> Since it is an auction, besides the winning bidder, there was at least another bidder, which makes two of them and is even more perplexing.
I see nothing perplexing about it because this was not an ordinary auction, but an auction with one member being a public DAO, where the amount of money the DAO will bid is thus public.
Let's say the DAO bids $100, but they have $200 in contributions. Someone can then safely bid $190, knowing that the DAO will raise to $200. It's in the agreement for the DAO more or less, and because it's on the blockchain and organized in a public-ish discord server, their cap is absolutely public.
So, who has the motivation to make these known-bad bids? Anyone who profits off the sale being more, and anyone who just doesn't like crypto-techbros and wants them to lose more money than they would otherwise.
I think the use of DAOs for auctions is quite funny for this reason. A private company that kept the total contribution amount private until just after the auction ended would end up with a much more favorable dynamic than this "the amount we can bid is on the blockchain, you already know our move when you bid".
Disclaimer: I know nothing about this specific auction, and may be missing some key detail. This is simply an observation and speculation from a naive bystander
>Disclaimer: I know nothing about this specific auction, and may be missing some key detail. This is simply an observation and speculation from a naive bystander
Sorry, but how do you know it was a DAO (whatever it is)?
>Les enchères se sont rapidement envolées et ont donné lieu au final à une rude bataille entre deux enchérisseurs étrangers, au téléphone. L'enchérisseur gagnant est américain.
it was a normal auction with two bidders (on the telephone).
The twitter thread this post is to retweets the DAO in question claiming responsibility, specifically this twitter account: https://twitter.com/TheSpiceDAO
In real time you are either on the auction in person or at the telephone, and there is someone else on a telephone connection.
How do you know who that someone else is?
All you know is the auction firm personnel on that phone line raises against your bid and conversely all the someone else knows is that someone (you in this hypothetical case) is offering and counter-raising.
To go from 25,000 to 2,500,000 (100x) two bidders are needed, and the question remains, given that one of the two is some crazy[1] guy backed by a DAO, who is the other one (almost as crazy as the first one).
From that page, you could tell how much money they had raised in etherium, and you could guess their cap from that.
I also give it better than even odds that the person bidding on behalf of the DAO was in discord, bragging about how much money they had to bid, right up until they won.
If you were interested in this auction selling for a large amount, would you not google a bit and find the spice DAO? Would you, perhaps, join their discord server, get on the auction call, and bid it up a bit?
This seems like something that quite reasonably could happen.
That's what I was suggesting above. One bidder is the DAO guy, the other bidder is someone who knows how much the DAO will bid, since it's public, and so raises it up to near that price for some ulterior motive, whether it's because they get a profit off of a high sell, or because they want the idiots who put money into the DAO to lose it. I have no doubt there are many people in both camps who were aware of the DAO before the auction started.
I see, but it is actually risky business, what if the "crazy" guy stops raising offers (for whatever reasons, let's say because he is struck by a lightning) and you win the auction with a bid of - say - 2,400,000 dollars?
I don't know how exactly offerers are "checked" or "validated" by Christie's in these kind of auctions, but there should be some process of some kind - particularly for telephone bidders - of checking identity and financial capabilities.
Or anyone can offer crazy amounts of money and then retire the offer without consequences?
Although I assume, like everything crypto, there’s some centralized SPOF; in this case, the one guy from the “team” making the actual bids, who could stop things from getting truly out of hand.
I see nothing perplexing about it because this was not an ordinary auction, but an auction with one member being a public DAO, where the amount of money the DAO will bid is thus public.
Let's say the DAO bids $100, but they have $200 in contributions. Someone can then safely bid $190, knowing that the DAO will raise to $200. It's in the agreement for the DAO more or less, and because it's on the blockchain and organized in a public-ish discord server, their cap is absolutely public.
So, who has the motivation to make these known-bad bids? Anyone who profits off the sale being more, and anyone who just doesn't like crypto-techbros and wants them to lose more money than they would otherwise.
I think the use of DAOs for auctions is quite funny for this reason. A private company that kept the total contribution amount private until just after the auction ended would end up with a much more favorable dynamic than this "the amount we can bid is on the blockchain, you already know our move when you bid".
Disclaimer: I know nothing about this specific auction, and may be missing some key detail. This is simply an observation and speculation from a naive bystander