BoosterCorp.ai (Matt Ferk) – Another “AI Revolution” MLM Scam Wrapped in Smoke and Mirrors

 

On a live Zoom call attended by roughly a hundred people — and simulcast on The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger channel — we spent over two and a half hours questioning BoosterCorp.ai’s co-owner and CEO, Matt (Matjaž) Ferk. The discussion grew tense when the topic turned to multi-level marketing (MLM).

At first, Matt insisted Booster only paid a one-time 25% commission. When we pressed him, he shared his own screen, revealing a compensation chart with ten levels of downline rewards for recruitment and sales — exactly the structure critics had alleged.

Several attendees accused us of being “scammers” for asking pointed questions. When challenged to provide evidence for that claim, they went silent. After the meeting ended, we re-joined the session briefly and recorded another five minutes of Matt repeating the same talking points. One of our Avengers, “Bob,” captured the entire exchange on video.

This blog compiles what we directly observed on Booster’s website and in its back office, what was said during that Zoom, what was later sent to us privately, and what outside researchers have already documented — with a tip of the hat to Oz at BehindMLM for foundational work on this story.

Important note: All allegations are presented with attribution. Readers should review public documents and form their own conclusions. Booster has been invited to respond, and an email reply from Matt is included below. In his response, Matt disputes the characterisation of Booster as an MLM, claiming that MLM represents “only 1–2%” of the company’s business and that the rest is purely product sales.

Why a Legitimate Company Wouldn’t Use MLM

If you truly have a world-class product, you don’t need multi-level marketing (MLM). When Microsoft released Windows 95, Bill Gates didn’t pay commissions through ten tiers of affiliates. He sold wholesale to retailers, who sold to consumers at a recommended price. Nobody at the checkout was asked for an affiliate ID, and no customer’s payment was split between ten “upline” recruiters.

MLM thrives on free labour and constant recruitment pressure. During our Zoom call, Matt boasted he could sell a $1,000 package in five minutes and that AI would soon handle the entire sales pitch. If that’s true, why recruit armies of affiliates at all? The answer is simple: in models like this, the real product is the recruitment itself.

Inside the Booster Back Office — What We Found

Thanks to insider access, we reviewed BoosterCorp.ai’s programs and pricing. The cracks are glaring, and they all point in the same direction: monetise sign‑ups, harvest data, and shift risk away from the company.

1. “Customer Loyalty Program” (Merchants)
   Booster asks merchants to list publicly and offer members a 2%–30% discount. Merchants must keep at least $10 in a Booster e‑wallet. Commissions are deducted instantly — even when the shopper pays the merchant directly via cash or card. If the e‑wallet drops below $10, Booster auto‑charges $50 to the connected bank card “to ensure uninterrupted commission processing.” Marketed as “free marketing,” this works like a cashback scheme that shifts costs and liability to small businesses while giving Booster control over merchant balances and customer data. Merchants can “pause” benefits, but remain responsible for offers still visible for up to 24 hours.
2. “Customer Connect” (Data & Downstream Commissions)
   Merchants are urged to register their existing customers into Booster. In return, they get access to names, emails, and phone numbers, and earn 0.25% when those customers shop at other Booster merchants — plus up to 6.25% when those customers buy Booster’s digital/AI services. This is network‑effect monetisation of existing relationships dressed up as “loyalty.”
3. “Partner Connect” (Merchant Recruitment)
   Merchants who refer other merchants earn around 6.25% recurring on the referred merchants’ Booster purchases and subscriptions. That’s a pure recruitment incentive — classic MLM mechanics.
4. “Booster VIBE” (AI Voice Agent)
   Marketed as a 24/7 voice agent for web and phone with a built‑in CRM and scheduler. Pricing uses minute‑based credit packs up to $5,000. There’s no technical evidence this is in‑house or proprietary; it appears to be white‑label or assembled third‑party tech.
5. “Booster Nova” (AI Assistant)
   An “AI business assistant” for $19/month. Nothing indicates it’s proprietary. In his email response, Matt says the platform relies on Google Gemini 2.5 — which undercuts marketing claims that everything is built in‑house.
6. “Booster Flow” (Scheduling)
   A basic scheduler for $4.99/month. When we attempted to purchase, we were redirected to checkout.stripe.com — despite public claims about owning a credit‑card processing stack. If the stack is truly proprietary, Stripe Checkout shouldn’t be the front door.
7. “Booster Slides” (Presentation Service)
   “Custom slides in an hour” from $14. This is clearly manual design labour behind a thin interface — not AI innovation. Cheap outsourced design presented as “cutting‑edge.”

