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.

 

[bmugford]

Since Braden is just speculating, I don't see the point in adding another layer of speculation on top. For one thing, LLC's don't have "shares" the way corporations do.

That's a valid point. We can just leave that here for now.

It is hard to know what is really going on with Epik, but I don't think Rob Monster or Brian Royce really cared about anyone but themselves.

It is not like there was any talk of protecting other shareholders in the exhibits.

Brad

 

[jberryhill]

Have you invested in any other domain-related companies (not domains directly)?

@Braden Pollock 's vast global network of ownership and control is second only to the Illuminati. I'm pretty sure we're due for Commander Cuckoo to come along and point that out.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

It is not like there was any talk of protecting other shareholders in the exhibits.

Shareholders are supposed to all be equal. Depending on how many shares they own, of course.
It all depends of what happens to the company. I don't see ways of "protecting other shareholders", so not sure what there was to talk about.

If the money raised with the sale of the main assets isn't even enough to pay every customers, shareholders are toast. Unless they start to earn a lot of money pretty quickly. With what and from what, IDK.

 

[bmugford]

Shareholders are supposed to all be equal. Depending on how many shares they own, of course.
It all depends of what happens to the company. I don't see ways of "protecting other shareholders", so not sure what there was to talk about.

Well, Rob Monster was only concerned about himself not being left holding the "drippy bag".

There didn't seem to be much concern for anyone else, period.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

I have no idea on the merits of this case, or status in general -

Kovalenko v. Epik Holdings Inc et al

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2022cv01578/316078

But, a general question for @jberryhill.

What happens to a lawsuit when the defendants were all part of one company, then some of those assets were transferred and become part of another company?

Epik Holdings Inc is still Epik Holdings Inc (minus Epik.com and other assets), but now Anonymize is part of Epik LLC.

Brad

 

[Derek Peterson]

Amateurs. The Monster Movie will show them how the pros launder.

The last example, Mickey Blue Eyes is closest to Monster's laundering. Domains prices are very subjective, like art. Great way to pay people off, "legally".

 

[Derek Peterson]

Not an issue.

 

[sota]

Not an issue.

Show attachment 241550

You know, despite the horrid nature of all these shenanigans, one potential bright side for me at least, is the learning about Wyoming's "LLC friendly" nature in terms of asset protection. I kind of need that for myself and my family in the future.

 

[jberryhill]

But, a general question for @jberryhill.

What happens to a lawsuit when the defendants were all part of one company, then some of those assets were transferred and become part of another company?

It's a general question, but not one with a general answer. It's going to depend on what sort of action we're talking about, who are the complete range of defendants, what is the relationship between the action and the transferred assets... too many variables for a single answer. I know the perception that lawyers always say "it depends" is irritating, but it's also frustrating that a lot of questions people throw at lawyers come across like, "How much does it cost to dig a hole?"

As noted upthread, there are situations where courts can stop (as in the injunction sought by Adkisson) or unwind (as in fraudulent transfer situations) transactions in order to prevent defendants from engaging in shell games with their assets.

 

[Future Sensors]

It's a general question, but not one with a general answer. It's going to depend on what sort of action we're talking about, who are the complete range of defendants, what is the relationship between the action and the transferred assets... too many variables for a single answer. I know the perception that lawyers always say "it depends" is irritating, but it's also frustrating that a lot of questions people throw at lawyers come across like, "How much does it cost to dig a hole?"

As noted upthread, there are situations where courts can stop (as in the injunction sought by Adkisson) or unwind (as in fraudulent transfer situations) transactions in order to prevent defendants from engaging in shell games with their assets.

@jberryhill In general, without going into specifics, I can say that your contributions are greatly appreciated. Thank you!

 

[Mister Funsky]

This is a general request of those that are still having to deal with the 'epik' platform.

In my case, there has been a significant slowdown of certain processes...if you are having similar issues, record (video, screenshot, etc) those issues so they can be presented to ICANN.

Those of us that are stuck have to be keenly aware of the status as it progresses. For now, they (old epik/new epik/future epik/epik) are walking on eggshells until/unless they get the full go ahead from ICANN. Once/If that happens, things might get sticky again.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

"How much does it cost to dig a hole?"

