alert The fund can't be withdrawal from Epik.com via Masterbucks wallet

[enamebroker]

It happened on 23rd Aug 2022 and this matter lasted almost one month without any process. Masterbucks.com declined my fund withdrawal and disabled the button of fund withdrawal. And I contacted Epik.com and got no further action even if Rob Monster got involved in it for two weeks. All the time I was told in email by management review.

What is wrong with Epik.com? Do you think it is normal to disable fund withdrawal? How can I get back my fund from Epik.com? Thanks for your suggestion.

 

[Igor Gabrielan]

Should we automate the CEO?​

 

[devuilo]

SPOILER ALERT: The new management have no idea what existing websites Epik operates.

 

[bhartzer]

SPOILER ALERT: The new management have no idea what existing websites Epik operates.

I think they actually DO know...it's basically down to one. New mgt shut all the other ones down, even though many of them were profitable.

 

[GNP]

I think they actually DO know...it's basically down to one. New mgt shut all the other ones down, even though many of them were profitable.

Were those side-businesses really profitable???
It doesn't make sense that a company that has trouble funding it's core business would close profitable side businesses (when the profit could be used to keep the core business afloat). Now I know Epik isn't known for being very logical sometimes/often, but in general, I just don't buy it (at least not without proof to the contrary).

Personally, I think Epik's business(es) were making a LOT less profit during the "good times" than many people think, and after the Epik Hack I think their overall finances were in the red.) It just took 12-18 months for Epik to burn through their money till it reached the point Epik could no longer pay all their bills which is when the "MasterBucks Scam" started turning real money into non-withdrawable "funny money". But I don't have any first-hand knowledge of any of this, so who knows what really happened???

(Assuming Epik was losing money, that could also be an explanation for why Monster risked using customer funds to allegedly buy Crypto (which was going up in value for quite a while, until it fell off a cliff). Hoping to sell it for a profit and use (some) of the profit to cover the business losses till he could get it turned around. Remember MOST businesses that steal customer funds did NOT originally plan to steal the money. They originally had an emergency cash flow issue and planned to use the funds to create a profit, and then pay it back, but when that plan fails, THEN they get caught sooner or later.

REMEMBER you really only learn about the companies that steal customer funds and FAILED to use that money to "fix" their business, you NEVER hear about the companies that stole customer funds and SUCCEEDED in using that money to "fix" their business. Why because the companies that succeed were able to pay back the customer funds before the customer realized they had been stolen. That all being said: The end does NOT justify the means, so it still is illegal.)

 

[bhartzer]

Were those side-businesses really profitable???
It doesn't make sense that a company that has trouble funding it's core business would close profitable side businesses (when the profit could be used to keep the core business afloat). Now I know Epik isn't known for being very logical sometimes/often, but in general, I just don't buy it (at least not without proof to the contrary).

Personally, I think Epik's business(es) were making a LOT less profit during the "good times" than many people think, and after the Epik Hack I think their overall finances were in the red.) It just took 12-18 months for Epik to burn through their money till it reached the point Epik could no longer pay all their bills which is when the "MasterBucks Scam" started turning real money into non-withdrawable "funny money". But I don't have any first-hand knowledge of any of this, so who knows what really happened???

(Assuming Epik was losing money, that could also be an explanation for why Monster risked using customer funds to allegedly buy Crypto (which was going up in value for quite a while, until it fell off a cliff). Hoping to sell it for a profit and use (some) of the profit to cover the business losses till he could get it turned around. Remember MOST businesses that steal customer funds did NOT originally plan to steal the money. They originally had an emergency cash flow issue and planned to use the funds to create a profit, and then pay it back, but when that plan fails, THEN they get caught sooner or later.

REMEMBER you really only learn about the companies that steal customer funds and FAILED to use that money to "fix" their business, you NEVER hear about the companies that stole customer funds and SUCCEEDED in using that money to "fix" their business. Why because the companies that succeed were able to pay back the customer funds before the customer realized they had been stolen. That all being said: The end does NOT justify the means, so it still is illegal.)

All I can really speak about is the ones that I had my hands on (as an admin or what I was running). DNProtect was profitable, and we hadn't even monetized DNP Score yet (i.e., charged for reports there). Trust Ratings was profitable, and I was actually working with partners to get more data into Trust Ratings (TR is still up and running, but most likely there's no one actually managing it at this point). Domain Graduate had a lot of good content, and I don't think it was monetized yet.