Matt’s counter‑point: he maintains the MLM element is only 1–2% of the business and that “everything else is purely product sales.” He provided us a demo merchant login so we could view the catalogue. Readers can judge whether the structure and incentives reflect a product‑first model — or a recruitment‑driven one.

The Refund Policy Red Flag — Designed to Protect Booster, Not the Customer

Booster’s own refund terms confirm exactly what we outlined in the blog — and they paint a picture of a company structuring policies to its advantage rather than the customer’s.

Ultra-short window — Refunds on the initial purchase of Gold or Platinum packages are capped at just 7 calendar days (including weekends). The policy states:

“Seven (7) days, 100% Money Back Guarantee … only applies to the initial purchase of a Gold or Platinum Package.”

The same 7-day limit applies to monthly “Autoship” subscription payments:

“Seven (7) days Money Back Guarantee for all payments made … only applies to monthly plans (‘Autoship’).”

Most legitimate SaaS companies offer 30 days or a cancel anytime policy; here, a week barely gives new recruits time to understand what they bought before the clock runs out.

Contradictory subscription terms — The policy first claims to apply the 7-day guarantee to “all payments”, but then limits this to monthly plans. This vagueness gives Booster the ability to interpret the rules in whichever way benefits them in a dispute.

No transparent process — Refund requests must be made manually. The policy states:

“If a client is dissatisfied with the service for any reason, the client may receive a refund within seven (7) days … for a full refund of the purchased price.”

No online portal, ticketed system, or formal tracking process is offered — meaning the company controls the pace and outcome without an audit trail.

FTC cooling-off rule buried — The policy does mention the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s 3-day cooling-off protection for off-premises sales:

“Independent Affiliates must orally inform the buyer of the three-day right to cancel … and deliver 2 three-day cancellation notices to every customer.”

However, this is buried in affiliate terms, not in the customer-facing refund policy, and there is no evidence affiliates receive training to comply. This shifts legal risk onto affiliates while shielding the company.

The psychology — Tight time frames and unclear procedures create “sunk cost” pressure. Instead of seeking a refund, new recruits are encouraged to push through, only to realise later that the real business model relies on recruitment.

Matt’s response to our questions included the claim that “products can be cancelled anytime”, but the above wording from his own policy directly contradicts that. The 7-day limit is real — and restrictive.

The Compliance Paper Trail — Terms That Serve the Company

A close reading of Booster’s terms reveals a pattern: corporate protection first, affiliate risk second.

1. Forced arbitration in New York + capped remedies
   Disputes are pushed into binding arbitration in New York, NY, not open court: “binding arbitration… with arbitration to occur at New York NY United States” (Sec. 11.11). Remedies are sharply limited: “shall not be liable for… incidental, special, consequential or exemplary damages” and liability is capped to “the amount of unsold… services and/or products… and any commissions owed” (Sec. 11.14). Governing law is New York (Sec. 11.10).
2. “Independent contractor” framing pushes liability downhill
   The policies emphasize that affiliates are not employees and carry the risk: “Independent Affiliates are Independent Contractors… are prohibited from stating or implying… [they are] employees or agents”; “have no authority to bind the Company” and are “responsible for liability, health… and worker’s compensation insurance” (Sec. 1.08).
3. E‑wallet reversals after 90 days of inactivity
   Commission balances can simply be reversed: “will reverse all commissions deposited in your eWallet after 90 days of inactivity” and the company is “not obligated to deposit back any reversed commissions” (Sec. 8.06). The policy even “strongly recommends” immediate withdrawals—control sits with the company, not the field.
4. Placement/sponsorship rules that lock you in
   Changing lines is hard by design. “The company does not permit the transfer of sponsors” (Sec. 3.05). Placement changes are time‑boxed: “After seven (7) days… will not be able to make any placement changes” (Sec. 5.08). When an IBO goes inactive, “There will be NO changing of placement in the Unilevel Tree” (Sec. 5.07). These rules trap affiliates in hierarchies even when mistakes happen.
5. Broad disclaimers and forward‑looking hedges
   The fine print disclaims earnings and results across the board: “WE PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL EARN ANY MONEY” and flags “FORWARD‑LOOKING STATEMENTS” (Disclaimer). There’s even unrelated trading/FOREX risk language (e.g., “does not constitute investment advice”), which reads like a recycled template and reinforces that the legal shield is wide, while obligations on the company are narrow.

