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.

 

[Arch]

My guess is the plaintiff's attorney in the RICO lawsuit is going to want to know more details about these asset sales, and where the money went.

The amended lawsuit mentions the concern regarding asset sales -

Stating concern about an asset sale. The amended complaint adds a section titled “Defendants Attempt to Sell Epik and Its Assets”. It explains that Epik CEO Brian Royce recently tweeted about negotiating asset sales and that former CEO Rob Monster confirmed to Adkisson on May 12 “that he understood ‘that an asset sale is being finalized'”. The complaint states, “If an asset sale is completed, Epik intends to pay its creditors before repaying the consumers whose funds Defendants misappropriated.”

This could end up roping even more people in. I hope for their sake these transactions were arm's length, and not some shady insider deals.

Brad

The problem with that is that the people that gave Epik money are creditors, and therefore Adkisson would be a creditor. It is disappointing that people like Adkisson who paid for a service that Epik didn't deliver aren't important creditors, and Epik Holdings Inc have decided that it is more important to pay Rob Monster and Brian Royce.

 

[bmugford]

The problem with that is that the people that gave Epik money are creditors, and therefore Adkisson would be a creditor. It is disappointing that people like Adkisson who paid for a service that Epik didn't deliver aren't important creditors, and Epik Holdings Inc have decided that it is more important to pay Rob Monster and Brian Royce.

Well, there is a difference between being a creditor because someone used an unlicensed escrow service to scam you, and voluntarily investing in a company.

Also, someone like Kathleen did not give Epik money. They received "escrow" money on her behalf, and then just kept it.

They basically just defrauded her out of $91K, or $100K if you don't think their scammy "escrow" services were worth $9K.

Companies are not allowed to insolvent trade, or steal customers money to pay back debts they deem to be a higher priority.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/embezzlement.asp

KEY TAKEAWAYS​

• Embezzlement takes place when a person intentionally uses funds for a different purpose than they were intended to be used

You know for instance when you take a $100K "escrow" payment for someone's domain, then just keep the money. Or, take a $327,000 "escrow" payment then don't transfer the domain or provide a refund for a year.

Brad

 

[Arch]

Well, there is a difference between being a creditor because someone used an unlicensed escrow service to scam you, and voluntarily investing in a company.

Also, someone like Kathleen did not give Epik money. They received "escrow" money on her behalf, and then just kept it.

They basically just defrauded her out of $91K, or $100K if you don't think their scammy "escrow" services were worth $9K.

Companies are not allowed to insolvent trade, or steal customers money to pay back debts they deem to be a higher priority.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/embezzlement.asp

KEY TAKEAWAYS​

• Embezzlement takes place when a person intentionally uses funds for a different purpose than they were intended to be used

You know for instance when you take a $100K "escrow" payment for someone's domain, then just keep the money. Or, take a $327,000 "escrow" payment then don't transfer the domain or provide a refund for a year.

Brad

That is correct but, Kathleen is a creditor of Epik and therefore is owed $91,000. Epik has decided that Kathleen isn't an important creditor.

I'd be interested in what investors Epik are paying. It would probably be going to Rob Monster and Kingdom Ventures, and not the minority investors. I also don't understand how they have a $35M size of raise and cannot pay their escrow users.

 

[bmugford]

That is correct but, Kathleen is a creditor of Epik and therefore is owed $91,000. Epik has decided that Kathleen isn't an important creditor.

Yes, the point being that a company is not able to just insolvent trade, and make those decisions.

If they can't pay bills, they need to file bankruptcy. There is no provision in law to scam customers so you can just filter money to parties you deem to be more important.

At least in a Ponzi scheme, you take in new investment to pay old investors. In this scheme they just take money from customers (often involuntarily), provide them with nothing, then the money seems to disappear into the ether.

I also don't understand how they have a $35M size of raise and cannot pay their escrow users.

Because everything with Epik involves some fluff, angle, or other BS. You can't trust what they say.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

Kathleen is a creditor, in the sense she is owed money.

But, she is owed money because the money was stolen from her by Epik's unlicensed "escrow" service.

Brad

 

[Arch]

Yes, the point being that a company is not able to just insolvent trade, and make those decisions.

If they can't pay bills, they need to file bankruptcy. There is no provision in law to scam customers so you can just filter money to parties you deem to be more important.

At least in a Ponzi scheme, you take in new investment to pay old investors. In this scheme they just take money from customers (often involuntarily), provide them with nothing, then the money seems to disappear into the ether.


Because everything with Epik involves some fluff, angle, or other BS. You can't trust what they say.

Brad

Well we all should expect that the money that is being taken from their escrow service isn't disappearing, but is paying Perkins Coie, Brian Royce and Rob Monster. If Epik had paid their escrow users e.g. Kathleen and Adkisson, they wouldn't have had to pay Perkins Coie.

Rob Monster and Brian Royce have the Sadim Touch.

 

[bmugford]

Well we all should expect that the money that is being taken from their escrow service isn't disappearing, but is paying Perkins Coie, Brian Royce and Rob Monster. If Epik had paid their escrow users e.g. Kathleen and Adkisson, they wouldn't have had to pay Perkins Coie.

Rob Monster and Brian Royce have the Sadim Touch.

Well, the $327,000 was from May 2022. Kathleen's $100K was from Sept 2022.

That money was long gone before the RICO case was filed.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

It's pretty bad when Epik is not even processing transer-ins.

I guess what difference does it make, they already got paid for nothing.

 

[GNP]

Did Epik fire all support staff?

They don't respond to tickets anymore.

