New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
If Lewis can't respond to his PayPal problems, then it's totally Eric fault.
Though, it doesn't change anything about the exit scam
Chargeback! If you bought after the change over, the stripe is in Eric's name not Lewis' (or so we're led to believe).
But hey, it's Christmas!
This one goes to the hall of fame haha
He can stop selling you unreliable services, no matter if it's the same person or not. If it's really another person it would make sense that he's also in control of the PayPal account.
"fraud charges" lmao
FWIW: my @VeloxMedia VPS is running fine and had no downtime since I re-installed it with Eric's support after someone (almost certain it was Lewis) had transferred it to another node.
No downtime, no problems since then, so someone there does take care.
But again, as far as I can know my VPS is not one on which VeloxMedia loses money (not an untenable insane promo).
So, from what I can see, Eric is not running amok and does take care.
Or in other words: Many here seem to have made untenable insane deals with Lewis and now are making lots of noises. They should have known that their insane deals would turn out to be problematic in one way or another, like e.g. brutally over-occupied nodes, not really existing large (virtual) memory, or, as has happened the whole thing sooner or later going belly-up.
That's why I stay away from many/most BF and other (IMO) insane promos. From what I can see Eric is doing the right thing, he's cleaning up the mess Lewis shouldn't have created in the first place.
My advice:
And finally: be as fair to a provider as you want them to be to you (which btw. includes do not make them lose money)!
Well...
Got an YABS on that one?
Sir, this is low-end talk. I have 8 current servers at/under $12/y all from different providers, and not had any problems with any of them, nor with the others I've had before at $12/y. Ironically, the ones that have screwed up badly for me or committing outright fraud were actually at a slightly higher price point.
Even the one I currently have that dead-pooled (Enzonix taken over by Terabit) was handled in a far superior way with advance notice about what was happening. Sure, there's some occasional issues like the outage today in Germany (not me, but others, presumably a renewal that fell through the cracks in the handover, but sorted within hours it seems) and the downgrade from Epyc to E5, but actually for the specs/price it's still one of the best value servers I have.
Yes, I'm sure that every single one of these ultra cheap deals is sold at a loss except for maybe RackNerd, but they also drive other sales to the business, and are usually done responsibly to fill up a node that would be losing money half empty but can break even with a bunch of very cheap deals.
And while deadpool situations do happen and suck, at least you can understand why it happened. If a company with loads of capital steps in (Eric has claimed multiple times that money isn't an issue for him) and then starts cancelling some services but not others then yes, people get pissed off. You'd expect exactly the same outrage if any other company did this to customers mid-term.
But anyway, I'm happy for you that you're happy with your server. Well done you. Have a star: ⭐
You missed something:
"But hey, it's Christmas!"
Reguards
I have at least one VPS that's even cheaper (< $10/yr) but it's really tiny. Besides, I'm not against super-cheap deals per se. I do understand and am not at all against it, that throwing out some money-losing VPS on LET can be a sound marketing/sales move. But for that "some" needs to be reasonable (as in 10 or 20 plus a bit later a couple of hundreds at tenable prices).
I have in fact myself advised a few providers here to use that tactics because it's an easy way to "open the door" here on LET and/or to gain visibility. But again, all in all a provider must make some profit to sustain their operations.
But that's not what we're talking about here in the case of Lewis.
Nice to see that we seem to agree. I doubt though that Lewis had a shit ton of nodes laying around and decided to make them earn "at least something".
That sounds as if Eric diced it out and willy-nilly terminates some while others are allowed to live.
NO, that not what's happening (AFAIK)!
Eric seems to follow a simple guide line: deals that are below cost are terminated (or cancellation might even be provoked as assumed by some here), and those VPS that do not lose money are kept alive and, my experience so far, even well supported. And "losing money or not" seems to indeed be their criterion; I'm quite confident that my take is plus-minus correct because they do earn with my VPS, but certainly tens of cents/mo rather than a lot. As I said, my deal is very cheap but not a loss for them.
