45 ms·

Jump Trading sues 79-year-old Carl Sagan fan over wormhole.com domain

229 points by davidmr 4y ago

0daystock 4y ago
Completely disgraceful, but not totally unexpected for a company led by a 25 year old "crypto intern".
- blueberrychpstx 4y ago
  What do you mean by crypto intern here?
  - rsstack 4y ago
    I think he's referring to the president of their crypto arm (not the whole company) who was an engineering intern when he originally joined the company 5 years ago.
- zarkov99 4y ago
  Are you jealous? What is wrong with being 25 year old and figuring out how to lead the company you interned at to unlock 1 billion in revenue? Seems like a pretty good start to me.
  - 0daystock 4y ago
    I'm not jealous; I'm making a moral judgement about how immature a 25 yo's view of the world is likely to be, especially if they work in a privileged industry far divorced from most people's everyday reality.
zmgsabst 4y ago
Yuck. I’m sick of living in a society where wealthy people are able to bully and harass others. No corporation would feel bound to honor a price tossed out casually in an email with nothing signed — and it’s disgusting they’re suing an old man to bully him. Why is it crypto people are so gross? — how can I take the current state of crypto seriously when a “major” platform acts like petulant middle schoolers?
- TAForObvReasons 4y ago
  > Merryman responded on July 1: “The price for wormhole.com is a firm US $ 50,000. -Dick-.” > Merryman hadn’t been serious about selling, he said, throwing out what he viewed as a high offer to get them to go away. If he wasn't serious about selling, he should have said so and moved on. It seems smarmy to quote an offer price without a sincere intent to sell.
  - djohnston 4y ago
    Sure, that's the most you can say. Without a signed agreement he has no obligation to listen to them or sell.
    - rosndo 4y ago
      Why would an email not be an agreement?
      - djohnston 4y ago
        Its not legally binding, are you asking why an email isn't legally binding?
        rosndo 4y ago
        Yeah, why not?
        ipaddr 4y ago
        Because a window isn't a door
        rosndo 4y ago
        So you don’t actually know?
  - AdmiralAsshat 4y ago
rendall 4y ago
Disgusting. Jump Trading should be ashamed, but people like that are shameless.
skullone 4y ago
Crypto should indeed disappear down a wormhole to get deposited into the trash dimension.
- akvadrako 4y ago
  If you hate these guys so much you should not let them dictate your language. Crypto doesn't mean cryptocurrency.
  - cbozeman 4y ago
    Yes it does. It just doesn't to you, because you're not an average person. The average person, who has no idea what cryptography is, only hears of "crypto" in sound bites on MSNBC or Fox News, and hears advertisements for a VISA crypto card, the only card powered by crypto! and they think exactly what OP thought.
  - mike_d 4y ago
    I'm going to blow your mind... the "crypto" in cryptocurrency is from cryptography, of which it is a subset.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      Sort of. Little of the work being done in the cryptocurrency space is actually applied cryptography. The big innovation of proof-of-work consensus isn't using cryptography to achieve trustlessness. Yeah there are digital signatures. Hooray.
      - mike_d 4y ago
        The proof of work in bitcoin was originally a cryptographic primitive designed to prevent email spam.
      - ricochet11 4y ago
        I would argue that pretty much all of the recent (past 5 years) advances in work on zkproofs is researched/funded/applied by cryptocurrency community. and imo this is the most important work in cryptography that is happening, actually developing secure general computation. You might not like cryptocurrencies but to dismiss this is silly. The "crypto means cryptography" motto also trivializes all the prior work, cryptography and ideas of digital tokens/currencies have been tied together for decades. https://zkp.science/ https://zkp.science/ https://zkproof.org/ https://zkproof.org/ https://github.com/0xPARC https://github.com/0xPARC https://github.com/iden3/circom https://github.com/iden3/circom
barnbuilder 4y ago
The linked article seems to be copied and pasted from here: https://www.businessinsider.com/jump-trading-sues-over-wormholecom-domain-crypto-blockchain-carl-sagan-2022-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/jump-trading-sues-over-wormh... Not sure what "kqeducationgroup.com" is but it looks illegitimate.
- davidmr 4y ago
  It certainly does—my apologies. This is where I saw it first. Unfortunately I can’t change it.
  - paulgb 4y ago
    BI runs content syndicated from elsewhere, so appearing on BI doesn’t indicate that it’s their reporting (although someone who can see past the paywall may be able to say for sure). Assuming that the linked source is legally running the piece, it’s a better link for HN because it isn’t paywalled.
    - pluc 4y ago
      > Alex Morrell is a correspondent at Business Insider covering Wall Street at large OP's article is trendsquatting.
      - paulgb 4y ago
        The quoted segment of your comment answers my question, but what is trendsquatting?
        pluc 4y ago
        It's a term that felt appropriate to describe what OP's article was achieving
    - holler 4y ago
      Unrelated but I clicked your name and noticed you joined in 2007 the year HN started, that's pretty cool! How did you hear about it back then? Also drift.space/jamsocket seem pretty interesting (the jamsocket site seemed to lag when scrolling).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Ecco 4y ago
I will have to disagree with most comments here: I’m not sure Jump is to blame here. - $100’000 seems like a rather generous compensation to change your email address. - And most importantly, they simply agreed to his initial demand. And now he’s backing off out of greed. Hell they even agreed to his second counter-offer of $100k and now he wants $200k…
- Fauntleroy 4y ago
  Just because someone makes a good offer, it doesn't obligate the other party to accept it.
  - Ecco 4y ago
    Well, it’s not just a good offer: it’s the price the seller asked for in the first place, isn’t it?
    - frumper 4y ago
      Since he hasn't sold anything its kind of hard to call him a seller. He got an unsolicited email. He isn't in the business of selling domains.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    True, but if someone says "The price is X" and you say "Okay, deal" and then they say "No, that was too easy, I could get more from you" then there may be some kind of obligation there - at least a moral or social obligation if not a legal one.
    - stjohnswarts 4y ago
      Why should the individual have morals when dealing with corporations when corporations don't have morals?
- moreira 4y ago
  It's his domain, he is free to change his mind for whatever reason. He's not obligated to sell it for any amount of money, and he's definitely not done anything that he should be sued over. He's free to be as greedy as he wants to be, and the company are free to either pay up or go away. But bringing him to court because "wahhh he won't sell to us" does seem ridiculous.
rearseet22 4y ago
Reading the article it looks like the domain owner was leading wormhole cryptocurrency on a bit with counteroffers wormhole agreed to but then he backed out of. There’s probably more to the story then the headline elicits.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  The bloomberg article has more details. Based on the correspondence provided by both parties there wasn't an offer made by the domain owner. He suggested a price, but that by itself does not constitute an offer, or houses would always sell for list price. Bloomberg quotes a corporate lawyer who claims that the $50k price constituted a "firm counteroffer," which could be accepted, but they chose the wrong expert to ask. Generally, for contracts between corporations and non-corporate entities, legal formalities are required to make the contract binding. This almost means a signed written agreement where the terms of the exchange have been specified. Between corporations, or between individuals, courts have been willing to relax the requirements for formalities (meaning, not requiring signatures, or not requiring a single document laying out the agreement between the parties). But between corporations and individuals, courts have been very, very insistent on observing legal formalities, due to the extreme power differential between the parties. It's very likely that Jump will settle this case. Even if they somehow win at trial, the domain owner can simply appeal and keep hold of the domain name for years before the appeal is resolved.
  - ludamad 4y ago
    > It's very likely that Jump will settle this case. Even if they somehow win at trial, the domain owner can simply appeal and keep hold of the domain name for years before the appeal is resolved. I hope he crowdfunds his legal fees if it comes to that. It would be an apt way to fire back at people claiming to defend public goods, and the negative PR would worry Jump almost more
moreira 4y ago
