistaken. Though, I don't imagine I'd have the fortitude to ask for both the domain, and my bid to get rolled back, without being privy to likely nonpublic information. In this case, I have the accountability of Epiks systems to thank, which I think (epiks record keeping) might go unthanked as a whole. So thank you for the transparency of a well functioning notification system! And, while we're at it, thank you for all of the other transparency! Now that the fanning is over, can we please clog some holes? ... preferably not with bubble gum.

In spite of the snarky sass, will ask @Sumeeth to QA the topic and see what gaps there might be here precisely. Here I thought you and I were going to be friends and mostly you talk smack. My goodness.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

In spite of the snarky sass, will ask @Sumeeth to QA the topic and see what gaps there might be here precisely. Here I thought you and I were going to be friends and mostly you talk smack. My goodness.

I'm sorry you're not taking this seriously.

Please carry on, and shun anybody trying to help protect NameLiquidate against shills.

 

[Rob Monster]

I'm sorry you're not taking this seriously.

Please carry on, and shun anybody trying to help protect NameLiquidate against shills.

Nope, we are absolutely going to take it seriously. That is what I like about you -- sharp intellect with attention to detail. I see the positive and am embracing the positive. The tone could be more constructive.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

The tone could be more constructive.

Given the current, and excessive conversation taking over namePros, others might argue your tone could also be more constructive.

But I attest that to possibly listening to too many biased fanboys telling you everything is great. But let's not get political here.

 

[Rob Monster]

Given the current, and excessive conversation taking over namePros, others might argue your tone can also be more constructive.

But I attest that to possibly listening to too many biased fanboys telling you everything is great. But let's not get political here.

We have some fans.

We have some rock-throwers.

We have some spectators.

I extend respect and courtesy to those who afford me the same. I have yet to cast the first stone.

Nobody gets a free pass, including me. I am fine with that.