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.

 

[Embrand]

$62,284 claim from a customer in Hong Kong:

 

[bmugford]

$62,284 claim from a customer in Hong Kong:

Show attachment 230243

So, yet another another previously unknown claim involving a large sum of money.
What we know is still likely the tip of the iceberg.

It seems that Epik doesn't even know what they actually owe to customers, likely because of commingled funds and poor record keeping. This was illustrated when Brian Royce seemed unaware of (2) debts totaling $1.8M+.

Outside the initial batch of payments, I am not aware of any substantial payment being made in quite some time. It seems some low dollar ones have been made, but that is about it.

Brad

 

[Embrand]

So, yet another another previously unknown claim involving a large sum of money.
What we know is still likely the tip of the iceberg.

It seems that Epik doesn't even know what they actually owe to customers, likely because of commingled funds and poor record keeping. This was illustrated when Brian Royce seemed unaware of (2) debts totaling $1.8M+.

Outside the initial batch of payments, I am not aware of any substantial payment being made in quite some time. It seems some low dollar ones have been made, but that is about it.

Brad

Yes, and with the infighting between Monster and Royce, it doesn't look like things will get any better. I think @jberryhill summed up the situation nicely with his latest post.

 

[bmugford]

Epik Holdings Inc. business registration is still delinquent in Washington state because they did not file their annual report on time. I am still waiting until that is filed as it should likely have more information about what is going on.

I would expect Rob to be replaced as governor and updated information on the section about "controlling interest".

Brad

It looks like Epik finally filed their annual report on 1/12/2023.

Rob Monster is still listed as the (1) and only governor of the company.

He has not been replaced. No one else has been added as a governor.

Also, under the "controlling interest" section no changes were listed.

If you believe what Brian Royce said, the controlling interest of the company has changed hands.
Why is this not reflected in the filing?

The only two conclusions I can reach are -

1.) Controlling interest has not actually changed hands.
2.) Controlling interest has changed hands, but was not properly reported in their filing.

Brad

 

[koolishman]

Last stand by Rob?

 

[bmugford]

Last stand by Rob?

Also, interestingly enough whoever Nat Smith is did not check the box that said "I am an authorized person" on the filing.

Please note all this is information is publicly available on the Washington SOS website.
https://ccfs.sos.wa.gov/

Brad

 

[Gabriel360]

It looks like Epik finally filed their annual report on 1/12/2023.

Rob Monster is still listed as the (1) and only governor of the company.

Show attachment 230245

He has not been replaced. No one else has been added as a governor.

It is rather odd considering Rob is supposed to have nothing to do with Epik, that he is still listed as the only governor on the business entity.

Also, under the "controlling interest" section no changes were listed.

Show attachment 230246

If you believe what Brian Royce said, the controlling interest of the company has changed hands.
Why is this not reflected in the filing?

The only two conclusions I can reach are -

1.) Controlling interest has not actually changed hands.
2.) Controlling interest has changed hands, but was not properly reported in their filing.

Brad

What are the consequences of a false filing?

 

[bmugford]

What are the consequences of a false filing?

I am not sure exactly, but here is the section referred to in the filing -
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.45.220

Brad

 

[Kt88]

Don't know if this helps. Rob said on Skype to me "I AM NOT AN EXEC" (26th October 2022)

Rob then told me again on Skype that he was "non-exec", but was Chairman (7th November 2022)

 

[koolishman]

Don't know if this helps. Rob said on Skype to me "I AM NOT AN EXEC" (26th October 2022)

Rob then told me again on Skype that he was "non-exec", but was Chairman (7th November 2022)

That may mean ownership, without executive roles.

 

[Kt88]

Rob also said he was "~75% shareholder of Epik" (19th October)

 

[Mister Funsky]

Rob also said he was "~75% shareholder of Epik" (19th October)

That concurs with a conversation I had in the latter days of August.

 

[Embrand]

By the way, the head of Epik-owned Terrahost in Norway resigned just before Christmas:

 

[bmugford]

Don't know if this helps. Rob said on Skype to me "I AM NOT AN EXEC" (26th October 2022)

Rob then told me again on Skype that he was "non-exec", but was Chairman (7th November 2022)

Rob also said he was "~75% shareholder of Epik" (19th October)

So then it is still unclear who actually owns the company and who controls the company.

If you listen to Brian Royce he makes it sound as if Rob is fully out. Last time I heard he basically took access to Rob's email away.

But Rob says he is still Chairman and 75% shareholder?

The annual report showed no change in governor or controlling interest.
I have yet to see anything else on paper that shows someone else is in control of the company.

If Rob owns 75% of shares, you would assume he owns the same share of voting rights.
If that is the case Rob could essentially replace the entire board or any employee he wanted.

That is basically how Vince McMahon just forced his way back to controlling WWE from a "non-executive" role.

Brad

 

[Kt88]

"Rob destroyed Epik; I was put in charge of fixing it. He had to resign and now is being forced off the board. He is out" - Brian Royce - 22nd December 2022

 

[bmugford]

"Rob destroyed Epik; I was put in charge of fixing it. He had to resign and now is being forced off the board. He is out" - Brian Royce - 22nd December 2022

Brian is saying one thing.
Rob is saying another.

The annual report though doesn't indicate any change has been made in governor or controlling interest.
If Rob is "out" why is that not reflected in the filing?