> “I didn’t really want to sell it. I’ve had the same email address for 28 years – it’s like family,” he said. This would be the biggest concern for me. Would you trust yourself to update the email address with every single account/organisation you've registered it? I use my personal email even for government-related stuff, there are hundreds of places where I've used it. I wouldn't trust myself enough to relinquish my domain for any amount of money.
- gruez 4y ago
  >I wouldn't trust myself enough to relinquish my domain for any amount of money. any amount? For 60k you can probably hire an assistant full time to go through all your emails/browsing histories and switch them over.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  I think I would write into the contract that I need to retain ownership of my one email address. I'm not sure exactly how this would break down, but I imagine the agreement could lay out specific responsibilities and penalties.
hatesinterviews 4y ago
Sounds like the domain owner threw out what he thought was a preposterous price that no one would accept, in attempt to get the buyer to leave him alone. Little did he know that Jump Trading has already spent $300 million propping up the legitimacy of this blockchain. https://www.reuters.com/technology/crypto-network-wormhole-hit-with-possible-320-mln-hack-2022-02-03/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/crypto-network-wormhole-h...
- kingcharles 4y ago
  $50,000 for a brandable one-word generic domain was a ridiculously low quote. I'm amazed no-one bought it before now as he was underselling it. 1994, when he registered it, was a great year for domains. As the article says, everything was still available. I registered all sorts of goofy things, but back then no-one was thinking they would be worth anything. They were also FREE in 1994. Shortly after they started charging a yearly rate for dotcoms and I let all but one lapse, to the loss of many millions in future revenue...
mdb31 4y ago
Well, I'm pretty sure you can't even directly sue over ownership of a .com domain? You have to submit to UDNP arbitrage first (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en). It doesn't seem they even tried this in this case? So this should be a dismissal right away, albeit at great emotional/monetary expense to the original owner. Unfair, but yeah, cryptobros will be cryptobros, and any harm to members of society is just for the good of society, I'm sure... (Later edit: so, apparently I'm wrong, and there is no binding arbitration clause. Still, lame action, and this seems the exact situation arbitration is designed for, especially since 'local courts' is not exactly well-defined for .com...)
- gruez 4y ago
  >Well, I'm pretty sure you can't even directly sue over ownership of a .com domain? Why not? The whole story seems like a contract dispute, which most definitely is in the jurisdiction of local courts.
- electroly 4y ago
  Sure you can. It's stated explicitly in the UDRP on the very page you just linked: one way to handle a dispute is to take it to a court and get a ruling. > Under the policy, most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name. > ... file a complaint in a court of proper jurisdiction against the domain-name holder ... Emphasis mine. You don't have to choose arbitration.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  >arbitrage I think you mean "arbitration". Why do you think the UDRP has any bearing on what Jump can do in court? ICANN can't make up rules that apply to third parties; there's such a thing as privity of contract! The UDRP may be incorporated into the contract that Merryman agreed to with his registrar, but Jump isn't a signatory to that agreement.
JonathanBeuys 4y ago
It is not easy to say who is right here. From the little information in the article, it looks like this is how it went down: Jump sent an unsolicited email to Dick, offering $2500 to buy the domain. Dick did not want to sell and phrased that as "The price for wormhole.com is a firm $50000", expecting nobody would want to pay $50k for it. Can the latter be seen as a binding offer? Given the sum of the circumstances, my feeling is that it can not. A one-line reply to an unsolicited email with a price 20x the initial offering is not really signaling a serious will to sell.
- nrmitchi 4y ago
  No. That’s why contracts exist. If an email with a number in it was a binding offer, then what is a contract for? Edit: I see that you edited in an additional paragraph at the end of your comment after my initial reply. If you’re editing a comment after-the-fact, it’s good practice to make it clear for future readers.
  - JonathanBeuys 4y ago
    Contracts do not have to have any specific form. An email exchange can very well be a contract.
  - tinco 4y ago
    A contract is for selling things that are more complicated than a simple transaction. If you go to the supermarket and buy a sandwich, you don't sign a contract. They stipulate a price, you agree by taking it off the shelf and showing it to the cashier. Then you inform the cashier of your banking details by sliding your creditcard, and your bank and their bank arrange for the actual payment. In this case, Jump agreed to the price the person set, and then the person didn't give Jump the opportunity to pay. Where I live I'm pretty sure this would have been a binding agreement, though there's definitely some exceptions to that law that might or might not apply here.
    - nrmitchi 4y ago
      On many occasions it’s been upheld that an advertisement is not an offer in a contract. A store cannot be sued over not delivering on an advertisement. There is a huge difference between buying a sandwich, and a claimed 5-figure deal. No one is going to sue over not being able to buy a sandwich. If you walk into a car dealership and buy a car, you can be damn sure there will be a sales contract.
w1nk 4y ago
These guys have specialized in building super low latency, line of sight microwave networks for trading, across multiple continents (chicago -> nyc, frankfurt -> london, etc): https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/hft-in-my-backyard-ii/ https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/hft-in-my-ba... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-08/the-gazillion-dollar-standoff-over-two-high-frequency-trading-towers https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-08/the-gazil... http://www.amsterdamtrader.com/2014/09/hft-in-my-backyard.html http://www.amsterdamtrader.com/2014/09/hft-in-my-backyard.ht... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/private-microwave-networks-financial-hft/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/priva... They employ skills such as kernel driver optimization specialists to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of network card drivers. What the fuck are they doing messing with this? Yikes. edit - I answered my own question. These dudes specialize in arbitrage and being faster than everyone else. The crypto markets are insane with this right now. The professional frontrunners have entered the game.
- log_n 4y ago
  Yeah, Jump got on the map by being the first Chicago prop shop with a microwave line between Chicago and New York. They dominated the equity basis trade for a while. Keeping your name out of the press and staying secretive is incredibly important and I'm shocked that they didn't just throw a fair amount of cash to this guy directly or offer it up as a donation to some Carl Sagan foundation (and offer to let him keep his e-mail address). $200k for a shop like that is literally the shells of peanuts and worth it to keep your name out of people's mouths.
  - w1nk 4y ago
    Have you ever seen the OSINT where people figured out that the badges of certain military programs gave away the reason for their existence? https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/americas/01iht-pentagon.1.11579738.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/americas/01iht-pent... , this feels like one of those moments...wormhole.com for cryptos, LOL.
    - 4y ago
site-packages1 4y ago
I would say this is a valid contract, as much as I don't like siding with scummy crypto people (scummy might be redundant here). A contract requires several things to form. According to LLI[1] these are: The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality. Jump made an offer of $2,500, Dick said the price is $50k firm, the other party immediately accepted. This was in writing, which gets around the Statute of Frauds given the value of the contract is over $500. This seems very straightforward from a legal perspective. I do think that crypto people are super scummy, but the only remedy available when there has been all the elements of a contract existing but one party reneging is a legal remedy either for specific performance or monetary damages, so it's natural that Jump went to court to enforce the, what I would argue is, valid contract. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract
- spiantino 4y ago
  What would the remedy be, though? Would the court say you had a contract so you have to sell/transfer the domain? Or would they say, you're in breach of a contract and so Jump can sue you for damages from your breach of the contract?
  - site-packages1 4y ago
