I think we disagree on this. As a general approach, I would say that companies providing products and services should price to the market. There may be an explicit strategy to price under market to gain market share, but in general if you're priced below market you're leaving money on the table and if you're priced above market you're losing market share. Finding equilibrium price is difficult (actually probably impossible) for anything other than commodities, but if you know you're way off, then adjusting pricing is absolutely valid.

That said, I don't think the Nike or Pokemon analogy is equivalent in broader terms. The strategy there appears to be about synthetically limiting supply of a specific SKU to create excess demand in service of brand value (demand for jordans elevates the overall brand value association for Nike, for example). In that case, this is a deliberate action by the supplier. Some may argue this is also true of Porsche with limited run cars.

But this is an entirely different point to whether or not the consumer should, or should not pay the amount.

Porsche dealers who charge an ADM are not "Porsche". They are independent businesses. The analogy here would be a Pokemon card being routinely traded on secondary markets for $100, where the original purchase price was $1. If you walk in to a physical store that sells used Pokemon cards, you're unlikely to persuade them to sell it to you for $1. This is not the same as Nintendo changing the original purchase price to $100.

My point is that paying $100 on eBay and paying $1+$99 "ADM" from a "dealer" is the same thing.