There is always that thread that starts will little substantiation but looks to be controversial. So someone started a thread on Namepros stating that the domain market is manipulated just like gold, stocks, housing, etc…
When someone asked if they cared to substantiate with facts? The op simply stated no. Later in the thread they wondered why Zoom did not purchase Zoom.com until Media Options owned it? Why did Universal.com just sell?
I rely on my own observations and experience.
Also, I think Schilling, Ham and Yee sold out because they were not generating any end user sales.
The only inquiries they got, all in all, were inquiries from dominers, who wanted to buy a traffic domain and park it.
Why would Schilling sell out if he was sufficiently profitable? Or Ham? Or Yee?
Anyone who has real observations of this industry knows that Frank and Kevin received several end user inquiries and made several end user sales.
The OP did state it was their opinion, take it or leave it.
Brad Mugford said he would leave it.
I’ll leave it.
Every field has some % of bad actors, frauds, snake oil salesmen, charlatans, etc.
I don’t think that is unique to the domain world.
The thing about making such a general statement without any intimate details about transactions makes you look uninformed. Of course there are millions who subscribe to the theory that everything is a conspiracy, everything is a scam. But when you make statements you need to have something to substantiate it. For example, you have to know Frank Schilling personally and his business to state you know why he sold.
You can read the whole thread on Namepros.