    In these cases the remedies are usually either specific performance or monetary compensation. Specific performance is when they enforce the contract to its terms, which would be the transfer of the domain, and this remedy is usually used in cases where the thing being sold is unique. Real property sale is usually specific performance under the theory that any piece of land is totally unique (there is some debate about whether this should be the case, two farm properties in Nebraska are probably similar enough, whereas two oceanfront properties in California maybe not). I would argue that a domain name is unique enough that specific performance would be the remedy, after all there is and can only be one wormhole.com. The other remedy would be some sort of monetary damages. I would say that would be something like whatever it costs to purchase a comparable domain, but it would be really hard to decide on what a comparable domain is. Another remedy would be damages, like you said, but what are damages here? Probably nothing, so even if Jump won it would just be symbolic under that theory.
323 4y ago
Seems that Jump is wrong here, no binding contract was made according to article facts. Acceptance from the seller part seems required: > Contract law says that a quote is not considered an offer and only acceptance of offers makes for a legally binding contract, according to Cornell Law School. > Here’s what needs to happen for a quote to turn into a contract: > - Supplier submits the quote to the client > - The client accepts the quote and issues an order > - The supplier accepts the order > For example, a wedding photographer emails a written quote to a client for $2500 for 10 hours of photography. The client emails back saying they accept the quote and want to proceed with the order. The wedding photographer emails the client again to thank them and confirm that they will do 10 hours of work on a certain date for $2500. A legally enforceable contract has now been established. https://www.freshbooks.com/hub/estimates/is-quote-contract https://www.freshbooks.com/hub/estimates/is-quote-contract
- dsr_ 4y ago
  So a contract is formed when the TCP three-way handshake completes.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  My reading of your link is that it’s complicated (see the case about Pepsi and the fighter jet). Generally you want to stay away from even proposing a price for a sale if you’re truly not interested.
  - 323 4y ago
    Sure, but here we have a giant company versus a 79 yo person. Surely you can make a case that the person didn't really understood that a binding contract was forming, since the common understanding is that you need to accept a deal. Seems to me that you can make a case that the person was "tricked" into a binding contract (if it is indeed binding).
    - rosndo 4y ago
      But was he not accepting the deal on his part by offering it in the first place?
rebuilder 4y ago
So, 1: I think there’s merit to the case in that the domain owner said they’d sell for 50k and that can reasonably be seen as a binding offer. The courts may decide one way or the other, of course. But - 2: The offer did not go into any kind of detail on things like when transfer of control would take place! It could be “immediately” or “20 years after the seller’s death”.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  1. The guy said the price was 50k. He didn't say he would sell for 50k. He just stated the price. 2. There was no offer to sell, only a declaration of a price.
  - hedora 4y ago
    He didn't even say to whom he'd sell the domain at that price.
phphphphp 4y ago
I don’t see how they can win, as quoting an amount is a negotiating strategy that I’ve personally seen and used on both sides: if they were to win, it would surely have far reaching implications across the business world.
- ByteJockey 4y ago
  Aside from the fact that I don't want them to win this, I kind of want them to win because the fallout would be hilarious.
ALittleLight 4y ago
Beside the point but the cursor tracking javascript clock thing on wormhole.com is pretty impressive / mesmerizing. I haven't seen anything like that before. The article doesn't seem like a terribly big deal to me. I think both parties are being obnoxious. Essentially squatting on a nice domain name, asking an exorbitant sum for it, and renegotiating after a deal is accepted because you think you "left money on the table" are all obnoxious behaviors. Suing someone over what was never a terribly firm or serious offer also seems obnoxious.
- kadoban 4y ago
  The domain owner is _using_ the domain. There's a site there, and it's been their email address for decades. That's not squatting just because someone with money wants it.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    The website is basically an image of a wormhole. The owner is using the domain for an email address, but I imagine they could reach an agreement where he kept the email address(es). Maybe squatting isn't exactly right, because he's not trying to sell it, but it seems closer to squatting than using it to me.
    - packetslave 4y ago
      He would be well within his rights to host no website at all on the domain. Using it solely for email is 100% "using the domain". Period. The end. Not squatting. Just became some crypto bros want the domain does not change that.
      - ALittleLight 4y ago
        First, owning a valuable domain that you don't use is basically the definition of squatting. Second, I never wrote that it was outside of his "rights", I wrote that it was obnoxious.
rolph 4y ago
if you are going to treat a domain name owner like this, why would shareholders, and potential customers expect to be treated any better. actions advertize louder than popups
- siftrics 4y ago
  Jump is a privately held proprietary trading firm. There are a very small number of shareholders (though, to be pedantic, the correct term is "member" rather than "shareholder" since all the related US organizations are LLCs rather than corporations) and it seems extremely likely that those members would agree with the firm's actions here.
Ecco 4y ago
The current owner doesn’t want to sell because he doesn’t want to part ways with his current email address. Couldn’t they simply add a provision for this in a deal? Like “we’ll own the domain but we will maintain a redirection for your previous email address to a newer address of your choice”? Or the other way around “we’re buying ownership of certain DNS A records like “www” and “@“. Has this ever been done?
- layer8 4y ago
  I wouldn’t do the former, because there’s a high risk it will still atop working at some point, and you don’t want your email being down for all the time it takes to get things resolved legally and technically (possibly having to start a legal fight). As for the latter, they will still want to use some email addresses on the domain and not want to rely on a 79-year old individual to manage it for them.
- kingcharles 4y ago
  I've seen several domain purchases where there was an agreement that the previous owner's email address be forwarded to him, e.g. bob@wormhole.com would forever redirect to his new address.
  - RealStickman_ 4y ago
    If I had a cool domain like that I'd also want to send mail with it, so personally I'd want to keep all current MX and TXT records relating to email intact.
sorokod 4y ago
Cartoon level evil, Mr. Burns class.
gamblor956 4y ago
Generally, the UCC sec 2-201 "statute of frauds" requires that agreements for more than $500 for an exchange of goods must be signed, and in writing. Most states have adopted the UCC or this portion of the UCC. An informal (unsigned) written agreement can still satisfy this requirement...so long as it represents the intent of both parties to be bound by the contract. But there is correspondence by the domain owner to Jump that he did not throw out the original $50k price expecting it to be accepted or to form a valid contract. And before that correspondence he didn't act like there was a binding agreement. However, the $100k follow-up email by the domain owner would represent a firm offer that would satisfy the statute of frauds. It doesn't appear the $100k was accepted, and Jump is suing for the $50k price. Ultimately, they will spend a multiple of the original price on legal fees...to try to get the original price. (That assumes they win at court. I would estimate that there is a <1% chance they win if this goes to trial, or to appeals. They chose the wrong hill to fight on.) Most likely outcome: Jump settles for $100k plus the domain owner's legal fees.
- csunbird 4y ago
  I think that they do not mind spending 50k or 100k, they just want to secure the possibility of sale going through. They probably do know that the legal fees alone would cost them more, they just want the domain.
hirundo 4y ago
I have a domain that's worth maybe a couple of hundred dollars. When I get an occasional request for a quote on it I usually say $350k. I'd probably actually accept that, but it would be a shock if someone agreed to it, and I sure would not want or expect to be legally bound to the offer price. Their claim is such a reach that I hope the owner doesn't pay much in legal expenses.
- wildzzz 4y ago