Brad

 

[Kt88]

It's all deliberate. Muddy the water so nobody knows what is going on, so we focus on the internal politics, rather than the missing millions.

 

[Derek Peterson]

So then it is still unclear who actually owns the company and who controls the company.

If you listen to Brian Royce he makes it sound as if Rob is fully out. Last time I heard he basically took access to Rob's email away.

But Rob says he is still Chairman and 75% shareholder?

The annual report showed no change in governor or controlling interest.
I have yet to see anything else on paper that shows someone else is in control of the company.

If Rob owns 75% of shares, you would assume he owns the same share of voting rights.
If that is the case Rob could essentially replace the entire board or any employee he wanted.

That is basically how Vince McMahon just forced his way back to controlling WWE from a "non-executive" role.

Brad

If Rob Monster owns 75% of the share count (seems high but I believe he does own majority), has the only board seat (Chairman and only one with voting power even after his monstrous "investments", according to his post hack stream), and was the CEO, how can anyone "force him out" or force him to do anything for anything for that matter? Oh, right, fraud, embezzlement, wire fraud and money laundering are serious crimes and probably make for pretty good leverage points.

 

[bmugford]

As more and more negative complaints have rolled in on TrustPilot, it looks like Epik has not even bothered to respond to one in over a month (December 1st).

And the last one was this pathetic response to @Kathleen Kalaf -

Epik sold her domain via their "escrow" service for $100K.

They took payment from the buyer, kept $9K for their fees, then sent the balance of $91K in Masterbucks that can't be withdrawn. Essentially they took actual payment then stuck her with unusable funds.

That is not how an escrow service is supposed to operate.

Additionally, it is pretty amusing that they are pretending that Epik and Masterbucks are totally separate with no obvious relationship. Epik was the "escrow" service that sent her $91K in an internal currency that can't be withdrawn.

They might as well just payout in magic beans. They are worth as much or more than Masterbucks at the moment.

Brad

 

[mdrn]

As more and more negative complaints have rolled in on TrustPilot, it looks like Epik has not even bothered to respond to one in over a month (December 1st).

And the last one was this pathetic response to @Kathleen Kalaf -

Show attachment 230300

Epik sold her domain via their "escrow" service for $100K.

They took payment from the buyer, kept $9K for their fees, then sent the balance of $91K in Masterbucks that can't be withdrawn. Essentially they took actual payment then stuck her with unusable funds.

That is not how an escrow service is supposed to operate.

Additionally, it is pretty amusing that they are pretending that Epik and Masterbucks are totally separate with no obvious relationship. Epik was the "escrow" service that sent her $91K in an internal currency that can't be withdrawn.

They might as well just payout in magic beans. They are worth as much or more than Masterbucks at the moment.

Brad

And I think she didn't even choose the Masterbucks option but they opted it automatically to Masterbucks? I could be wrong. But these are some of her words from the review:

"I had my domain sale set up for my funds to be transferred directly to my bank account. I never agreed for my funds to be stuck in Masterbucks. I used Epik.com's escrow service."

 

[DomainRecap]

Oh, right, fraud, embezzlement, wire fraud and money laundering are serious crimes and probably make for pretty good leverage points.

Exactly. Someone (probably the ~25% ownership) is holding an axe over Rob's head in order to try and right the ship.

Maybe Brian is the 25% or has a close relationship to him/her/them, as I see no other reason to place such a prickly personality in charge of this (cough) "Epik recovery".

 

[bmugford]

And I think she didn't even choose the Masterbucks option but they opted it automatically to Masterbucks? I could be wrong. But these are some of her words from the review:

"I had my domain sale set up for my funds to be transferred directly to my bank account. I never agreed for my funds to be stuck in Masterbucks. I used Epik.com's escrow service."

Yes, it is clear that she was expecting a payment in actual currency.

I mean who would knowingly agree to take payment in an internal currency that can't be withdrawn, especially for $91K?

Her transaction was also well after Rob was replaced as CEO and Epik was aware of the problems.

It appears Epik did not let her know about any of those problems, before "selling" her domain.

Brad

 

[Recons.Com]

Exactly. Someone (probably the ~25% ownership) is holding an axe over Rob's head in order to try and right the ship.

Maybe Brian is the 25% or has a close relationship to him/her/them, as I see no other reason to place such a prickly personality in charge of this (cough) "Epik recovery".

To me, it is clear that Rob/Bryan dynamics are clear indication of deliberate bad cop/good cop role assignment.

They can shift the blame, responsibility when needed. Rob can authorize payout to someone outside of queue, e.g., and when others bring it up, Bryan can play angry as if it was over his head.

As @bmugford has shown, the control of the company hasn't changed. Rob is the only one who can ultimately pull the strings in the company and that is the only thing that matters. The rest is just a farce.

 

[koolishman]

the control of the company hasn't changed

Or have they mis-filed the annual declaration?

 

[DomainRecap]

To me, it is clear that Rob/Bryan dynamics are clear indication of deliberate bad cop/good cop role assignment.

I would agree, but Rob is way too mouthy and derogatory towards Rob, and in no way is he a "Good Copy", maybe a Slightly-Less Bad Cop at best.

And there are myriad examples of a person with shareholder control of a corporation being ousted from the day-to-day operations portion, and usually it's the result of this person agreeing with the decision or he/she have some pending legal or personal difficulties to deal with. Or some guy's got some photos, etc.

But should this person choose, he or she can easily force their way back in, as many others have done in the past.