Was that kick at me really necessary? I still thought better of you. Let's stay on the topic and fair.
I have no clue how you can say all of this after "Eric's" behavior and inability to answer questions that needed to be answered not just by myself but many others had repeatedly failed.
I also have no clue how you continue to play this fake concern persona of yours whenever a provider absolutely fucks up and you come off squeaky clean. You don't empathize with anyone who got screwed out of this. It doesn't matter if the deals were unsustainable or not. People bought what they thought was an amazing deal and expected that, but then got screwed. https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/4704587/#Comment_4704587 this was a fantastic example of you not being empathetic and ignoring the experiences of others.
If you're in bed with providers, then own it and be open about it. If that's truly your opinion then, I'm sorry but you're wrong and your experience does not reflect anyone else's and it would be better if you were empathetic and more critical.
Whilst I never will look at this company in a positive light due to the fact that my questions (that were reasonable) we're not answered, and the behavior shown is abhorrent and unprofessional.
Maybe I am too much of a harsh critic and negative... 🤷♀️ Maybe you can teach me something. But right now this is still a shit show, the brand name is tarnished, the behavior from the new "owners" is suboptimal, and ordering any kind of service from them is a bad idea.
How is that the buyer's fault? No one made him post those deals. He had an exit scam planned after selling those "untenable" deals and that backfired before he could withdraw all the money.
I have quite a few cheaper. $5/y 1C2G35G20T, $5.4/y 1C512M30G, $6/y 1C4G20G1T, €6/y 1C2G20G40T, €8.6 2C4G50G3.5T. All of these are >1-2 years and most not tiny. But it's not really a pissing contest. The point is that there are plenty of these deals out there and the providers aren't going bust. I only chose the $12/y figure as that seems to be the actual breakeven point for most providers.
And THAT is exactly my point. He bought the whole lot on as a going concern. First promising that he was rescuing everyone. Then complaining how it wasn't fair he had to support the cheapest deals. And then started terminating people, while refusing to give any refunds. All this from a guy who keeps on saying that the money isn't important because it's all chump change to him anyway.
The point is that if you're going to rescue the business, you take on the whole lot as a going concern - the loss making parts as well as the profit making parts. By all means, cancel or do something about the loss making parts, but as the business is now owned by a company with the money to fund it, it has the obligation to honour the contracts it inherited or if it chooses to cancel the contracts, it should not refuse to refund those customers.
Just think of any large company you know that's bought out a failing company because there's some part of their business they want. Can you imagine the outrage if they didn't at least give pro-rata refunds after terminating someone's service? That's exactly why it doesn't happen - it'd be a PR disaster, probably get a load of people suing them and maybe even regulatory oversight depending on how many customers were affected.
This is exactly why I've said over and over, in this thread and others, that the only sensible course of action after a deadpool or near-deadpool incident is to offer a refugee deal and maybe an easy migration path if it's opt in. Buying out the failing company always ends up being a PR disaster for both companies.
Eric and Lewis chose the complete opposite, including moving the business to an entirely different jurisdiction, and failing to handle customers' PII correctly. None of that needed to happen. They could just have easily set up a UK company and transferred everything into that, it's totally fine for a non-resident to be a director of a company. No GDPR violations, no change of jurisdiction, completely customer friendly.
They completely deserved the results from the shitstorm that was entirely caused by their own actions.
Your response to everybody's valid complaints, and even people quoting things Eric has said himself is always that none of that matters because your server is OK. Honestly, I'm glad for you. But not everyone else is having the same rosy experience you are, so while your experience is great for you, your happiness is of no consequence for those who were negatively affected.
love it
Only missing Lewrictom to complete the triangle!
Done
Why is "many others" relevant? Also: just look how you treat users with a different view! Do you really think, content or at least not pissed off customers of @VeloxMedia feel OK, let alone invited, to speak their mind? So, your "many others" carries little to no weight.
I only have one single account here, "jsg". So what are you even talking about?