Why this matters: Taken together, these clauses tilt the playing field—steering disputes away from courts, capping what you can recover, offloading compliance and financial risk onto affiliates, and keeping control over your commissions and placement.

Bonus red flags (also in the terms):

• Unilateral policy changes: “reserves the right to amend… at any time without prior notice… effective… upon submission to the Company website” (Sec. 11.08).
• Non‑refundable autoship billing: “automatic, recurring, billing… is not refundable and will not be prorated” (Sec. 1.02).

If you want, I can drop this straight into your draft and keep going section‑by‑section the same way.

“Just 25%”… and the Ten-Level Reality

On the call, Matt initially pitched a “one-time 25% commission.” When pressed to open his own material, the screen revealed ten levels of payouts — the textbook unilevel MLM structure. In later correspondence, he sent an external link to a Shopping Volume Commission (SVC) document and openly admitted he “doesn’t dispute anything.” Translation: yes, it’s multi-level.

The timing is also telling. As of the date of BehindMLM’s review, Booster had no retailable products openly available, while simultaneously collecting “Founding Circle” payments and building a downline. That combination — no retail, heavy recruitment, and multi-level payouts — is exactly the type of model that attracts pyramid scheme scrutiny from regulators and watchdogs.

Founding Circle Membership — Investment Language by Another Name

Booster’s Founding Circle Membership (FCM) packages range from $250 to $100,000+. Matt insists “there is no investment,” yet in the same breath explains that FCM funds are used to finance company development, while members receive shares of company-recruited users and recurring payouts tied to their activity.

He now claims FCM participants can receive an 89% refund within seven days — and the same 89% for up to a year. That figure is suspiciously identical to the 11% “processing fee” mentioned elsewhere, suggesting this may be a retro-fitted policy to blunt regulatory concerns.

Regardless of the label, the structure and language are unmistakably investment-adjacent. When large buy-ins are tied to profit shares based on company-wide growth, that moves into securities-style territory — the very type of arrangement that triggers scrutiny from regulators.

“A Thousand Developers” — Then, a Walk-Back (and a Moving Goalpost)

In the Zoom call, at around the 31-minute mark, Matt explicitly claimed Booster had 1,000 developers in the company and described Booster as a Software as a Service (SaaS) provider. He made this sound like an in-house engineering army, reinforcing the impression of proprietary scale and technical independence.

However, in later texts and emails, the story shifted. Matt now says they do not have any third-party solutions and that “absolutely everything is built in-house” — yet in the same messages, he names Sunsoft NY (software) and Sunlink (Web3) as the firms in charge of their development, adding that Booster is “their biggest client.”

When challenged on the contradiction, Matt clarified that “1,000 developers doesn’t mean 1,000 full-time employees”, but rather “1,000 people worldwide who work on development” — mostly through these partner vendors. He further explained they are paid on invoices, not payroll, and argued that “you are a SaaS company if you own the codes of the product.”

This is a very different reality from the original marketing claim of a massive in-house AI team. If the bulk of the work is performed by external firms — who themselves may be relying on existing white-label or cloud-based solutions — the question becomes: what exactly is proprietary?

When you combine this with the Stripe checkout integration we observed in Booster Flow (despite claims of a proprietary payments stack), the gap between the grand narrative and the technical reality only widens.

Fact Check: The 31-Minute Zoom Claim
Direct Quote from Matt Ferk during the live Zoom meeting:

“That’s insane. We do not have any third-party solutions. Absolutely everything is built in house… Yes, 1000 developers work on our project. That’s exactly the truth… you are a SaaS company if you own the codes of the product.”

Timestamp: ~31 minutes into the recorded call. This statement was later modified in emails and texts to acknowledge the heavy use of Sunsoft NY and Sunlink for development, contradicting the “no third-party” claim.

Web3 in 2025 — Hype First, Details Later

Booster’s site promises a full Web3 migration by the end of 2025, complete with crypto payments, token rewards, and smart-contract commissions. On paper, it’s the familiar decentralisation sales pitch — transparency, autonomy, and cutting out the middleman.

In reality, we’ve seen this movie before: centralised execution behind a decentralised façade. When a single company controls the wallet, the on-ramp, the data, and the referral tree, the supposed benefits of Web3 quickly collapse into old-school, closed-door control. The blockchain buzzwords remain, but the power — and the risk — stay concentrated at the top.

