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.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

I am sorry but this is apologist nonsense.

Epik scammed customers. It involved the internal currency Masterbucks.

You have to stop with THIS nonsense. There is no excusing Epik whatsoever.
If there wasn't any Masterbucks involved, and Epik didn't payout the "USD" received from the buyer, they would have scammed customers all the same. Don't they?

The exact same could have happened without "Masterbucks" and with "USD".

Yes Epik scammed people in the end and have been a-holes.
It doesn't change facts nor reality. All I wrote above is still 100% correct.

 

[bmugford]

If there wasn't any Masterbucks involved, and Epik didn't payout the "USD" received from the buyer, they would have scammed customers all the same. Don't they?

If Masterbucks was not involved, Epik would not have been holding customer funds in the first place.

Like every other escrow and marketplace service, the payments would have been sent directly to the buyer in fiat currency directly after the transfer.

If the buyer's bank had some issue, that is not Epik's problem.

Epik made the decision to introduce their own BS internal currency, and place themselves in the middle. That is Epik's problem.

They are the ones who took "escrow" funds, and didn't hold them separately.

Masterbucks or not, if escrow funds are not available, they have been abused.

There is no serious argument that Masterbucks is the same as fiat currency. That is just silly.

Brad

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

Unlike Dan/Afternic, Brian Royce introduced "new and improved" Masterbucks, with new T&C (extra KYC, no way to exchange funds between wallets, new high fees, etc.) - all applied retroactively to existing balances /also, folks reported strange games with their crypto balances - some crypto was converted to USD/:

Sure. Agreed.

Epik would have done the same with USD balances. At this point, they were unable to pay and were just finding excuses and trying to buy time + lower a little the amounts through fees, etc.

BS and very wrong moves indeed.

Dan or Afternic could theoretically try to pull out the same kind of sh!t one day. No disrespect to them, and hopefully that will never happen. But it remains possible. They are probably more trustworthy indeed. Trust is still involved. As with many things in the world we live in.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

Masterbucks or not, if escrow funds are not available, they have been abused.

So you agree with me, in fact. What are you arguing about then, exactly?

Sure, Epik made people ask for withdrawals instead of issuing them all immediately. As I've said above.
And there were some subtle enticement to maybe leave funds with them, whatever the name of these funds.
Just the fact you were able to use them for all registrar functions was one of them.

Masterbucks wasn't the real problem. Nor the fact is was supposedly "fake" (that was the subject here).
The problem is Epik misappropriated customers funds, one way or another. I've never said otherwise.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

If Masterbucks was not involved, Epik would not have been holding customer funds in the first place.

So with withdrawable in-store USD, this couldn't have happened? Is that what you're saying?
Does someone know if the current "in-store credits" can be withdrawn or not, btw?
Even if customers can't withdraw them, they're not at risk of maybe not be able to use them anymore at one point in the future? No masterbucks, no problem? Really?

 

[bmugford]

So with withdrawable in-store USD, this couldn't have happened? Is that what you're saying?
Does someone know if the current "in-store credits" can be withdrawn or not, btw?

This is how escrow / marketplace transactions work -

1.) Buyer makes payment.
2.) Seller transfers domain.
3.) Funds are sent to seller via their preferred method.

This is how Epik worked -

1.) Buyer makes payment.
2.) Seller transfers domain.
3.) Epik keeps real funds, and delivers Masterbucks to seller.
4.) Epik blocks withdrawal of Masterbucks funds without notice.

Epik was keeping the real money, and delivering the funny money.

That is exactly what happened in the Kathleen Kalaf case. It involved both an Epik "escrow" transaction AND Masterbucks.

The Adkisson case seemed to only involve an unlicensed "escrow" transaction.

So you agree with me, in fact. What are you arguing about then, exactly?

Sure, Epik made people ask for withdrawals instead of issuing them all immediately. As I've said above.
And there were some subtle enticement to maybe leave funds with them, whatever the name of these funds.
Just the fact you were able to use them for all registrar functions was one of them.

Masterbucks wasn't the real problem. Nor the fact is was supposedly "fake" (that was the subject here).
The problem is Epik misappropriated customers funds, one way or another. I've never said otherwise.

You cherry picked one part of my response.

The scam involved "escrow" funds. The scam involved Masterbucks.

Masterbucks was a core part of the scam.

You seem to be ignoring all the people who were blocked from withdrawing these funds.

Kathleen was delivered those Masterbucks funds while they were frozen, so she never even had a chance to request them. At least she finally got paid, almost 9 months later.

Regardless, this is going nowhere so this will be my last response about this.

Brad

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

You said this above about Epik:

place themselves in the middle.

This is what an escrow or marketplace provider exactly do. It is their job!

This is how escrow / marketplace transactions work -

1.) Buyer makes payment.
2.) Seller transfers domain.
3.) Funds are sent to seller via their preferred method.

Ok. Step 3: By WHOM? And what if they don't? Here you go. How is that any different?
I honestly don't know what we are really "arguing" about.

Epik also did 3). At least they did until they didn't anymore :/ It wasn't automatic but people "just" had to ask for it.

What you're doing is only presenting the things two different ways.
What Dan, escrow.com or Afternic really do is:
3) They received the payment from buyer and owe money to the seller
4) They send the funds to seller via their preferred method.
(The period of time between 3 and 4 is usually short, but they can still not pay. They are the ones issuing the payment to the seller.)

Epik also did. Just "on demand". And there is that they screwed up big time at one point, sure.
The "name" of the funds they owe customers doesn't change that much, as they set that 1 masterbuck = 1 USD.
But as you seem to be blocking psychollogically on something here, it seems we won't ever get out of this (I don't mean anything negative by this).

Regardless, this is going nowhere so this will be my last response about this.

