How Wavee Makes Money: The Math Behind The Startup
ajaimk.com
ajaimk.com
As an exercise in curiosity one day I watched a few auctions on quibids for about 45 minutes - with a number of them, immediately after a bid was placed by what may have been a "real" user, nearly instantly another user - always the same one - placed another bid.
After a time watching this, I began counting the number of bids placed (at 60 cents per bid, which is quibids rate), the questionable bidder placed over 300 bids in the span of 45 minutes - each time in immediate response to someone else's bid.
The item in question was a $100 gift card from Target. At 300 bids (60 cents each), that was $180.00 - grossly in excess of the value of the card itself.
Yes, it could be claimed that this was just a very dumb bidder, but the speed and rate at which they were entering bids was nearly unbelievable.
The auction ended at $15.40. At one cent increments, that was 1540 bids - at 60 cents each. Quibids made 924 + 15.40 - $100 for that card. Sick.
A bot run by wavee would pay nothing
Orders of magnitude greater, look at one of the finished games and do the math.
It's quite an old scam, first described in 1971 according to Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
The first mainstream'ish implementation I know is swoopoo.com (2008). Since then a large number of clones have popped up, likely motivated by the fact that, for some reason, gambling laws in many countries don't seem to cover this scheme.
It would seem regulation would be desirable for such auction sites, since the consumer has to place a significant about of trust in the auctioneer not to bid up his own products to make more money, or throw non-profitable auctions to a self-owned account... the end-user currently has no practical recourse if this happens.
Hopefully grellas or another IAAL can throw in some knowledge.
The reason why bids happen so fast is that they over bid a high amount and not the next increment. And those super bidders usually have 'won' bids in a previous auction thus receiving a discount on the bid value.
Of course, that doesn't mean that said centralisation is legal.
But I think my only real disagreement with their existence is that they aren't covered by gambling regulations. As a slightly weird form of gambling, presented clearly to the public as such (and regulated as such), I don't believe I'd have any objection to them.
Sadly, borderline misrepresentation of the truth is not illegal and probably couldn't effectively be made so.
shrug one way or another a fool and his money will be separated - the important thing is to make sure he enjoys the process. Value for money can come in excitement/fun as well as goods.
(why, yes, I'm feeling cynical today, why did you ask?)