Smoke and Mirrors in Leadership

Matt Ferk is not the only figure steering BoosterCorp.ai. By his own admission, the leadership team consists of four named individuals:

• Matt Ferk  — Co-Founder & CEO, 46% owner, Chattanooga, TN. Claims decades of entrepreneurial experience, yet there’s little verifiable history in AI, SaaS, or large-scale corporate management.
• Marko Kesteli — Co-Founder & COO, 46% owner, Croatia. Almost no digital footprint and no evidence of prior involvement in comparable tech ventures.
• Shannon Marie Rudderham — CNO, 5% owner, Nashville, TN. Limited traceable background in technology or corporate leadership; virtually absent from professional networks.
• Chris Harrison — CPO, 1% owner, Washington, D.C. Shares a common name, with no clear, verifiable ties to AI development or scaled product leadership.

Matt has provided phone numbers for each, but phones aren’t CVs. The company’s own LinkedIn buttons redirect to Wix’s homepage instead of real profiles, and several biographies read like AI-generated filler.

For a company claiming to be building dozens of proprietary platforms with a “global team”, this lack of transparent, verifiable credentials is a glaring red flag. If the leadership team truly had the expertise they claim, they’d showcase it — not hide behind generic bios and broken links.

U.S. Court Filings Reveal Matt Ferk’s Criminal History

Public U.S. federal court records confirm that Matjaž “Matt” Ferk, CEO of BoosterCorp.ai, is the subject of an extradition request from the Republic of Slovenia. The filings outline multiple criminal cases in Slovenia involving business fraud and tax evasion, spanning from 2006 to 2010, with convictions, indictments, and active arrest warrants.

Fraud Scheme 1 – As director of PALAS, Ferk forged documents and invoices to sell non-existent debts to a factoring company, causing losses of over €621,000. He admitted forging documents and stated the funds were used to repay loans from the mafia.

Fraud Scheme 2 – While running PALAS and KERADOM, Ferk promised to pay overdue invoices for construction materials but never did. His companies were already insolvent, and he was fully aware they couldn’t pay. Slovenian courts convicted him in 2014 and sentenced him to one year in prison. He failed to appear to serve his sentence, leading to an international arrest warrant in 2016.

Tax Evasion Scheme – Ferk submitted a falsified VAT return claiming €50,984 in deductions for services that were never performed. The court found he was “in hiding and evading criminal proceedings” and issued another arrest warrant in 2020.

The extradition complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in 2021, asserts that Ferk has been living in Tennessee and would likely flee if made aware of the warrant. The request is based on a standing U.S.–Slovenia extradition treaty.

This documented criminal history raises serious concerns about BoosterCorp.ai’s leadership credibility and the trustworthiness of its business operations.

Privacy and Data Handling — Do as We Say, Not as We Do

During the Zoom call, Matt screen-shared his admin dashboard, revealing email addresses and names of users — personally identifiable information (PII) that should have been protected. This is despite BoosterCorp.ai’s own written policies, which stress confidentiality, restrict disclosure of account information, and promote so-called “ethical” data collection practices.

By exposing private user data on a publicly accessible call, Booster undermined its own privacy commitments and potentially put affiliates and customers at risk of spam, phishing, or other forms of data misuse.

Matt Ferk’s Email — His Words, Our Questions

After the call, we wrote to Matt with specific questions about his claims. He replied with additional statements, links, and login credentials for us to review. Below is a condensed summary of his answers, along with why they raise further concerns:

On proprietary AI and costs. Matt says none of Booster’s solutions are built on ChatGPT, and that the platform uses Google Gemini 2.5. He claims nearly every module — merchant, shopper, voice AI, Nova, loyalty, connect, bartering, social, networking, website builder, and “~30 other platforms” — was built by third-party vendors Sunsoft NY (software) and Sunlink (Web3), for which Booster is “their biggest client.” He sent links to WeTransfer files showing demos of Booster Nova and Booster Flow and created a merchant login for us to “see all existing products and pricing.” He declined to provide detailed invoices, offering only obscured screenshots.

Concern: If outside firms and cloud AI models are doing the heavy lifting, where’s the proprietary moat? Refusing to share verifiable costing (even with sensitive pricing redacted) means the public is asked to take him at his word — something that can be proven with documents.

On “1,000 developers.” In earlier calls, Matt said Booster had “1,000 developers.” In this reply, he says that number refers not to W-2 employees, but to the combined headcount of vendor staff “involved” in the project. About 100 currently work on Booster through Sunsoft and Sunlink, while ~960 more are at those partner vendors. He insists this still counts as “having 1,000 developers” and argues that a company qualifies as SaaS if it “owns the codes of the product,” regardless of whether those codes were developed in-house.