For a start I disgree with your framing ("screwed out"). And I do understand those who lose their VPS. Unfortunately for you I also do understand quite some mechanics at work here. Most importantly though, I do not run with the crowd, I always try to first understand before complaing, let alone joining a witch hunt.
That may be an example of something, maybe even a fantastic one - but certainly not of me "not being empathetic". Because you quote a post from someone else.
First: I'm not in bed with VeloxMedia/Eric. In fact I hardly had any conversation with them beyond a ticket re. tech.
Second, and pardon me getting harshly clear: Who the fuck are you to tell me what to do and how to act? And to arrogate putting your mindless rules upon me.
"your experience does not reflect anyone else's" is but a loud mouthed assertion and "it would be better if you were empathetic and more critical." you can push up your arse.
What you try to do here is a simple attempt of "bow to the crowd, or else!" and my response is "Nope. Fuck you!". I'll continue to leave mindlessly and stupidly going with the crowd to others - like e.g. you.
I don't care. That's your freedom and right. Nor do I care a rat's ass about others buying or not buying a VeloxMedia product.
Think whatever you please. FWIW, I even partially agree (and wrote that the way how they communicated was terrible IMO). And I have no intention of teaching you anything but to refrain from your, pardon me, emotional and impertinent attempts to force your/the crowds view on me.
OK, you won what I never intend to be a pissing contest, but what you obviously took to be a pissing contest. Have a star.
(a) which are and will be? (don't bother to respond)
(b) typical case of wrong belief in "we the crowd do have power". Chances are that Eric doesn't even care.
Oh, I see, you now are prosecutor and judge in one.
Sadly, you still didn't even understand my point. My server being OK was provided as a counter-example, not as "I don't care, my VPS is OK", nor as "you all are wrong".
I simply see the facts, and while many here react to their take and emotions and seriously believe that their anger somehow will change things (or at the very least punish Eric), my reaction is "obviously errors were made. By both sides" and to find them any try to avoid repeating them in the future.
Funnily - and predictably - the herd mistakes that as "he is against us! We must fight him!". Reliably stupid as herds tend to be.
Thanks.
Just because it is an opinion that doesn't match yours doesn't make it nonsense.
People hating them
Yeah, it's pretty clear he doesn't give a fuck about the customers he acquired. What a cool guy he is, eh?
I don't know why you keep using this stupid judge argument.
Lots of people were fucked over by this move. Your happiness doesn't make them happy. Sorry, not everybody's world revolves around you.
No, I understand your point. It's just not relevant. Lots of people have had a terrible experience because of Eric and Lewis's actions. You being happy about your service doesn't make their situation any better.
It's great that you're happy though. Everybody else's problems can just melt away now.
The customers upheld their end of the contract by paying. Veloxmedia is trying to avoid upholding their end of the contract. That's a one-sided problem.
Yeah, because we should just roll over and let providers who want to treat people like idiots just walk all over us.
Anyway, I'm going back to read-only mode on this thread now. It's clear that you won't ever try to comprehend the reasons why others might be upset. I'm not wasting any more of my time arguing discussing it with you.
Hoping to clarify a mistaken concept in this thread: that Lewis sold a “business” to Eric. As a sole trader, there is/was no business entity. No corporation. No LLC. No partnership. Nothing registered as a business. Lewis and Velox UK were one and the same. Lewis could only sell his assets pertaining to Velox, not “the business.”
Let me outline a hypothetical example. Ralph, a sole trader, owns a car. He sells tickets for future commuter rides in his one car. The car is his asset. The tickets are assets of the riders. The tickets are Ralph’s liabilities.
One day, Ralph sells his car to Jess. He can no longer provide the rides he is liable for. Jess now owns a car, but has no obligations to honor Ralph’s pre-sold tickets. However, Jess is free to cherry pick the most profitable ride customers who’ve now been jilted by Ralph. Jess may be unwise to offer services under the name “Ralph’s Rides”, but if Ralph included his asset, the trade name, in the asset sale, so be it.