  Even in ebay, I can offer something for a firm price, someone can offer to buy it at that firm price, and I can still cancel the sale for a variety of reasons. If someone offers a OBO price, I can counteroffer, and still cancel the sale after they accept the counteroffer. It may hurt my eBay reputation, but I'm under no obligation to sell at any price unless I explicitly agree to it. Giving a counteroffer isn't an actual agreement to sell.
- joshcryer 4y ago
  There's a domain I want that has been squatted since 2001, current going price was $19000, I check in on it every now and again and the price goes up by some $1000. So stupid.
uncomputation 4y ago
Despicable on all levels. Not only was there nothing resembling an offer even made, much less a "contract" signed, Jump also very well knows that 50k for a domain like that is a steal and are more than happy to try and pry it from an old man's hands even "requesting and receiving a preliminary injunction to freeze the asset." I'd much rather the domain be in the hands of this guy with his cool JavaScript clock than these leeches any day of the week.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- datalopers 4y ago
  > old man Meh. He’s the same age as the current US president and rather close to the prior. Warren Buffet, sharp as a tack at 91, just wrapped up another Berkshire Shareholder meeting. Jump appears to be very much in the wrong here, but I don't think we need to characterize this as the domain owner is feeble-minded or out of touch: the guy has owned a domain since 1994.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    You're the one equating "old man" to "feeble-minded" or "out of touch". That implication wasn't there in the comment you responded to.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - datalopers 4y ago
      "pry it from an old man's hands" paints a very clear image without using explicit wording.
      - User23 4y ago
        No it doesn’t. An old man may well be less likely to want to spend a decade defending against litigation than a young one.
m3kw9 4y ago
Now it will cost legal fees plus a million
wumpus 4y ago
Prince Humperdinck: Surrender. Westley: You mean you wish to surrender to me? Very well, I accept.
neonate 4y ago
https://archive.ph/6RtxY https://archive.ph/6RtxY
vmception 4y ago
> Merryman hadn't been serious about selling, he said, throwing out what he viewed as a high offer to get them to go away. Sounds like a bad business practice. I’ve seen this logic in other circles “quote higher for someone you don't want to deal with” without acknowledging what is binding. I think a judge is necessary to determine DomainAgent’s brokering role with this specific property owner, because nobody knows and it is the crux of the case.
binkHN 4y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but here is the crux of the argument: > And while Merryman's view isn't reflected in the court filings, Goldstein said his "statement that the price is a firm $50,000 could reasonably be understood as a counteroffer, which Jump had the power to accept, thereby forming a contract."
- mslate 4y ago
  This is such a Wall Street trader perception of contracts. Jump imagines the seller cares about their long-term reputation for honoring their offer as a market-maker. He could not give a hoot. A verbal or written counteroffer is not a contract. How long does Jump imagine they have to accept counteroffer? Eternity? Silliness & slimy legal jiu jitsu.
  - rosndo 4y ago
    > How long does Jump imagine they have to accept counteroffer? Generally in situations like this, unless otherwise specified, courts would fall back to a “reasonable” period of time or until Jump is notified that the offer is no longer valid.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rfrey 4y ago
So many people here saying throwing out a price obligates you to sell at that price. Deals fall apart all the time after a price has been settled on.
- linspace 4y ago
  And prices change. Surprising for a trading company it seems. It's funny to see so many people trying to justify the ridiculous. My children try this all the time.
sva_ 4y ago
I was twisted at first, but now firmly stand against the man, since he disables the right-click menu.
baskethead 4y ago
I wish there were a pro bono or law-student organization that would take on cases like this. I actually don't know if there's a case here but it definitely sounds like legal bullying. Jump Trading suffered no loss by the person backing out of the deal so pushing forward is really obnoxious. Just to make a point against bad behavior like this, I would take up this case if I had the means.
dzaima 4y ago
If (and this is very much an "if") it really is the case that just an offer can be a binding contact, what happens if you make an offer to two parties in parallel, and both accept? Does the one who accepted later just not get the domain and noone can sue anyone? (no other option makes sense to me, there usually wouldn't really be any damages you could sue for either) If so, wouldn't it be possible to claim that you sold the domain to someone else for $5 before and get out of needing to sell it? How long does an offer stand? What if someone offered to sell 1 bitcoin for $100 10 years ago, would that offer be still standing and be required to be fulfilled?
- halestock 4y ago
  My IANAL answer is that in that case you would not be negotiating in good faith, and both purchasing parties could sue for damages.
SkipperCat 4y ago
I think the lesson learned here is don't reply to offers unless you really want to sell.
greengrassi 4y ago
There may be an argument that the sale price has been negotiated. Although I don't believe it has, since Jump countered again after the fact with $200k. However the rest of the terms have not been negotiated. Timeline and transfer details have not been discussed. For timeline I suggest: When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars As for the "transfer ceremony", I leave that to your imagination
justinlloyd 4y ago
For all the armchair lawyers arguing on this, bear the current facts in mind: There is no legally binding precedent that can impel a private person to sell an asset just because they stated what the price was. Merchant law and private seller law are two very different things. I think Goldstein is over-stating and over-reaching what an offer and counteroffer implies. Private sellers of assets and services are free to renege any deal - even after the contract is signed. After the contract is signed, then it is a matter for the courts. No contract was signed or implied to be signed in this case. In a private sale there is no verbal contract law - A: "How much for the lawn mower?" B: "$50 firm" A: "Sold!" B: "I don't want to sell." Verbal or written, there is absolutely no implication of a contract or acceptance of the contract at that point. Though this very much varies by state and would be governed by the state of NV. Just because an entity states they are authorized to act on a deal, does not mean they have that authority. There was a scummy domain broker around a few years ago that would send you a snail mail letter of intent to purchase your domain for a stupid low amount, with a cheque attached, and failure to respond to the letter after a certain number of days indicated your willingness to sell at the offered price. Depositing the cheque indicated your acceptance of the contract. Holding on to (or destruction of) the cheque indicates your acceptance of the contract. I know of quite a few people with high value domains who had to lawyer up to stop the transfers from taking place.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  There are a number of fairly strong claims in here, that I think you need to cite some authorities on. e.g. what is a "private sale", that precludes the possibility of a verbal contract?
  - justinlloyd 4y ago
    I am not about to write out the equivalent of "Hello world!" for legal citations and the various laws as they apply to private sale vs an entity recognized as a business or merchant with established conventions. This entire thread, other than the rare statements by actual laywers (who have a learned opinion on the matter, but probably lack a lot of context without reading the actual filings) is armchair lawyering of coulda-woulda-shoulda. I happen to be one of those armchair lawyers, with a lot of law classes to back up my reasoning, but still not a paid up member of the legal profession. I stated a number of points that can be verified by anyone with a legal background, which you seem to have at least a modicum of. I hedged my bets by stating "this varies by state." It appears to be a very clear case of a business' legal team overreaching what constitutes an agreement of sale in the hopes of either scaring the owner of the asset, or swaying opinion enough to have a judge side with them. I suspect they will not prevail in their initial filing, and then they will argue for domain squatting. I doubt this will end amicably for either party. > you need to cite some authorities on P.S. I don't need to do shit.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Jump needs to retain new lawyers because their current ones seem to be idiots at face value.