Easy: A gazillion

Your answer is obviously good, but I fear Brad is more into mixing up persons and assets, like he tends to recurringly do, rather than thinking about situations where the assets are really the matter in the legal action.

A general answer @bmugford , if I correctly understand the intent and spirit of your question, would be: It doesn't matter. This is exactly the idea I repeated "ad nauseum": Persons are responsible and sued, not assets. It doesn't matter if the persons don't have the asset anymore. They are still responsible for what they did. And the transfer doesn't make the new owner responsible of the past.

Defendants are persons, not assets.

In situations where some assets do matter, transactions can be reverted after the fact. This is the "claw backs" Derek mentioned earlier. Like here, if there is an argument "old Epik" assets have been sold at an obvious "too low" price, robbing creditors of value allowing to repay them, a court could revert the transaction.

 

[bmugford]

A general answer @bmugford , if I correctly understand the intent and spirit of your question, would be: It doesn't matter. This is exactly the idea I repeated "ad nauseum": Persons are responsible and sued, not assets. It doesn't matter if the persons don't have the asset anymore. They are still responsible for what they did. And the transfer doesn't make the new owner responsible of the past.

Defendants are persons, not assets.

In situations where some assets do matter, transactions can be reverted after the fact. This is the "claw backs" Derek mentioned earlier. Like here, if there is an argument "old Epik" assets have been sold at an obvious "too low" price, robbing creditors of value allowing to repay them, a court could revert the transaction.

Just so others are not confused, a "person" refers to an actual person or legal entity.

A "person" is not just Joe Blow. It can also be Joe Blow Inc or Joe Blow LLC.

Since you are talking in general, there are also situations where you can name property aka in rem. The property itself is the defendant in an action and not a person.

That doesn't seem relevant to this situation, but it is relevant to your broad "Defendants are persons, not assets." comment.

Whether a new owner is held responsible would depend on the situation itself.

Brad

 

[bigdomainer]

Just so others are not confused, a "person" refers to an actual person or legal entity.

A "person" is not just Joe Blow. It can also be Joe Blow Inc or Joe Blow LLC.

Since you are talking in general, there are also situations where you can name property aka in rem. The property itself is the defendant in an action and not a person.

That doesn't seem relevant to this situation, but it is relevant to your broad "Defendants are persons, not assets." comment.

Whether a new owner is held responsible would depend on the situation itself.

Brad

Well said!

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

Whether a new owner is held responsible would depend on the situation itself.

Would you maybe be able to give a few examples where that would be the case, like I tried to do?
Examples which would make a parallel with the Epik situation, as this is what we're talking about, right?

Yes, a legal entity is also a person. Of course. Well, some may be regarded as "transparent" and not persons themselves, but that is besides the point, here.

 

[bmugford]

Would you maybe be able to give a few examples where that would be the case, like I tried to do?
Examples which would make a parallel with the Epik situation, as this is what we're talking about, right?

Well, not much is really known about the Epik asset transfer.

No one really knows who owns "new" Epik or the details of the asset transfer itself.

Was it an arm's length transaction in good faith or is there some funny business going on?
Without more details, that question can't really be answered.

"New" Epik has been cagey about who owns or operates the company, which has only lead to more speculation.

If "old" Epik and "new" Epik have a lot of overlap when it comes to ownership and operators, that could be a problem for them.

As far as actual examples, I am not aware of any other registrars that scammed customers with an "escrow" service involving internal currency, then left those liabilities to customers behind.

Brad

 

[Derek Peterson]

You know, despite the horrid nature of all these shenanigans, one potential bright side for me at least, is the learning about Wyoming's "LLC friendly" nature in terms of asset protection. I kind of need that for myself and my family in the future.

They really are not as effective as you would think, especially when so many people know ID of ownership and those people are easily findable - attorneys, registered agent, management, etc are all known. Most people are weak, greedy and spiteful and have no sense of honor or loyalty, especially those working for a criminal network and will do or tell you about anything for $500.

Also, one lawsuit will pierce anonymity of dumb LLC in weeks.

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

No one really knows who owns "new" Epik

Either it's the "same people" (1), one way or another. So that would mainly be RM, right?
Or it is: Who the hell actually cares? At least, that's my own POV.

Scenario 1 has a high probability of being fraudulent if everyone isn't paid.
I would also think scenario 1 isn't very probable.
It seems more plausible to me it is someone else. In the end, IDK.
Who? => What does it change?