When considering legal liability, either criminal or civil, Ralph is solely on the hook, unless Jess was in on the scam from the get go. But, if Jess is just a naive (or informed) car buyer, she’s free and clear. She may do with her car what she wishes, and suffer whatever reputational consequences may come.
Criminal fraud is difficult to prosecute and prove. Governments often choose not pursue difficult cases against small fry under murky international circumstances. More likely this is a civil matter. In the U.S., this would happen in small claims court, or if all the victims banded together, through a class action suit. Lawyers take on class action suits on a contingency basis. My guess is the total money involved is not large enough to attract a competent attorney, given the complexities: some services still operational and the multinational complexion of the complainants.
My thoughts are based on 40+ years of managing/owning small tech businesses (non-hosting related.) I’ve seen this shit go down so many times I’ve lost count. I have a very small dog in this fight: a $10/yr shared hosting plan from Velox, which continues to limp along with significant downtime. I will have to skip a day or two of gourmet take away coffee to recover the damage.
Yes but he said “Lewis” took the money and run…. So… it seems he has access to the money?
Will just do a chargeback for wasting my time and nerves, enough of this shit shows.
server still online, but reinstalled, just for how long and under what circumstances, not worth.
Does somebody make a shit show diary for LET?
Would be time, like Google has:
https://killedbygoogle.com/
Just to clarify that I've been very precise whenever I use the terms business and company for exactly this reason.
Under UK law, operating as a sole trader is still considered a business, but is a very different type of business to a company. Don't believe my definition?
https://www.gov.uk/become-sole-trader
"A sole trader is a type of business. It’s the simplest business structure to set up and keep records for."
As a sole trader, you are personally liable for ensuring that the contracted work is done, as well as being personally liable for any consequences arising from that work.
The primary reason for forming a limited company is that it provides a limitation to the liability in the case where the business fails. Some people argue that it's to facilitate multiple ownership, but partnerships and unlimited companies (they exist but are rare) exist for that purpose. You can also have limited liability partnerships to complete the set.
As for how a sole trader can sell the business, there's a whole load of advice on the UK government website. I bet Lewis didn't read any of it, although it's most concerned with your obligations to your employees. https://www.gov.uk/selling-your-business-your-responsibilities
But anyway, a key part of the sale of the business is, as you point out, all your assets and liabilities are yours personally until that point. As part of any sale, as a seller you need a good lawyer to ensure that you have a watertight contract saying that the purchaser will take over all the liabilities and responsibilities (including e.g. chargebacks). Again, I doubt Lewis has done that.
Obviously, we are not privy to the exact details of the transaction, but as I said about 30 pages ago, it should have considered both sides of it or one or the other party has the potential to get screwed over. From a competence perspective, it simply doesn't make sense that the deal is as it's been portrayed - where if a customer charges back then Lewis is on the hook and Eric gets to stop providing service, unless there's also a payment from Eric to Lewis to cover that. OTOH, if nobody cancels then Lewis keeps all the money and Eric has to keep providing the service (or doesn't on his whim, who the hell knows?). Designing a sale like this is beyond idiotic from both sides. The only thing that really makes sense is to bundle all the assets of the business (the prepaid servers, customers, forecast future sales) along with the liabilities (cost of providing the future service and any refunds or chargebacks), and agreeing a fair price for the entire business. Anything else is beyond barmy and indicative of not having any lawyers involved, and I'd also show that Eric isn't as competent as he likes to think he is. I've already assumed Lewis is an idiot for getting into this situation in the first place.
Absolutely, so the way this would work is that the lawyers would draw up an agreement such that either: (a) Jess would provide the services and indemnify Ralph for any losses arising from not doing so or (b) Ralph would make alternative provisions for providing the rides, maybe hiring Jess or someone else or (c) Ralph would contact the customers, explaining that the business was closing and offer them a refund of at least the pro-rata'd value, ideally also giving customers advance notice so they can make alternative arrangements.