 

[Future Sensors]

Trust Ratings was profitable, and I was actually working with partners to get more data into Trust Ratings (TR is still up and running, but most likely there's no one actually managing it at this point).

TrustRatings is a joke. The reason Rob started TrustRatings was because Rob couldn't control negative reviews on TrustPilot.

 

[jmcc]

These are the ICANN registrar totals and monthly changes, total renewed and total new registrations, total , deletions (deleted no grace), transfer gain and total transfer loss for Epik from the most recent reports (November 2022 / 202211) to Septeber 2020.

Month - Registrar - Total - Change - Renewed - New - Deleted - Gain - Loss

| 202211 | Epik, Inc. | 767,293 | -13,003 | 33,911 | 13,777 | 12,984 | 1,767 | 14,246 |
| 202210 | Epik, Inc. | 780,296 | -12,258 | 38,559 | 10,942 | 11,330 | 2,548 | 15,339 |
| 202209 | Epik, Inc. | 792,554 | -15,611 | 57,622 | 10,364 | 12,009 | 11,193 | 15,976 |
| 202208 | Epik, Inc. | 808,160 | 20,323 | 47,675 | 19,074 | 8,442 | 11,770 | 9,513 |
| 202207 | Epik, Inc. | 787,837 | 2,496 | 38,648 | 10,132 | 7,858 | 7,990 | 6,670 |
| 202206 | Epik, Inc. | 785,341 | 4,555 | 31,504 | 10,825 | 10,191 | 6,525 | 3,156 |
| 202205 | Epik, Inc. | 780,786 | 7,829 | 35,480 | 10,858 | 7,589 | 9,128 | 2,890 |
| 202204 | Epik, Inc. | 772,957 | 15,257 | 32,751 | 19,875 | 7,123 | 7,711 | 4,574 |
| 202203 | Epik, Inc. | 757,700 | 9,791 | 35,317 | 11,757 | 7,278 | 7,856 | 3,606 |
| 202202 | Epik, Inc. | 747,909 | 9,871 | 32,497 | 9,540 | 8,128 | 10,503 | 2,832 |
| 202201 | Epik, Inc. | 738,038 | 8,542 | 50,657 | 10,115 | 11,287 | 19,148 | 1,972 |
| 202112 | Epik, Inc. | 729,496 | 15,536 | 37,898 | 12,837 | 12,066 | 14,544 | 5,931 |
| 202111 | Epik, Inc. | 713,960 | 14,578 | 27,317 | 15,334 | 10,473 | 18,891 | 4,581 |
| 202110 | Epik, Inc. | 699,382 | 15,421 | 27,453 | 13,170 | 11,914 | 17,449 | 7,258 |
| 202109 | Epik, Inc. | 683,961 | 19,973 | 41,039 | 12,570 | 12,327 | 30,060 | 5,798 |
| 202108 | Epik, Inc. | 663,987 | 10,876 | 41,311 | 15,077 | 25,245 | 23,841 | 5,116 |
| 202107 | Epik, Inc. | 653,105 | 2,065 | 33,079 | 10,091 | 20,882 | 17,198 | 6,364 |
| 202106 | Epik, Inc. | 651,046 | -2,436 | 40,290 | 10,308 | 15,509 | 6,294 | 5,035 |
| 202105 | Epik, Inc. | 653,482 | -1,197 | 41,140 | 10,009 | 11,867 | 5,705 | 4,002 |
| 202104 | Epik, Inc. | 654,679 | -9,930 | 31,581 | 12,028 | 6,483 | 7,384 | 5,723 |
| 202103 | Epik, Inc. | 664,609 | -22,033 | 26,218 | 12,437 | 9,265 | 8,106 | 6,880 |
| 202102 | Epik, Inc. | 686,642 | -6,713 | 27,640 | 8,405 | 51,296 | 8,581 | 10,753 |
| 202101 | Epik, Inc. | 693,351 | 4,127 | 41,922 | 8,928 | 13,895 | 18,327 | 11,420 |
| 202012 | Epik, Inc. | 689,224 | -15,110 | 25,503 | 10,437 | 19,494 | 5,221 | 10,185 |
| 202011 | Epik, Inc. | 704,334 | -36,000 | 25,841 | 11,998 | 36,349 | 3,958 | 13,360 |
| 202010 | Epik, Inc. | 740,334 | -5,696 | 26,229 | 26,104 | 25,404 | 4,939 | 4,072 |
| 202009 | Epik, Inc. | 746,030 | 16,176 | 27,309 | 12,715 | 13,911 | 5,554 | 3,565 |


It is still a subtantial registrar. Apart from being able to pay employees and operating costs, it has to be able to pay for new registrations and renewals. Most of the domain names are in the .COM gTLD and that's a good thing. The renewal rates in .COM tend to be quite strong. The renewal rates in the new gTLDs are often low.

