Comments on: Breaking News: SnapNames.com Puts Back Auction History To August 2004

By: 12,000 Auctions, 8,900 Bidders and 350,000 Bids: We Conclude Halvarez Was The Only Shill Bidder At Snapnames | Domaining Manual

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:12:09 +0000

[...] Snapnames put each user’s entire auction history into there respective Snapnames.com account l… we went to [...]

By: Phred

Phred — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:14:21 +0000

In addition to getting access to all my auctions, I would love to get a look at the history of all halvarez’s auctions, those that he won and those that he didn’t win.

By: MHB

MHB — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:05:52 +0000

Rob

I’m just about to post my initial results.

You may want to re-post this comment under that thread.

No doubt Oversee should and could get money back from not only Brady (remember he cashed out as a shareholder) but other shareholder that they got paid when Oversee bought SnapNames.com for an over hyped price supported by all this shill bidding.

This was basically the whole point of my post the other day that the scandal broke:

http://www.thedomains.com/2009/11/04/can-oversee-get-some-of-the-money-they-paid-for-snapnames-com-back/

By: Rob Sequin

Rob Sequin — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:47:32 +0000

FYI, I’m surprised that out of 362 auctions I was in going back to 2004, Halvarez didn’t win ANY but he did cost me over $1000 in inflated pricing according to Rust.

So, to me this seems to be a clear case of shill bidding to inflate prices which means higher revenue figures therefore inflating the valuation of Snapnames prior to the Oversee purchase. Also, perhaps he got bonuses based on revenue targets.

Did he act alone? Maybe but if he was inflating the revenue then I would think the VP of Sales and/or the CFO and/or the CEO would have known or perhaps should have known.

Assuming he had stock, raising the valuation of the company would put more money in his pocket than whatever domain sales revenue he got from selling to iReit.

I would think Oversee would want some money out of Brady and maybe others.

By: D

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:01:30 +0000

“How have you computed this percentage so quickly?”

Well he was in his whole life only in 50 auctions or so so it does not take that long

By: fizz

fizz — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:29:20 +0000

Congrats Acro – you initial big push on this was vital to getting the history restored.

For the record, I took a look at some of my old posts and snapnames’ claim was correct in that only two years of history was available to customers. In that post, dated 1st December 2007, I comment that my history goes back only to 2nd December 2005;

http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&postid=399886&highlight=halvarez#post399886

By: Acro

Acro — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:26:18 +0000

The 46% is the number of auctions that I won with halvarez being either a sole 2nd or 2nd in a series of bidders, pushing up the auction towards my reserve. It’s calculated using the Rust Consulting data I received. Obviously, now that I have the full auction history I will double-check the numbers.

By: MHB

MHB — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:22:10 +0000

Acro

How have you computed this percentage so quickly?

By: Acro

Acro — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:17:44 +0000

Oversee made an oversight – pun intended The prudent thing to do now is to analyze the data before considering further action. Even with the rebate analysis from Rust Consulting, halvarez affected 46% of the auctions I won.

By: MHB

MHB — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:15:49 +0000

Acro

Oversee really had no choice.

The wolfs were howling and I don’t think anyone was going to take the settlement offer without having access to the records.