Obviously, the value of the business is different in each case. (a) would be a fair value for the business, and Ralph walks away from it completely (b) Ralph still has ongoing obligations, and so the sale price would be significantly higher to reflect that (c) Ralph has to pay all the refunds out of his own pocket, so Jess would pay more for the business, which is just the asset of the car and the branding at that point.
In terms of valuations, (b) is probably highest but means Ralph still has basically as much work as before to do, maybe it's even more hassle because he could just drive people before, and also there are no future customers, so he's effectively just become Jess' employee at that point, (c) is probably next highest, maybe around the same, but is good for both parties as there's a clean break from both parties, but also not so good for Jess because she loses the existing customer base and (a) lower price to reflect that Jess has more costs, but a clean break for both parties, and Jess gets to keep the existing customer base.
It seems Eric and Lewis chose (d) just wing it.
True, but in the UK we have the small claims court, which is significantly cheaper. For a trivial case you can represent yourself, and if Lewis chose not to show up there would most likely be a default judgment against him. It'd most likely be cheaper for him to just pay the refund than show up. If he loses, the court can order his bank accounts to be frozen until he pays. There have been companies whose bank accounts were frozen because they didn't pay a £5 judgement in a small claims court, so it's not something you can just ignore.
Sure, for a $10 loss it's no biggie. For others who'd paid for 3 years service on a large package, it's much more of a big deal.
This is all accurate based upon my understanding of the law and my knowledge of this clusterfuck. I'll throw in a few things to consider:
I'll stipulate for the purposes of speculation that Eric was truly an unrelated party prior to the purchase. I don't really believe this, but it's worth considering.
What assets might have existed?
Physical Hardware
Owned IP Space
Hardware Leases
Customer List
I don't feel like it is likely that Velox owned any hardware. The customer list clearly has a negative value. That leaves hardware leases on terms that aren't available right now and IP space. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know how attractive either of those things might be right now. I've heard the IP space has been much more affordable lately. There has definitely been some price inflation at the VPS level, but not enough that I would expect bigger players to be buying out companies to get access to their lease contracts. Additionally, are the lease contracts even legally transferable? Legality might not matter as much as the lessor's desire to let someone else assume the contracts. If the contract are valuable enough that someone might want to buy them, wouldn't the lessor be more inclined to cancel their contract with Lewis and lease to someone else?
What else is there? Why would Eric have taken over Velox, even if he paid nothing for it? It does not make a lot of sense to me if he was a truly unrelated party.
Again.
No, it's evident that you are incapable or unwilling to understand.
Well, whatever, you're gone out of this thread, at least for now, so I'm not provoking you to return. Have a nice weekend.
One of the problems is that we actually know quite little, yet many rely on subjective and incomplete "knowledge" about what happened. Just one example: We can assume that Lewis also transferred the brand "VeloxMedia", but we do not know for certain plus there are details that however are "explosive" like whether that is linked to a company or not and which legal entity actually owned and (presumably) sold/transferred it, etc. Also the fact (it seems) that Lewis acted as a sole trader (it seems) not necessarily means that the person Lewis sold the business, brand, etc, as opposed to e.g. some company in the background we do not know about so far.
Also, another example, "access to the Stripe account" does not necessarily mean what many seem to think. It seems to be possible for example, that one party only can or has agreed to "read only" access. That's why I'm hesitant to assume too much like. e.g. who is concerned by charge-backs, who has to refund and what, plus of course, who is the bad guy and who's the good guy, if any.
A short while ago ...
Why those announcements when you quite consistently return?
Well whatever.
Translation:
Dang.. £4/y server still online. Crazy good will be awesome forever. Now $4/y under LewiiiEricAndrewJustinLegal.
Yolo.
Would now be a good time to ask them to update their ip geo location?
He's doing the right thing in the wrong way. He should have have alerted the customers that the prices would be increasing next billing period at best, or cancelled the services and refunded the unused time at worst. But rude behavior and cancelling services without refund is only going to hurt the bottom line in the long run, because the reputation of the service will be (and is being) ruined.