If a bidder can not pay for the domain, they will try to bill the next highest bidder, until they get a successful transaction. They also reserve the right to keep the domain. It's very easy for a person to use two or three accounts to drive the price of a domain up to discourage other bids, then default and get the name at a lower price.
I would rather see the defaulting winner's bids removed, and then offer the bid in a private auction to the remaining participants.
Enom's model is not much different. I'm guessing they use the bids to and try harder to get domains people are interested in. I don't think it drives the end price of the domain up much. Most only bid the minimum anyway.
~jb
Loren Stocker wrote:
Huh? Just what don't I get here? You think I'm against the drop market? That's nonsense. I love it. Defend it.
What I'm suggesting here is that Tucows engage in the drop market in a way
that empowering users, rather that simply extract maximum value for themselves
as does Pool, Snap, and Enom. What ever happened to loyality?
You realize that Enom already has a high bidder at the drop, yet they continue the auction afterwards to ensure THEY gain maximum benefits. Who are they REALLY thinking of?
Loren
JB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yea right... I think TUCOWS should stay out of the drop market. It will "empower" to many citizens to join the fishfry and drive up the prices.
Welcome to capitalism.
Loren Stocker wrote:
> This, too, is self-serving. Like Pool, "two or more bidders" enter a private
auction after enom grabs the bait. Like Lemmings, they are, all driving
into
the "Pool.com"
What I like to see is a service that EMPOWERS users, rather than yet
another
service designed to extract maximum revenues at the expense of
convenience.
Best, Loren