229 points by davidmr 4y ago

0daystock 4y ago

Completely disgraceful, but not totally unexpected for a company led by a 25 year old "crypto intern".

blueberrychpstx 4y ago
What do you mean by crypto intern here?
- rsstack 4y ago
  I think he's referring to the president of their crypto arm (not the whole company) who was an engineering intern when he originally joined the company 5 years ago.
zarkov99 4y ago
Are you jealous? What is wrong with being 25 year old and figuring out how to lead the company you interned at to unlock 1 billion in revenue? Seems like a pretty good start to me.
- 0daystock 4y ago
  I'm not jealous; I'm making a moral judgement about how immature a 25 yo's view of the world is likely to be, especially if they work in a privileged industry far divorced from most people's everyday reality.

zmgsabst 4y ago

Yuck. I’m sick of living in a society where wealthy people are able to bully and harass others. No corporation would feel bound to honor a price tossed out casually in an email with nothing signed — and it’s disgusting they’re suing an old man to bully him. Why is it crypto people are so gross? — how can I take the current state of crypto seriously when a “major” platform acts like petulant middle schoolers?

TAForObvReasons 4y ago
> Merryman responded on July 1: “The price for wormhole.com is a firm US $ 50,000. -Dick-.” > Merryman hadn’t been serious about selling, he said, throwing out what he viewed as a high offer to get them to go away. If he wasn't serious about selling, he should have said so and moved on. It seems smarmy to quote an offer price without a sincere intent to sell.
- djohnston 4y ago
  Sure, that's the most you can say. Without a signed agreement he has no obligation to listen to them or sell.
  - rosndo 4y ago
    Why would an email not be an agreement?
    - djohnston 4y ago
      Its not legally binding, are you asking why an email isn't legally binding?
      - rosndo 4y ago
        Yeah, why not?
        ipaddr 4y ago
        Because a window isn't a door
        rosndo 4y ago
        So you don’t actually know?
- AdmiralAsshat 4y ago

rendall 4y ago

Disgusting. Jump Trading should be ashamed, but people like that are shameless.

skullone 4y ago

Crypto should indeed disappear down a wormhole to get deposited into the trash dimension.

akvadrako 4y ago
If you hate these guys so much you should not let them dictate your language. Crypto doesn't mean cryptocurrency.
- cbozeman 4y ago
  Yes it does. It just doesn't to you, because you're not an average person. The average person, who has no idea what cryptography is, only hears of "crypto" in sound bites on MSNBC or Fox News, and hears advertisements for a VISA crypto card, the only card powered by crypto! and they think exactly what OP thought.
- mike_d 4y ago
  I'm going to blow your mind... the "crypto" in cryptocurrency is from cryptography, of which it is a subset.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Sort of. Little of the work being done in the cryptocurrency space is actually applied cryptography. The big innovation of proof-of-work consensus isn't using cryptography to achieve trustlessness. Yeah there are digital signatures. Hooray.
    - mike_d 4y ago
      The proof of work in bitcoin was originally a cryptographic primitive designed to prevent email spam.
    - ricochet11 4y ago
      I would argue that pretty much all of the recent (past 5 years) advances in work on zkproofs is researched/funded/applied by cryptocurrency community. and imo this is the most important work in cryptography that is happening, actually developing secure general computation. You might not like cryptocurrencies but to dismiss this is silly. The "crypto means cryptography" motto also trivializes all the prior work, cryptography and ideas of digital tokens/currencies have been tied together for decades. https://zkp.science/ https://zkp.science/ https://zkproof.org/ https://zkproof.org/ https://github.com/0xPARC https://github.com/0xPARC https://github.com/iden3/circom https://github.com/iden3/circom

barnbuilder 4y ago

The linked article seems to be copied and pasted from here: https://www.businessinsider.com/jump-trading-sues-over-wormholecom-domain-crypto-blockchain-carl-sagan-2022-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/jump-trading-sues-over-wormh... Not sure what "kqeducationgroup.com" is but it looks illegitimate.

davidmr 4y ago
It certainly does—my apologies. This is where I saw it first. Unfortunately I can’t change it.
- paulgb 4y ago
  BI runs content syndicated from elsewhere, so appearing on BI doesn’t indicate that it’s their reporting (although someone who can see past the paywall may be able to say for sure). Assuming that the linked source is legally running the piece, it’s a better link for HN because it isn’t paywalled.
  - pluc 4y ago
    > Alex Morrell is a correspondent at Business Insider covering Wall Street at large OP's article is trendsquatting.
    - paulgb 4y ago
      The quoted segment of your comment answers my question, but what is trendsquatting?
      - pluc 4y ago
        It's a term that felt appropriate to describe what OP's article was achieving
  - holler 4y ago
    Unrelated but I clicked your name and noticed you joined in 2007 the year HN started, that's pretty cool! How did you hear about it back then? Also drift.space/jamsocket seem pretty interesting (the jamsocket site seemed to lag when scrolling).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Ecco 4y ago

I will have to disagree with most comments here: I’m not sure Jump is to blame here. - $100’000 seems like a rather generous compensation to change your email address. - And most importantly, they simply agreed to his initial demand. And now he’s backing off out of greed. Hell they even agreed to his second counter-offer of $100k and now he wants $200k…

Fauntleroy 4y ago
Just because someone makes a good offer, it doesn't obligate the other party to accept it.
- Ecco 4y ago
  Well, it’s not just a good offer: it’s the price the seller asked for in the first place, isn’t it?
  - frumper 4y ago
    Since he hasn't sold anything its kind of hard to call him a seller. He got an unsolicited email. He isn't in the business of selling domains.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  True, but if someone says "The price is X" and you say "Okay, deal" and then they say "No, that was too easy, I could get more from you" then there may be some kind of obligation there - at least a moral or social obligation if not a legal one.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    Why should the individual have morals when dealing with corporations when corporations don't have morals?
moreira 4y ago
It's his domain, he is free to change his mind for whatever reason. He's not obligated to sell it for any amount of money, and he's definitely not done anything that he should be sued over. He's free to be as greedy as he wants to be, and the company are free to either pay up or go away. But bringing him to court because "wahhh he won't sell to us" does seem ridiculous.

rearseet22 4y ago

Reading the article it looks like the domain owner was leading wormhole cryptocurrency on a bit with counteroffers wormhole agreed to but then he backed out of. There’s probably more to the story then the headline elicits.

gamblor956 4y ago
The bloomberg article has more details. Based on the correspondence provided by both parties there wasn't an offer made by the domain owner. He suggested a price, but that by itself does not constitute an offer, or houses would always sell for list price. Bloomberg quotes a corporate lawyer who claims that the $50k price constituted a "firm counteroffer," which could be accepted, but they chose the wrong expert to ask. Generally, for contracts between corporations and non-corporate entities, legal formalities are required to make the contract binding. This almost means a signed written agreement where the terms of the exchange have been specified. Between corporations, or between individuals, courts have been willing to relax the requirements for formalities (meaning, not requiring signatures, or not requiring a single document laying out the agreement between the parties). But between corporations and individuals, courts have been very, very insistent on observing legal formalities, due to the extreme power differential between the parties. It's very likely that Jump will settle this case. Even if they somehow win at trial, the domain owner can simply appeal and keep hold of the domain name for years before the appeal is resolved.
- ludamad 4y ago
  > It's very likely that Jump will settle this case. Even if they somehow win at trial, the domain owner can simply appeal and keep hold of the domain name for years before the appeal is resolved. I hope he crowdfunds his legal fees if it comes to that. It would be an apt way to fire back at people claiming to defend public goods, and the negative PR would worry Jump almost more

moreira 4y ago

> “I didn’t really want to sell it. I’ve had the same email address for 28 years – it’s like family,” he said. This would be the biggest concern for me. Would you trust yourself to update the email address with every single account/organisation you've registered it? I use my personal email even for government-related stuff, there are hundreds of places where I've used it. I wouldn't trust myself enough to relinquish my domain for any amount of money.

