Topic: Heads up cool bitcoin stuff auction at Scarce.City (Read 475 times)

Fair play for addressing the points head on, haven't bought or listed anything on the site yet but I've always found it fun lurking around for all the cool stuff people put on Scarce. I hope the project  does well especially with all the attention it will get when the bull hits.

   I am very glad you are taking steps in trying to prevent this type of situation from happening again.

   I have been a buyer in the past from your site and had nothing but a good experience as I have described here>

   https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scarcecity-my-experience-and-review-5455672

   The idea that a seller would renege on the highest bid and not deliver would have really have left a bad taste.

   So forward and onward to better buyer protection in getting what they justly deserve on their high bid.

   Cheers!

Hey all, Chris from Scarce City here.

I appreciate the comments. These types of threads help us find opportunities for improvement. I'll address some of the points of confusion and concerns, as well share some solutions we're implementing.

First, regarding the United Nodes auction -- the piece is not in our possession and it was fully communicated to the seller that it was a No Reserve auction. For these types of sales, we've required sellers to have a strong Twitter/BT reputation and relied on them to act in the interest of maintaining their reputation to deliver the goods according to auction terms. I'm still hopeful that LitLit will act in the interest of their reputation and come through on the sale but the doubt raised has made it clear that our reputation system is not enough.

Effective immediately, sellers with reputations that are at all questionable will be required to deposit BTC collateral with their auctions or escrow (with MJ). They'll forfeit their collateral if they do not deliver the goods and escrowed items will be delivered to the buyer, according to auction terms.

Re starting reserve prices, we allow them in some circumstances -- for artists who are voted into our artist group (by other artists), for events where the event organizer is curating the auctions, and for some multi-edition auctions. Otherwise, our auctions are No Reserve. The reason is we put a ton of work into curating auctions, crafting auction pages, and promoting EVERY auction across our newsletter, twitter, and telegram. It only makes sense for us to put in that work if the item sells. Also, through the thousands of auctions we've run, we've seen that No Reserve auction perform better on average and are way more fun to participate in.

That said, we understand that starting reserve prices make sense for some auctions and are building an option for that (outside of Scarce.City). In the meantime, sellers have the option to list items in our marketplace for a fixed price.

Re hidden reserves, I see how they make sense for some other auction platforms but we don't think it's an acceptable bidder experience with our collateral-based auction system. The most common and permissionless way to bid on Scarce City is by depositing a small amount of BTC with your bid (refunded as long as winning bid is paid). Many bidders deposit collateral over Lightning but some pay high fees to deposit onchain. It's a terrible experience to spend sats to bid, not to mention get emotionally involved in the auction, place the highest bid and still not win the auction because there's a hidden reserve. We're open to ideas on how to make it work but so far have not found a good enough solution.

Finally, on the design criticism, we're constantly making improvements and have a long list of improvements to make on our roadmap. Any specific feedback to help us prioritize improvements is always greatly appreciated.

I hope that helps clarify how we're approaching things. Understand that we're a small scrappy team doing our best to build a platform that offers the best experience for buyers and sellers while staying true to Bitcoin values and promoting Bitcoin culture. There are many challenges that don't have solutions, only tradeoffs.

Many thanks to all of you who are patient with us and have supported us along the way.

Chris

The lack of communication was the main concern for me. Once I was in finally contact with Chris and James, they were very professional and helpful about my issues.

For a contrary opinion, I've sold a few small-value items through Scarce.city, worked directly with Chris, and had a good experience.

The criticism about reserve bidding, and sellers backing out, is very legitimate. Oftentimes over the years I've had sold something at auction that went for much less than I expected, but those are the rules, and the item gets to the buyer regardless. But in this situation, I'd blame the seller more than the auction house. Taking all items in first for inspection, as an alternative, would increase their overhead greatly. The liability alone of keeping things secure while in escrow would be very challenging. Maybe this is something they can do as they grow, or figure out better guarantees for both parties in the meantime.

I just see people coming in and throwing shade at their whole operation from various angles, and just wanted everyone to take a step back and see that scarce is doing something interesting and unique, and giving exposure to bitcoin and collectibles in an industry where just staying afloat in the last few years has been a struggle.

I have purchased a few items from scarce.city and the experience was definitely less than pleasant.

