After numerous domain blogs, forums and domainers demanded that SnapNames.com put back the auction history into every one’s account, tonight Snapnames.com restored full auction history going back to August 2004.
My account which only had 21 pages of auction history earlier today when I checked, now numbers 121 pages or over 12,000 auction
I’m planning on pulling all this info and complying an excel file to examine each auction, the bidders, bidding patterns and will report back with my finding although its going to take a while.
Thanks for breaking the news. It’s a major victory for domainers – demaning transparency in the “halvarez” scandal. Finally we can cross-check the data.
Glad you wrote, I couldn’t remember which blog I saw the demand from first but as soon as you commented I realized it was yours, so I edited the story to give you credit and linked back to you
Thanks – it’s an example of how loud our voices can become, in situations like this. We need a better understanding of the balance of power; the lack of transparency in the domain industry leads to unforeseen events that hurt everyone’s interest. This is a plus, in my book, for Oversee.
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.
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.
How have you computed this percentage so quickly?
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.
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;
“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
Rob Sequin says
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.
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:
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.