Topic: Special Auction for 5x Denarium Bitcoin Decennium 2019 Gold Bars - page 4. (Read 2463 times)

thanks, did not see it.

Well, its 0.25 BTC, so, indeed the winner of this mess is lebnor (no disrespect to him). Changing the 0.43 btc bid down to 0.29 btc and grabbing a limited edition piece for only 0.04 over the ordinary edition's price was a nice catch.

hehe, I am a slightly bitter as my budget was 0.4 BTC for this piece but stopped following when I saw all prices are over it.

better luck next time, lol

Really hard prices. Gold worth 1.4k..
Nice Item good luck

The product is already on sale at our website: https://denarium.com/product/denarium-bitcoin-decennium-2019

Just as a tip to potential buyers, it is possible to reserve specific bars when buying. If they are available of course, some have been bought already.

WE = Denarium. I'm co-founder & Chairman of Prasos which is the company that operates Denarium.

The bars are .9999 gold and this has been certified by the independent lab we use for verification (Labtium). The problem is they don't have a .9999 stamp, they only have a .999 stamp. But they provide a certificate which confirms the .9999 purity, and we can provide a copy of that certificate to any buyers if needed.

It's not there. The bars are exactly 1oz though, but it's not printed in the bar.

wow, yeah, its kind a mess indeed.


@Technomage: Wondering guys, how much it will be sold for on the website please?

yikes, what a mess.... glad I've steered clear of Denarium auctions... so many issues

Who is WE......  

This was a very strange auction indeed. To be clear,  The minute Technomage validated a lower bid, I sent a pm asking him how he could possibly validate a lower bid   After he explained why, I was shocked but like ok whatever.. So I followed his rules. I’ve never been put in that situation before but simply wanted to pay lowest amount..

Why is there 4 9's on the front and 3 9s on the side.....  what TOOL would authorize that for minting...

Is the weight of 1 toz stamped anywhere on these bars?  It is not evident in the photos best I can tell.

I just typed in the exact same scenario above and that actually made few of us lost hope in the auction..

Scenario

5 BTC Cas coin comes for auction

Bidder 1 bids 1BTC
Bidder 2 bids 2BTC
Bidder 3 bids 7.5BTC

Everyone lost hope for winning and unfollow the thread

Last few secs/mins Bidder 3 bids 2.5BTC and won the auction..

What kinda rule is that? The 2nd bid from the same bidder cancels the first bid.





In reality it has happened a lot andw hen people bid .2 instead of .02 or some like but they publicly asks to cancel the the bid since they made a typo or something and which is perfectly fine since everyone undesstands and ever the sellers point out those mistakes for the bidders sometimes.. ..

I agree. I was bidding and left the auction when the price went above what I was willing to bid. I didn’t expect to come back later and see the winning bids lower ....

I appreciate your strict adherence to the rules you set forth. I agree with you that you lost out on this auction with initial bids almost twice what the final sale was for. I still disagree. The rule that a new bid cancels an older existing bid is there to ensure a person is not held accountable for two separate bids when they intended only one. An auction fundamentally can not go backwards in price, even with your rules.  Those new lower bids should have never been valid bids, unless if intended for a second item. If people don't know how an auction works at a basic level, they shouldn't be bidding and/or trying to manipulate the auction or seller. This format can be and has been implemented on this forum successfully without issue.

Shitty practice.... period.  On both the bidders for taking advantage of it and you most of all for allowing it.  This thread is nauseating and the more you talk, the more of a tool you come across as.  For me, I’ll never buy another Denarium piece.  

From the rules perspective it's quite simple really:

"When you post a bid, the bids in your previous posts are considered to be automatically canceled."

This means you can make new bids that will invalidate your old bids (as long as the new bids are valid!)

"Bids are considered invalid and will be ignored if they do not specify the price of the bid and the number of bars (if it is more than one bar) the bidder is bidding for, or if they could not possibly win any slots."

The new bids were valid as they could still win slots. Not necessarily the same slots as before, but they could still win slots. Thus they replaced the old bids.

I really wish it were not so, as I think we lost some money on this "exploit". But when this happened we checked the rules and it is quite clear it is a valid move to change a bid to a lower amount as long as you can still win slots with it. We thought it was a bit ridiculous as was evident by how the auction started behaving, then changed the rules to get a handle on it.

Note that such a situation is not possible in single-item auctions. This can only happen in an auction with multiple slots, otherwise the rules would have invalidated making a new bid that is lower. This can of course be fixed with a simple rule change going forward.

And no, we have never before changed rules in the middle of an auction nor is it going to become a habit. This was an extreme situation where we had to make a call between cancelling the whole auction and changing the rules, and we went with the latter. I think everyone actually bidding in the auction were fine with how we chose to handle it.

I understand what you are saying, but it makes no sense.
The definition of an auction is "a public sale in which goods or property are sold to the highest bidder." So any lower bid is automatically invalid, based on the definition of an auction.  You even stated in the OP that a bid is invalid if it could not possibly win a slot. I don't think you need to explicitly forbid a lower bid as it would be invalid. It seems that once someone bid lower than their original bid, their original bid should have still stood, and the new bid would have been valid for a second slot if it beat one of the other existing bids. It doesn't replace an existing winning bid at a lower price. It does not seem that the auction rules in this or others were fundamentally flawed, just not applied correctly to the bids placed in this case? I'm just trying to understand better.


I just don't understand how a lower bid could override a higher bid ever in an auction. I may be crazy, but that is what an auction is. It does not need to be stated in the rules, that's what it is. rsincognito and kebab77's "newer, lower bids" should not have invalidated their higher bids, but stood as new bids if they beat any other existing bids, otherwise they are by definition invalid. Simply having higher bid does not mean they are "paying a premium" it means they have a better chance of winning the auction. Maybe they are willing to pay more to get their choice of numbered bar?  Again, I am just so confused and trying to understand better. I'll quit beating the horse.

We assumed this as well, as did most others probably. The problem is that doing what was done in this particular auction (again, it has never happened before) is not explicitly forbidden in the rules. The rules just state that if you place a new bid, your previous bids are invalid. That's it. To make this clear, we will add a rule about this in the future, to avoid similar issues.

I'd like to note that I think many other auctions here have the same "exploit" possibility, as they might not technically forbid this type of bidding. I would recommend anyone setting up an auction to include something about this in the rules, just in case. We can't assume everyone just magically "knows how auctions work", all relevant things should be in the rules.