Most of Epik's registrations are using off-registrar hosting. They are not hosted on Epik's nameservers. As Epik has focused its market on the domainer market, it would be safe to say that many of them are on sales and auction websites. The problem with the domainer market is that apart from the premium regs, the renewal rate in the more speculative registrations (which go straight on to the sales sites) tends to be low. If they cannot be sold within a year, they are dropped.

The domain name market is a complex one and there are many factors that can make or break a registrar. Brian Royce was basically thrown in at the deep end. His comments about domainers showed that he was unaware of Epik's position in the market's ecology. It is not a diversified registrar like the large players and is largely focused on gTLDs. Its treatment of people over the Masterbucks issue would be unacceptable in any other industry. The problem with a lot of the expectations about Epik failing catastrophically and immediately is that Epik has a large momentum in terms of renewals.

The transfer loss (domain names transferred out to another registrar) ramp up after August 2022. The renewals and new registrations (the lifeblood of any registrar) are stable. ICANN has a three month delay on publication of the reports so the December 2022 reports will be published on 01 April 2023. There is an interesting spike in transfer losses just after the hack but it seems quite limited in effect. Transfer gains didn't collapse during the months after the hack. What makes the November 2022 and October 2022 transfer gains different is that they are much lower.

Regards...jmcc

 

[bmugford]

TrustRatings is a joke. The reason Rob started TrustRatings was because Rob couldn't control negative reviews on TrustPilot.

I can't imagine how Trust Ratings could possibly have been making a profit.
What would the income stream even come from?

GoDaddy is as large as the next (10) registrars combined and has 0 reviews.

Amazon.com has 1 review.
Google.com has 1 review.
eBay has 0 reviews.

Epik has 295 reviews.

Brad

 

[bhartzer]

TrustRatings is a joke. The reason Rob started TrustRatings was because Rob couldn't control negative reviews on TrustPilot.

Doesn't matter why the site was started... it's actually a profitable business model if you have the data in there. A while back I was a Senior VP at Advice Local, and we would buy sites like Trust Ratings if the data was there. I know that the site was profitable. I don't think they are taking in any money now, though, since all the revenue and payments went through Masterbucks. I couldn't imagine that they removed MB from Trust Ratings, though.

 

[Embrand]

TrustRatings is a joke. The reason Rob started TrustRatings was because Rob couldn't control negative reviews on TrustPilot.

And it was a total rip-off of TrustPilot. I wonder how TrustRatings could be profitable.

 

[bhartzer]

I can't imagine how Trust Ratings could possibly have been making a profit.

GoDaddy is as large as the next (10) registrars combined and has 0 reviews.

Amazon.com has 1 review.
Google.com has 1 review.
eBay has 0 reviews.

Epik has 295 reviews.

Brad

Last time I had logged in as Admin there and approving/rejecting ratings there they had a LOT of paid listings. But all the payments were going through Masterbucks. It's a profitable biz model.

 

[Future Sensors]

Doesn't matter why the site was started... it's actually a profitable business model if you have the data in there. A while back I was a Senior VP at Advice Local, and we would buy sites like Trust Ratings if the data was there. I know that the site was profitable. I don't think they are taking in any money now, though, since all the revenue and payments went through Masterbucks. I couldn't imagine that they removed MB from Trust Ratings, though.

I certainly didn't say that money can't be made with it. I just wanted to point out that TrustRatings can't be trusted.

 

[bmugford]

It's a profitable biz model.

I am skeptical of that claim.

When you have a website like Amazon.com with one review, how much is that website actually being used?

Brad

 

[bhartzer]

And it was a total rip-off of TrustPilot. I wonder how TrustRatings could be profitable.