Agreed. I will also try to do the same on my end. Cheers.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

You seem to be ignoring all the people who were blocked from withdrawing these funds.

I really cannot understand at all these kind of reactions.
If I'm not making incorrect stuff up, just to somehow denigrate Epik/RM more, then I am supposedly "ignoring" unpaid people and writing "apologist nonsense"? This is truly F'd up from my POV. Sticking to facts and reality bad!

 

[bmugford]

You said this above about Epik:

This is what an escrow or marketplace provider exactly do. It is their job!

Please use the full sentence I typed (below), not a misleading sentence fragment.

I went ahead and bolded the sentence fragment you used.

Epik made the decision to introduce their own BS internal currency, and place themselves in the middle. That is Epik's problem.

It is not an escrow / marketplace "job" to introduce some stupid internal currency. That was Epik's decision.

Every other company in the field seems to have figured it out, without some internal currency.

Brad

 

[Future Sensors]

Agreed. I will also try to do the same on my end. Cheers.

That lasted only 8 minutes.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

misleading manner

Not my intention. I meant escrow/marketplace providers are in the middle of transactions. By definition.
Epik could have done the exact same by calling it "USD" and never come up with any "internal currency" with a different name. This was the subject, if I'm not mistaken.

If you want to focus on something, it would be the fact payouts weren't all immediate and automatic.
The only arguing seems to be about the thing to focus on. I only said "masterbucks" or the fact it was supposedly "fake" wasn't the really important part in all this.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

The scam involved Masterbucks.

It also involved domain names, a website and the Internet (and end payouts in USD, even). Is that important?
But the escrow/marketplaces which do their job correctly also involved these elements, and yet, they work fine.

What they didn't involve is Masterbucks. The problem must then be masterbucks.
Would that be the kind of underlying reasoning, here, by any chance?

If it is, I would argue the others weren't managed by RM.
This is probably a more relevant difference. If we may settle on this.

 

[satsdifference.com]

glad to hear rob is still with Epik
..from NP --> Epik LLC ! <--

 

[Samer]

Dan or Afternic could theoretically try to pull out the same kind of sh!t one day. No disrespect to them, and hopefully that will never happen.

I never believed in “whataboutism” until i read this.

 

[Samer]

What is this?

 

[bmugford]

What is this?
Show attachment 241662

Now getting an AUTH code requires an undue burden for the registrant.

That's a nice roadblock to put in place to prevent easy transfer outs.

Brad

 

[Samer]

Now getting an AUTH code requires an undue burden for the registrant.

That's a nice roadblock to put in place to prevent easy transfer outs.

Brad

Soon, epik will make us wait the 7 full days…

 

[tonyk2000]

What is this?

5.2 Registrars must provide the Registered Name Holder with the unique "AuthInfo" code and remove the "ClientTransferProhibited" within five (5) calendar days of the Registered Name Holder's initial request if the Registrar does not provide facilities for the Registered Name Holder to generate and manage their own unique "AuthInfo" code and to remove the "ClientTransferProhibited" status.

5.3 Registrars may not employ any mechanism for complying with a Registered Name Holder's request to remove the "ClientTransferProhibited" status or obtain the applicable "AuthInfo Code" that is more restrictive than the mechanisms used for changing any aspect of the Registered Name Holder's contact or name server information.

If you cannot create your own Auth-Code through your control panel, you should contact the registrar to obtain an Auth-Code. If your registrar fails to provide you with an Auth-Code within five calendar days of your request, please submit a Transfer Complaint.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/auth-2013-05-03-en
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en

 

[Samer]

5.2 Registrars must provide the Registered Name Holder with the unique "AuthInfo" code and remove the "ClientTransferProhibited" within five (5) calendar days of the Registered Name Holder's initial request if the Registrar does not provide facilities for the Registered Name Holder to generate and manage their own unique "AuthInfo" code and to remove the "ClientTransferProhibited" status.

5.3 Registrars may not employ any mechanism for complying with a Registered Name Holder's request to remove the "ClientTransferProhibited" status or obtain the applicable "AuthInfo Code" that is more restrictive than the mechanisms used for changing any aspect of the Registered Name Holder's contact or name server information.

If you cannot create your own Auth-Code through your control panel, you should contact the registrar to obtain an Auth-Code. If your registrar fails to provide you with an Auth-Code within five calendar days of your request, please submit a Transfer Complaint.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/auth-2013-05-03-en
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en

Exactly this.
This is what came to mind.
These are mafia tactics it shows desperation. I hope they havent got accreditation, yet. This needs to be a caveat for ICANN approval

 

[bmugford]

5.3 Registrars may not employ any mechanism for complying with a Registered Name Holder's request to remove the "ClientTransferProhibited" status or obtain the applicable "AuthInfo Code" that is more restrictive than the mechanisms used for changing any aspect of the Registered Name Holder's contact or name server information.

That seems pretty straightforward.

Other registrars might delay sending codes by a few days, but the process to request them is still automated.

Having to deal with customer support to get an AUTH code is not acceptable. It is likely just an extra opportunity for customer retention tactics.

Brad

 

[Samer]

Someone, please write an article epik is making you go through flaming hoops to get auth codes.

 

[tonyk2000]

contacting via chat? Will they ask to stay, or offer discounts? @Samer please share your experience...

 

[bmugford]

Someone, please write an article epik is making you go through flaming hoops to get auth codes.

I would just file a complaint with ICANN and let them deal with it.

This is yet another compliance issue.

Brad

 

[Igor Gabrielan]

as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb

 

[Samer]

contacting via chat? Will they ask to stay, or offer discounts? @Samer please share your experience...

i’m scared to, @tonyk2000…
I have 30 domains left with epik.

I anticipate finding out soon! Will keep you posted.