gruez 4y ago
>I wouldn't trust myself enough to relinquish my domain for any amount of money. any amount? For 60k you can probably hire an assistant full time to go through all your emails/browsing histories and switch them over.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
I think I would write into the contract that I need to retain ownership of my one email address. I'm not sure exactly how this would break down, but I imagine the agreement could lay out specific responsibilities and penalties.

hatesinterviews 4y ago

Sounds like the domain owner threw out what he thought was a preposterous price that no one would accept, in attempt to get the buyer to leave him alone. Little did he know that Jump Trading has already spent $300 million propping up the legitimacy of this blockchain. https://www.reuters.com/technology/crypto-network-wormhole-hit-with-possible-320-mln-hack-2022-02-03/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/crypto-network-wormhole-h...

kingcharles 4y ago
$50,000 for a brandable one-word generic domain was a ridiculously low quote. I'm amazed no-one bought it before now as he was underselling it. 1994, when he registered it, was a great year for domains. As the article says, everything was still available. I registered all sorts of goofy things, but back then no-one was thinking they would be worth anything. They were also FREE in 1994. Shortly after they started charging a yearly rate for dotcoms and I let all but one lapse, to the loss of many millions in future revenue...

mdb31 4y ago

Well, I'm pretty sure you can't even directly sue over ownership of a .com domain? You have to submit to UDNP arbitrage first (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en). It doesn't seem they even tried this in this case? So this should be a dismissal right away, albeit at great emotional/monetary expense to the original owner. Unfair, but yeah, cryptobros will be cryptobros, and any harm to members of society is just for the good of society, I'm sure... (Later edit: so, apparently I'm wrong, and there is no binding arbitration clause. Still, lame action, and this seems the exact situation arbitration is designed for, especially since 'local courts' is not exactly well-defined for .com...)

gruez 4y ago
>Well, I'm pretty sure you can't even directly sue over ownership of a .com domain? Why not? The whole story seems like a contract dispute, which most definitely is in the jurisdiction of local courts.
electroly 4y ago
Sure you can. It's stated explicitly in the UDRP on the very page you just linked: one way to handle a dispute is to take it to a court and get a ruling. > Under the policy, most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name. > ... file a complaint in a court of proper jurisdiction against the domain-name holder ... Emphasis mine. You don't have to choose arbitration.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
>arbitrage I think you mean "arbitration". Why do you think the UDRP has any bearing on what Jump can do in court? ICANN can't make up rules that apply to third parties; there's such a thing as privity of contract! The UDRP may be incorporated into the contract that Merryman agreed to with his registrar, but Jump isn't a signatory to that agreement.

JonathanBeuys 4y ago

It is not easy to say who is right here. From the little information in the article, it looks like this is how it went down: Jump sent an unsolicited email to Dick, offering $2500 to buy the domain. Dick did not want to sell and phrased that as "The price for wormhole.com is a firm $50000", expecting nobody would want to pay $50k for it. Can the latter be seen as a binding offer? Given the sum of the circumstances, my feeling is that it can not. A one-line reply to an unsolicited email with a price 20x the initial offering is not really signaling a serious will to sell.

nrmitchi 4y ago
No. That’s why contracts exist. If an email with a number in it was a binding offer, then what is a contract for? Edit: I see that you edited in an additional paragraph at the end of your comment after my initial reply. If you’re editing a comment after-the-fact, it’s good practice to make it clear for future readers.
- JonathanBeuys 4y ago
  Contracts do not have to have any specific form. An email exchange can very well be a contract.
- tinco 4y ago
  A contract is for selling things that are more complicated than a simple transaction. If you go to the supermarket and buy a sandwich, you don't sign a contract. They stipulate a price, you agree by taking it off the shelf and showing it to the cashier. Then you inform the cashier of your banking details by sliding your creditcard, and your bank and their bank arrange for the actual payment. In this case, Jump agreed to the price the person set, and then the person didn't give Jump the opportunity to pay. Where I live I'm pretty sure this would have been a binding agreement, though there's definitely some exceptions to that law that might or might not apply here.
  - nrmitchi 4y ago
    On many occasions it’s been upheld that an advertisement is not an offer in a contract. A store cannot be sued over not delivering on an advertisement. There is a huge difference between buying a sandwich, and a claimed 5-figure deal. No one is going to sue over not being able to buy a sandwich. If you walk into a car dealership and buy a car, you can be damn sure there will be a sales contract.

w1nk 4y ago

These guys have specialized in building super low latency, line of sight microwave networks for trading, across multiple continents (chicago -> nyc, frankfurt -> london, etc): https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/hft-in-my-backyard-ii/ https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/hft-in-my-ba... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-08/the-gazillion-dollar-standoff-over-two-high-frequency-trading-towers https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-08/the-gazil... http://www.amsterdamtrader.com/2014/09/hft-in-my-backyard.html http://www.amsterdamtrader.com/2014/09/hft-in-my-backyard.ht... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/private-microwave-networks-financial-hft/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/priva... They employ skills such as kernel driver optimization specialists to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of network card drivers. What the fuck are they doing messing with this? Yikes. edit - I answered my own question. These dudes specialize in arbitrage and being faster than everyone else. The crypto markets are insane with this right now. The professional frontrunners have entered the game.

log_n 4y ago
Yeah, Jump got on the map by being the first Chicago prop shop with a microwave line between Chicago and New York. They dominated the equity basis trade for a while. Keeping your name out of the press and staying secretive is incredibly important and I'm shocked that they didn't just throw a fair amount of cash to this guy directly or offer it up as a donation to some Carl Sagan foundation (and offer to let him keep his e-mail address). $200k for a shop like that is literally the shells of peanuts and worth it to keep your name out of people's mouths.
- w1nk 4y ago
  Have you ever seen the OSINT where people figured out that the badges of certain military programs gave away the reason for their existence? https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/americas/01iht-pentagon.1.11579738.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/americas/01iht-pent... , this feels like one of those moments...wormhole.com for cryptos, LOL.
  - 4y ago

site-packages1 4y ago

I would say this is a valid contract, as much as I don't like siding with scummy crypto people (scummy might be redundant here). A contract requires several things to form. According to LLI[1] these are: The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality. Jump made an offer of $2,500, Dick said the price is $50k firm, the other party immediately accepted. This was in writing, which gets around the Statute of Frauds given the value of the contract is over $500. This seems very straightforward from a legal perspective. I do think that crypto people are super scummy, but the only remedy available when there has been all the elements of a contract existing but one party reneging is a legal remedy either for specific performance or monetary damages, so it's natural that Jump went to court to enforce the, what I would argue is, valid contract. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract

spiantino 4y ago
What would the remedy be, though? Would the court say you had a contract so you have to sell/transfer the domain? Or would they say, you're in breach of a contract and so Jump can sue you for damages from your breach of the contract?
- site-packages1 4y ago
  In these cases the remedies are usually either specific performance or monetary compensation. Specific performance is when they enforce the contract to its terms, which would be the transfer of the domain, and this remedy is usually used in cases where the thing being sold is unique. Real property sale is usually specific performance under the theory that any piece of land is totally unique (there is some debate about whether this should be the case, two farm properties in Nebraska are probably similar enough, whereas two oceanfront properties in California maybe not). I would argue that a domain name is unique enough that specific performance would be the remedy, after all there is and can only be one wormhole.com. The other remedy would be some sort of monetary damages. I would say that would be something like whatever it costs to purchase a comparable domain, but it would be really hard to decide on what a comparable domain is. Another remedy would be damages, like you said, but what are damages here? Probably nothing, so even if Jump won it would just be symbolic under that theory.