I agree, it definitely copied the TrustPilot business model. But a lot of sites do that, Thumbtack vs HomeAdvisor, there are a ton of others as examples.

 

[Embrand]

I agree, it definitely copied the TrustPilot business model. But a lot of sites do that, Thumbtack vs HomeAdvisor, there are a ton of others as examples.

Yes, but this was to the degree of actually copying code from the TrustPilot site. I remember getting into a huge argument with Rob about this some years ago.

 

[bmugford]

Yes, but this was to the degree of actually copying code from the TrustPilot site. I remember getting into a huge argument with Rob about this some years ago.

TrustRatings.com Powered by eRise.org.

Looks like it is "powered" by a business that is delinquent and the domain is for sale.

I just don't see how a TrustPilot knockoff, with hardly any activity, is bringing in much revenue.

I just assumed the entire point of the website was to prop up Epik ratings, with some website that sounds like it is legit, but it is really just owned by them in a misleading manner.

You notice it says "eRise.org" on there as "Epik" would be too blatantly obvious.

Brad

 

[Future Sensors]

Epik has 295 reviews.

The mere fact that Epik could put a TrustRatings logo on its own properties with mostly positive reviews already made it "profitable" for them.

 

[Embrand]

Always good to see friends and colleagues use your ratings site... Gene Fedele of Kobalt Media is a happy TrustRatings user:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1512160491099103237

 

[Future Sensors]

@bhartzer You still seem to be defending the way things are going at Epik. Get out of your shell and smell the spring.

 

[bmugford]

Always good to see friends and colleagues use your ratings site... Gene Fedele of Kobalt Media is a happy TrustRatings user:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1512160491099103237

This review of TrustRatings.com on TrustRatings.com is great.

 

[Embrand]

This review of TrustRatings.com on TrustRatings.com is great.

Show attachment 234452

But still gave them two stars

 

[Future Sensors]

Last time I had logged in as Admin there and approving/rejecting ratings there they had a LOT of paid listings.

So, you were an Admin at TrustRatings (this doesn't surprise me), and you did not remove Bill Hartzer's 5-star review for DNProtect dotcom? This is really unacceptable, Mr Seo, and you know it damn well. Stop playing games. Smell the spring. It's time for a real change.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/im-bill-hartzer-director-of-dnprotect-ama.1285198/

https://trustratings.com/users/5e8fc6a55e0eaf14273b29c0

 

[Embrand]

They keep coming at Epik:

 

[Embrand]

So, you were an Admin at TrustRatings (this doesn't surprise me), and you did not remove Bill Hartzer's 5-star review for DNProtect dotcom? This is really unacceptable, Mr Seo, and you know it damn well. Stop playing games. Smell the spring. It's time for a real change.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/im-bill-hartzer-director-of-dnprotect-ama.1285198/

https://trustratings.com/users/5e8fc6a55e0eaf14273b29c0

Show attachment 234454

It reminds me of "Soap" when I was young:

"These questions—and many others—will be answered in the next episode of ... Soap."

 

[bmugford]

So, you were an Admin at TrustRatings (this doesn't surprise me), and you did not remove Bill Hartzer's 5-star review for DNProtect dotcom? This is really unacceptable, Mr Seo, and you know it damn well. Stop playing games. Smell the spring. It's time for a real change.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/im-bill-hartzer-director-of-dnprotect-ama.1285198/

https://trustratings.com/users/5e8fc6a55e0eaf14273b29c0

Show attachment 234454

It is inappropriate for a company owner to leave a review of their own product, especially without fully disclosing that connection.

That review should be edited to reflect your ownership or be removed.
Saying that you "developed" something does not reflect your ownership.

https://kellywarnerlaw.com/post-online-reviews-of-my-product

Is It Legal To Post Online Reviews Of My Product?

Can I post online reviews of my products? The answer: Only if you prominently disclose your connection to the product. It’s against FTC rules to litter the Internet with phony product reviews that appear impartial but aren’t.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/bus...tcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking

In addition, the Guides say, if there’s a connection between an endorser and the marketer that consumers would not expect and it would affect how consumers evaluate the endorsement, that connection should be disclosed. For example, if an ad features an endorser who’s a relative or employee of the marketer, the ad is misleading unless the connection is made clear. The same is usually true if the endorser has been paid or given something of value to tout the product. The reason is obvious: Knowing about the connection is important information for anyone evaluating the endorsement.