So, if RM were to swear it isn't him, would that settle it, then? I doubt it.
Whatever is said or proved, it seems to me some of you will never stop on this.
Even if you know for sure who the new owners are, it won't change anything.

Now, why aren't the unpaid people suing "old Epik" and RM, and raise the idea this transaction maybe was a charade? This would be a way of investigating the question, isn't it? I have my idea why that is (I can tell you in private, if you want).

As far as actual examples, I am not aware of any other registrars that...

I was talking of broad examples. No need to be about a registrar. No need to even be a case existing in the real world. Just for the idea. I gave examples of a getaway car used in a bank heist or some real estate office where you would have been scammed. Just an example of your alleged scenario. I have doubts you can actually pull that off, I admit. Because I have doubts about your "Whether a new owner is held responsible would depend on the situation itself."

The question was really meant to prove me wrong on my doubts or make you think yourself that you're unable to imagine one actual made up scenario which would make your assertion work.

 

[bmugford]

So, if RM were to swear it isn't him, would that settle it, then? I doubt it.

Obviously not. You need credibility to be trusted.

What has Rob Monster, Brian Royce, or anyone else at Epik done over the last year to inspire trust?

Epik.com was scamming customers using an "escrow" service that involved internal currency. The only real debate is who is responsible for that.

Regardless, we seem to be going around in circles. I don't want to derail the thread any more.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

I made 3 sales through NameLiquidate and was told in template e-mails I was being paid in store credit (didn't know that was the new policy). The money has not yet been put in my account and no response from support.

I'm going to give them a chance to figure things out before I take any actions.

6/19, 6/20 and 6/25.

"We are pleased to inform you that your domain ____.com has been sold for $49 on our Marketplace!

The domain has now been pushed to the buyer's account and the funds have been deposited into your Marketplace in-store credit

Congratulations on your sale!"

The 3 sales total over $200 so I feel like once they figure things out, I should see something. I was hoping to avoid store credit if I didn't mind waiting a bit.

So "new" Epik's marketplace is active, and they are paying with in-store credit.

I don't see anything in their FAQ -
https://nameliquidate.com/faq

Or the Epik.com TOS, that mentions in-store credit.
https://www.epik.com/terms

This seems like something that would need to be disclosed and agreed to, by the domain owner.

With that said, the seller has still not even received their in-store credit "payments".

Brad

 

[DomainsGENERAL.com]

Epik.com was scamming customers using an "escrow" service that involved internal currency. The only real debate is who is responsible for that.

Epik.com is a domain name. You know that.
Domain names don't scam people. Persons scam people.

Going around in circles indeed.
You know the answer to the above question.
The real question is why you don't want to accept it or keep making it a question. I don't think it actually is one.

 

[tonyk2000]

If the issue is that the link to (renewal + PII) is accessible without authorization - it is a confirmation that we are still dealing with swiss cheese of domains. Unfortunately. However why would @satsdifference.com [if his phone is not infected with a virus or backdoor or anything, and if it is not stolen] publicly post PII with little or no comments is unclear.

 

[branding]

When did that happen?

They probably globally changed "Epik LLC" back to "Epik Inc".

The use of "Epik LLC" has basically been purged from Epik.com, outside of the press release.

It also is problematic if you are trying to separate "Epik LLC" from "Epik Inc" if all the receipts show "Epik LLC".

Brad

Not sure when that happened. I was managing a client account when I noticed it.

 

[Derek Peterson]

If the issue is that the link to (renewal + PII) is accessible without authorization - it is a confirmation that we are still dealing with swiss cheese of domains. Unfortunately. However why would @satsdifference.com [if his phone is not infected with a virus or backdoor or anything, and if it is not stolen] publicly post PII with little or no comments is unclear.n

Newsflash - anyone who is using real name can have their address found in literally minutes.

And, yes, as I said weeks ago. Epik is still a joke site with tons of holes. I heard about several like a month ago and I can almost guarantee that there are many hackers having their way with registrar.epik.com whenever they want.

 

[tonyk2000]

I can almost guarantee that there are many hackers having their way with registrar.epik.com whenever they want.

Moreover, epik does not seem to offer any other payment methods except credit card, and submitting CC details into their system is risky...