Bought two pieces of art from the Plan B Lugano event in Switzerland on October 21 and just received them 1/10 and 1/11(yesterday). While they seem professional and nice enough people, the communication is definitely lacking. I had to reach out multiple times within a few weeks of auction end to ask about shipping. Only got responses when I was the one reaching out even weeks after they were supposed to initially ship. They had procured an art shipper before the event but then weren’t happy with their pricing. I paid nearly .05btc for shipping as they said we would get refunded any difference and I was sure that I’d get a decent chunk back. Nope lol it actually cost them $1400+ and nearly 2.5 months to ship them. And the icing on the cake is that one of the pieces has a one-piece hand carved wooden frame that came broken at all corners 

I’ve purchased some items after that as they were things I really wanted and couldn’t get elsewhere, but the shipping is different due to it not being an event. They have assured me that my issue was specific to that event due to it being in Switzerland, but I don’t plan to bid again after I won the few other items I really wanted.

Hearing about the items not being honored after auction end is sketchy as fuck though and should never be allowed

Funny how OP posted to try to garner attention and has been silent since…

EDIT:
Just saw a couple of text strings... I guess Chris is NOT actually in possession of the item and sending it back as was implied to me earlier.  It seems LitLitBit is just standing in the corner with his arms crossed stomping saying it's not fair, I wanted more! 

The fact that this is so muddy just sucks!  People talking out of both sides of their mouth.... speaking in that grey area so later down the road... "whoa there, I technically didn't say that."
Supposedly some failed marketing has something to do with all this as well.  This really isn't rocket science.  If they are not in possession of the item, it doesn't get auctioned.  It's really that simple.  It's incredibly lazy for SC to not inspect the items themselves and then reship once they know the item is in good standing and real.  SC takes a 10-15% commission depending on who you are.  What is it for??  Website use and a couple of emails??  That would be fair if you actually did it properly....

Shame on scarce. Whomever this Chris guy is, he doesn’t properly run an auction website and would greatly benefit from making basic, necessary changes. It’s hard to not simply think he’s being cheap, as surely he’s aware of his websites obvious limitations.  Total bullshit.

WOW! THAT'S SO FUCKING LAME!

I never understood what the bazaar was - I was simply trying to auction it - they told me no minimum bid, no reserve and only runs for 2 days. The seller whose items I had decided to list them here instead.

You are correct, it's not an option if you want the item to be part of the "bazaar."

that was not an option when I last checked - it was for someone else's items - they decided to have me auction them on the forums instead.

---

my two sats:

the auction was done with no reserve - perhaps it was not done as good as it could have been done by SC but that is no fault of the buyer. I am sure all buyers love it when they win an auction for less than they anticipated and I am sure all would be upset if a seller backed out.  I think it better to be concerned with the reputation one has and the effect it has long term on all their future deals. I would say ship the item - take the pymt. then blast SC for not doing as they promised. Let them be the point of failure - remove the focus from the seller/buyer and put it on them.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

Just that if you won't take less than 0.05BTC for example, you have the option to set that as your starting bid.

their no reserve standing has had me not list a few items as well

what is this "start at a set price" thing? if someone wants a reserve they should uses that option at least.

They do have the item... and Chris is sending the item back to LitLitBit and refunding the winner.  The winner was told they'd get some CG stickers for the trouble....
#ScarceSucks

Scarce should be involved with the escrow of the items on top of the funds. Scarce should have to physically have the work in their offices to host the auction that way the seller can't back out

Not honoring a winning bid is incredibly scammy by you... as Scarce does not have a reserve option (believe me i've tried) so none was stated in the auction.  They do have a start this bidding at a price you are happy to sell it at and auction from there, but greed stopped you from taking advantage of that option as you were worried it'd get no action.  The fact the the item is in Chris' possession at Scarce and he is allowing this is AWFUL and strike 2!! (Strike 1 being extending an auction at the conference because someone important didn't like the current prices at the time of the original ending)
At this point REAL auction houses will be selling crypto collectibles and the people bidding won't have to worry if Chris will make a good or poor decision on that given day.

So disappointing to see such a lack of integrity in the space!

I think even if you have the option to go with a reserve price sellers will often opt not to use it as they attract more people when there's no reserve. Users will bid just on the off chance and once they're sucked in the race they might go the extra mile to try and win the item that they might've not even been interested in had it been a reserve listing. Is that right? of course not but that's human psychology. That being said reserve price should be there to choose from, in my opinion.

  Exactly my thoughts...and I do believe Ebay had that hidden reserve setting years ago when I sodl items. I can only see it protecting both the seller and the buyer from getting dissapointed as in this case.

those should be options - they are afraid if they allow for a reserve that some auctions may end without a bid - item not selling - then they did the work of listing etc and get zero.

however, i would say allow a reserve to be set but allow bids below the reserve - let the seller see what people are actually willing to pay.

for example an item sells for 1 btc - so a seller rushes to sell theirs hoping for the same amount, they set a reserve of 1btc but then see that with all the bids the highest is only say .65 btc - that then is more reflective of the value.