323 4y ago

Seems that Jump is wrong here, no binding contract was made according to article facts. Acceptance from the seller part seems required: > Contract law says that a quote is not considered an offer and only acceptance of offers makes for a legally binding contract, according to Cornell Law School. > Here’s what needs to happen for a quote to turn into a contract: > - Supplier submits the quote to the client > - The client accepts the quote and issues an order > - The supplier accepts the order > For example, a wedding photographer emails a written quote to a client for $2500 for 10 hours of photography. The client emails back saying they accept the quote and want to proceed with the order. The wedding photographer emails the client again to thank them and confirm that they will do 10 hours of work on a certain date for $2500. A legally enforceable contract has now been established. https://www.freshbooks.com/hub/estimates/is-quote-contract https://www.freshbooks.com/hub/estimates/is-quote-contract

dsr_ 4y ago
So a contract is formed when the TCP three-way handshake completes.
vlovich123 4y ago
My reading of your link is that it’s complicated (see the case about Pepsi and the fighter jet). Generally you want to stay away from even proposing a price for a sale if you’re truly not interested.
- 323 4y ago
  Sure, but here we have a giant company versus a 79 yo person. Surely you can make a case that the person didn't really understood that a binding contract was forming, since the common understanding is that you need to accept a deal. Seems to me that you can make a case that the person was "tricked" into a binding contract (if it is indeed binding).
  - rosndo 4y ago
    But was he not accepting the deal on his part by offering it in the first place?

rebuilder 4y ago

So, 1: I think there’s merit to the case in that the domain owner said they’d sell for 50k and that can reasonably be seen as a binding offer. The courts may decide one way or the other, of course. But - 2: The offer did not go into any kind of detail on things like when transfer of control would take place! It could be “immediately” or “20 years after the seller’s death”.

that_guy_iain 4y ago
1. The guy said the price was 50k. He didn't say he would sell for 50k. He just stated the price. 2. There was no offer to sell, only a declaration of a price.
- hedora 4y ago
  He didn't even say to whom he'd sell the domain at that price.

phphphphp 4y ago

I don’t see how they can win, as quoting an amount is a negotiating strategy that I’ve personally seen and used on both sides: if they were to win, it would surely have far reaching implications across the business world.

ByteJockey 4y ago
Aside from the fact that I don't want them to win this, I kind of want them to win because the fallout would be hilarious.

ALittleLight 4y ago

Beside the point but the cursor tracking javascript clock thing on wormhole.com is pretty impressive / mesmerizing. I haven't seen anything like that before. The article doesn't seem like a terribly big deal to me. I think both parties are being obnoxious. Essentially squatting on a nice domain name, asking an exorbitant sum for it, and renegotiating after a deal is accepted because you think you "left money on the table" are all obnoxious behaviors. Suing someone over what was never a terribly firm or serious offer also seems obnoxious.

kadoban 4y ago
The domain owner is _using_ the domain. There's a site there, and it's been their email address for decades. That's not squatting just because someone with money wants it.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  The website is basically an image of a wormhole. The owner is using the domain for an email address, but I imagine they could reach an agreement where he kept the email address(es). Maybe squatting isn't exactly right, because he's not trying to sell it, but it seems closer to squatting than using it to me.
  - packetslave 4y ago
    He would be well within his rights to host no website at all on the domain. Using it solely for email is 100% "using the domain". Period. The end. Not squatting. Just became some crypto bros want the domain does not change that.
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      First, owning a valuable domain that you don't use is basically the definition of squatting. Second, I never wrote that it was outside of his "rights", I wrote that it was obnoxious.

rolph 4y ago

if you are going to treat a domain name owner like this, why would shareholders, and potential customers expect to be treated any better. actions advertize louder than popups

siftrics 4y ago
Jump is a privately held proprietary trading firm. There are a very small number of shareholders (though, to be pedantic, the correct term is "member" rather than "shareholder" since all the related US organizations are LLCs rather than corporations) and it seems extremely likely that those members would agree with the firm's actions here.

Ecco 4y ago

The current owner doesn’t want to sell because he doesn’t want to part ways with his current email address. Couldn’t they simply add a provision for this in a deal? Like “we’ll own the domain but we will maintain a redirection for your previous email address to a newer address of your choice”? Or the other way around “we’re buying ownership of certain DNS A records like “www” and “@“. Has this ever been done?

layer8 4y ago
I wouldn’t do the former, because there’s a high risk it will still atop working at some point, and you don’t want your email being down for all the time it takes to get things resolved legally and technically (possibly having to start a legal fight). As for the latter, they will still want to use some email addresses on the domain and not want to rely on a 79-year old individual to manage it for them.
kingcharles 4y ago
I've seen several domain purchases where there was an agreement that the previous owner's email address be forwarded to him, e.g. bob@wormhole.com would forever redirect to his new address.
- RealStickman_ 4y ago
  If I had a cool domain like that I'd also want to send mail with it, so personally I'd want to keep all current MX and TXT records relating to email intact.

sorokod 4y ago

Cartoon level evil, Mr. Burns class.

gamblor956 4y ago

Generally, the UCC sec 2-201 "statute of frauds" requires that agreements for more than $500 for an exchange of goods must be signed, and in writing. Most states have adopted the UCC or this portion of the UCC. An informal (unsigned) written agreement can still satisfy this requirement...so long as it represents the intent of both parties to be bound by the contract. But there is correspondence by the domain owner to Jump that he did not throw out the original $50k price expecting it to be accepted or to form a valid contract. And before that correspondence he didn't act like there was a binding agreement. However, the $100k follow-up email by the domain owner would represent a firm offer that would satisfy the statute of frauds. It doesn't appear the $100k was accepted, and Jump is suing for the $50k price. Ultimately, they will spend a multiple of the original price on legal fees...to try to get the original price. (That assumes they win at court. I would estimate that there is a <1% chance they win if this goes to trial, or to appeals. They chose the wrong hill to fight on.) Most likely outcome: Jump settles for $100k plus the domain owner's legal fees.

csunbird 4y ago
I think that they do not mind spending 50k or 100k, they just want to secure the possibility of sale going through. They probably do know that the legal fees alone would cost them more, they just want the domain.

hirundo 4y ago

I have a domain that's worth maybe a couple of hundred dollars. When I get an occasional request for a quote on it I usually say $350k. I'd probably actually accept that, but it would be a shock if someone agreed to it, and I sure would not want or expect to be legally bound to the offer price. Their claim is such a reach that I hope the owner doesn't pay much in legal expenses.