Don't know about customer support, but I am sure they still have technical support (since the website still "works"). Based on this thread & Epik reviews, it would seem customer support is just a foil to blame another department for any Epik issues customers complain about and seemingly doesn't do much, if anything, constructive to help / assist the customer.

 

[GNP]

It's pretty bad when Epik is not even processing transer-ins.

Very true. I don't exactly understand how the person lost the domain. Transfer failed after 10 days so they still should have had plenty of time to renew the domain at their current registrar. Also so long as the domain status does NOT show "pending Transfer" you can always start another transfer to another registrar too.

It makes me wonder what % of financial transactions involving domains & Epik actually are working!!!
(Transfer's out don't count, since that is NOT a financial transaction with Epik, but with the receiving registrar.)

 

[forge]

Transfer failed after 10 days so they still should have had plenty of time

"25 days later no transfer and no updates from Epik"

Then 10 days further, as I read it.

 

[GNP]

"25 days later no transfer and no updates from Epik"

Then 10 days further, as I read it.

Yah, that is probably what they meant. Guess they didn't know that transfers should take 5-7 days (if they can't be pushed), so if it is taking longer than that try, try again...and since Epik scared off most of the domainers already regular, everyday people, like the reviewer are the ones still getting scammed.

 

[NameInbox]

Did Epik fire all support staff?

They don't respond to tickets anymore.

They don't work on weekend/or and respond with 2-3 days gap.

 

[wwwweb]

taking .com renewals, and not renewing, seems like a clear icann violation, got stung for a few, out about $200

 

[Recons.Com]

taking .com renewals, and not renewing, seems like a clear icann violation, got stung for a few, out about $200

I can understand when inexperienced clients try to renew there, but I am surprised and wondering why would you be trying to renew there? I assume you paid with cc and can claim fraud?

 

[wwwweb]

tand when inexperienced clients try to renew there, but I am surprised and wondering why would you be trying to renew there? I assume you paid with cc and can claim fraud?

I bought some names via dan, which the seller pushed epik go figure, personally I wouldn't do that, but guess they wanted to get paid a day quicker, not by design, but had some funds left in balance, and I couldn't transfer out due to 60 day lock, so I just wanted them to be covered. Not a fan of chargebacks, so since I am in the renewal que as they call it, I will see if they make good first. Not holding my breath, but this is a great test of ICANN's incompotence.

Funny thing is after epik and dan's bad breakup, dan would refuse to push domains to epik, rather ask sellers for auth code automatically, not sure why they went back to push possible option at this point, as they putting many buyers into jepoardy as they can't renew their domains.

 

[GNP]

I bought some names via dan, which the seller pushed epik go figure, personally I wouldn't do that, but guess they wanted to get paid a day quicker, not by design, but had some funds left in balance, and I couldn't transfer out due to 60 day lock, so I just wanted them to be covered. Not a fan of chargebacks, so since I am in the renewal que as they call it, I will see if they make good first. Not holding my breath, but this is a great test of ICANN's incompotence.

Funny thing is after epik and dan's bad breakup, dan would refuse to push domains to epik, rather ask sellers for auth code automatically, not sure why they went back to push possible option at this point, as they putting many buyers into jepoardy as they can't renew their domains.

That sucks.
It also means that for the present if someone is buying a domain name on a marketplace, they need to ensure the transaction does NOT involve Epik. Have you contacted DAN about it?

 

[wwwweb]

That sucks.
It also means that for the present if someone is buying a domain name on a marketplace, they need to ensure the transaction does NOT involve Epik. Have you contacted DAN about it?

Dan's part is to complete the sale, just a middleman, I would be wasting my time going back, and forth with them, future consensus, I will push there. Dan with Godaddy ownership should be well aware what is going on there.

 

[Recons.Com]

I bought some names via dan, which the seller pushed epik go figure, personally I wouldn't do that, but guess they wanted to get paid a day quicker, not by design, but had some funds left in balance, and I couldn't transfer out due to 60 day lock, so I just wanted them to be covered. Not a fan of chargebacks, so since I am in the renewal que as they call it, I will see if they make good first. Not holding my breath, but this is a great test of ICANN's incompotence.

Funny thing is after epik and dan's bad breakup, dan would refuse to push domains to epik, rather ask sellers for auth code automatically, not sure why they went back to push possible option at this point, as they putting many buyers into jepoardy as they can't renew their domains.

I hear you. I have bought few names via dan, but always ask for auth code or push to GD. Don't want to deal with the names stuck, forgetting, not renewing etc.

Dan should have made sure to provide the code themselves given the history of epik. I mean a regular end-user would have gone blaming dan for this and complaining that they failed delivering the name clear of problems.

 

[bhartzer]

Bill, did you create this video, where DNProtect was clearly presented as an Epik.com service?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328378549510828038

Show attachment 238478
Show attachment 238479

I had nothing to do with the creation of that video.

 

[Future Sensors]

I had nothing to do with the creation of that video.

May I conclude that you, as a Director, were not well informed about what was happening?

 

[bhartzer]

May I conclude that you, as a Director, were not well informed about what was happening?

Ha! there were a lot of things done without my permission... like *shutting it down* without my permission.

By the way, I was co-founder, "director" was just a superficial title.

 

[Future Sensors]

By the way, I was co-founder, "director" was just a superficial title.

Okay. Well, you came up with this. I don't know what to believe anymore.

 

[bhartzer]

Okay. Well, you came up with this. I don't know what to believe anymore.

Show attachment 238693

Yes, I had a title of Director (since I handled operations). Was also co-founder and co-owner when it was operating.

What's your point?

 

[Future Sensors]

What's your point?

No, what was your point with the 'by the way'?