wildzzz 4y ago
Even in ebay, I can offer something for a firm price, someone can offer to buy it at that firm price, and I can still cancel the sale for a variety of reasons. If someone offers a OBO price, I can counteroffer, and still cancel the sale after they accept the counteroffer. It may hurt my eBay reputation, but I'm under no obligation to sell at any price unless I explicitly agree to it. Giving a counteroffer isn't an actual agreement to sell.
joshcryer 4y ago
There's a domain I want that has been squatted since 2001, current going price was $19000, I check in on it every now and again and the price goes up by some $1000. So stupid.

uncomputation 4y ago

Despicable on all levels. Not only was there nothing resembling an offer even made, much less a "contract" signed, Jump also very well knows that 50k for a domain like that is a steal and are more than happy to try and pry it from an old man's hands even "requesting and receiving a preliminary injunction to freeze the asset." I'd much rather the domain be in the hands of this guy with his cool JavaScript clock than these leeches any day of the week.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
datalopers 4y ago
> old man Meh. He’s the same age as the current US president and rather close to the prior. Warren Buffet, sharp as a tack at 91, just wrapped up another Berkshire Shareholder meeting. Jump appears to be very much in the wrong here, but I don't think we need to characterize this as the domain owner is feeble-minded or out of touch: the guy has owned a domain since 1994.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  You're the one equating "old man" to "feeble-minded" or "out of touch". That implication wasn't there in the comment you responded to.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - datalopers 4y ago
    "pry it from an old man's hands" paints a very clear image without using explicit wording.
    - User23 4y ago
      No it doesn’t. An old man may well be less likely to want to spend a decade defending against litigation than a young one.

m3kw9 4y ago

Now it will cost legal fees plus a million

wumpus 4y ago

Prince Humperdinck: Surrender. Westley: You mean you wish to surrender to me? Very well, I accept.

neonate 4y ago

https://archive.ph/6RtxY https://archive.ph/6RtxY

vmception 4y ago

> Merryman hadn't been serious about selling, he said, throwing out what he viewed as a high offer to get them to go away. Sounds like a bad business practice. I’ve seen this logic in other circles “quote higher for someone you don't want to deal with” without acknowledging what is binding. I think a judge is necessary to determine DomainAgent’s brokering role with this specific property owner, because nobody knows and it is the crux of the case.

binkHN 4y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but here is the crux of the argument: > And while Merryman's view isn't reflected in the court filings, Goldstein said his "statement that the price is a firm $50,000 could reasonably be understood as a counteroffer, which Jump had the power to accept, thereby forming a contract."

mslate 4y ago
This is such a Wall Street trader perception of contracts. Jump imagines the seller cares about their long-term reputation for honoring their offer as a market-maker. He could not give a hoot. A verbal or written counteroffer is not a contract. How long does Jump imagine they have to accept counteroffer? Eternity? Silliness & slimy legal jiu jitsu.
- rosndo 4y ago
  > How long does Jump imagine they have to accept counteroffer? Generally in situations like this, unless otherwise specified, courts would fall back to a “reasonable” period of time or until Jump is notified that the offer is no longer valid.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rfrey 4y ago

So many people here saying throwing out a price obligates you to sell at that price. Deals fall apart all the time after a price has been settled on.

linspace 4y ago
And prices change. Surprising for a trading company it seems. It's funny to see so many people trying to justify the ridiculous. My children try this all the time.

sva_ 4y ago

I was twisted at first, but now firmly stand against the man, since he disables the right-click menu.

baskethead 4y ago

I wish there were a pro bono or law-student organization that would take on cases like this. I actually don't know if there's a case here but it definitely sounds like legal bullying. Jump Trading suffered no loss by the person backing out of the deal so pushing forward is really obnoxious. Just to make a point against bad behavior like this, I would take up this case if I had the means.

dzaima 4y ago

If (and this is very much an "if") it really is the case that just an offer can be a binding contact, what happens if you make an offer to two parties in parallel, and both accept? Does the one who accepted later just not get the domain and noone can sue anyone? (no other option makes sense to me, there usually wouldn't really be any damages you could sue for either) If so, wouldn't it be possible to claim that you sold the domain to someone else for $5 before and get out of needing to sell it? How long does an offer stand? What if someone offered to sell 1 bitcoin for $100 10 years ago, would that offer be still standing and be required to be fulfilled?

halestock 4y ago
My IANAL answer is that in that case you would not be negotiating in good faith, and both purchasing parties could sue for damages.

SkipperCat 4y ago

I think the lesson learned here is don't reply to offers unless you really want to sell.

greengrassi 4y ago

There may be an argument that the sale price has been negotiated. Although I don't believe it has, since Jump countered again after the fact with $200k. However the rest of the terms have not been negotiated. Timeline and transfer details have not been discussed. For timeline I suggest: When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars As for the "transfer ceremony", I leave that to your imagination

justinlloyd 4y ago

For all the armchair lawyers arguing on this, bear the current facts in mind: There is no legally binding precedent that can impel a private person to sell an asset just because they stated what the price was. Merchant law and private seller law are two very different things. I think Goldstein is over-stating and over-reaching what an offer and counteroffer implies. Private sellers of assets and services are free to renege any deal - even after the contract is signed. After the contract is signed, then it is a matter for the courts. No contract was signed or implied to be signed in this case. In a private sale there is no verbal contract law - A: "How much for the lawn mower?" B: "$50 firm" A: "Sold!" B: "I don't want to sell." Verbal or written, there is absolutely no implication of a contract or acceptance of the contract at that point. Though this very much varies by state and would be governed by the state of NV. Just because an entity states they are authorized to act on a deal, does not mean they have that authority. There was a scummy domain broker around a few years ago that would send you a snail mail letter of intent to purchase your domain for a stupid low amount, with a cheque attached, and failure to respond to the letter after a certain number of days indicated your willingness to sell at the offered price. Depositing the cheque indicated your acceptance of the contract. Holding on to (or destruction of) the cheque indicates your acceptance of the contract. I know of quite a few people with high value domains who had to lawyer up to stop the transfers from taking place.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
There are a number of fairly strong claims in here, that I think you need to cite some authorities on. e.g. what is a "private sale", that precludes the possibility of a verbal contract?
- justinlloyd 4y ago
  I am not about to write out the equivalent of "Hello world!" for legal citations and the various laws as they apply to private sale vs an entity recognized as a business or merchant with established conventions. This entire thread, other than the rare statements by actual laywers (who have a learned opinion on the matter, but probably lack a lot of context without reading the actual filings) is armchair lawyering of coulda-woulda-shoulda. I happen to be one of those armchair lawyers, with a lot of law classes to back up my reasoning, but still not a paid up member of the legal profession. I stated a number of points that can be verified by anyone with a legal background, which you seem to have at least a modicum of. I hedged my bets by stating "this varies by state." It appears to be a very clear case of a business' legal team overreaching what constitutes an agreement of sale in the hopes of either scaring the owner of the asset, or swaying opinion enough to have a judge side with them. I suspect they will not prevail in their initial filing, and then they will argue for domain squatting. I doubt this will end amicably for either party. > you need to cite some authorities on P.S. I don't need to do shit.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

Jump needs to retain new lawyers because their current ones seem to be idiots at face value.