Concern: This is a walk-back from the original in-house claim. Owning source code is not the same as building an entire tech stack internally. Marketing has outpaced reality, and the language around “1,000 developers” remains misleading.

On ownership and visibility. He lists four owners/board members (himself, Marko Kesteli, Shannon Marie Rudderham, and Chris Harrison), provided phone numbers, and offered to arrange a group Zoom call.

Concern: Visibility is not the same as a verifiable track record. Where are the case studies, shipped products at scale, and independent third-party validations?

On MLM vs. affiliate. He says the MLM portion is “maybe 1–2%” of Booster’s business and “everything else is purely product sales,” but also admits he “does not dispute anything” in our description of the 10-level Shopping Volume Commission plan, calling it “legal and simple.” He again shared the SVC document.

Concern: A 10-level unilevel plan with Founding Circle buy-ins is MLM mechanics with a tech veneer. Legality still hinges on retail product demand independent of recruitment.

On Founding Circle Membership. He denies it is an “investment,” says funds went to development, and claims FCM buyers can obtain an 89% refund within seven days and “up to a year” — the figure matching an 11% processing fee.

Concern: That’s investment-style framing. Large contributions linked to company-wide distributions may require securities review. The matching 11% deduction suggests the policy was retro-fitted to regulatory optics.

On website tech and LinkedIn. He says Booster’s Wix site is temporary, pending the launch of their own “Booster WebSnap” AI website builder (promised within two weeks). He says LinkedIn links will be fixed.

Concern: This doesn’t address why leadership profiles remain thin and why, for a company claiming global reach, key credibility signals (LinkedIn, case studies, third-party coverage) are absent today.

We’ve invited Matt and the other executives to a recorded group interview to address these issues directly.

Credit Where It’s Due

Tip of the hat to Oz at BehindMLM for compiling public filings and timelines on Matt Ferk and Booster’s launch claims. Their reporting surfaced core issues early — from the lack of retail product at launch to the evolving compensation language and the mismatch between public claims and internal documents.

What We’re Asking For (Publicly)

• Prove the stack. Publish a plain-English architecture detailing what’s in-house, what’s licensed, and what’s white-label. Name your LLMs, voice stacks, call-routing systems, and billing solutions. If you’re using third-party AI, say so openly.
• Publish the compensation plan in full on the main site — not buried in slides or private documents. If it’s legal and simple, sunlight helps.
• Publish an FCM prospectus (or retire the program). If funds finance company development and payouts depend on company-wide user growth, explain how this is not a security.
• Fix identity hygiene. Create real LinkedIn profiles, publish real bios, and share genuine case studies. Broken links and AI-generic filler text destroy trust.
• Add a proper refund portal with ticket tracking and a minimum 30-day window for all SaaS modules. If the products stand on merit, this should be easy.

These are baseline transparency measures any legitimate tech company should meet — failing to implement them only reinforces suspicion.

Call for Whistleblowers

Have you worked for Booster, built modules for its vendors, or been trained to recruit? Did you pay for Founding Circle and request a refund? We want to hear from you. Share contracts, recorded calls, internal memos, payout statements, or technical proofs. We’ll vet, redact sensitive details, and protect sources.

Secure tipline: dehek.com/contact/

Final Take

Strip away the AI avatars and grandiose language and you’re left with a familiar pattern: a multi-level cashflow engine masquerading as a tech platform. The so-called “ecosystem” is a patchwork of vendor-built modules, thin services, and recruitment-driven economics. The refund policy is calibrated to protect the company. The leadership’s public record is conspicuously faint. And the compensation reality is multilevel — not “just 25%.”

If the products are as good as claimed, prove it — in code, in contracts, in customers, and in refunds that are easy to claim. Until then, the safest position for merchants, consumers, and nonprofits is the simplest one: avoid.

Disclaimer: How This Investigation Was Conducted

This investigation relies entirely on OSINT — Open Source Intelligence — meaning every claim made here is based on publicly available records, archived web pages, corporate filings, domain data, social media activity, and open blockchain transactions. No private data, hacking, or unlawful access methods were used. OSINT is a powerful and ethical tool for exposing scams without violating privacy laws or overstepping legal boundaries.

About the Author

Danny de Hek, also known as The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger, is a New Zealand-based investigative journalist specializing in exposing crypto fraud, Ponzi schemes, and MLM scams. His work has been featured by Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Guardian Australia, ABC News Australia, and other international outlets.

Stop losing your future to financial parasites. Subscribe. Expose. Protect.

My work exposing crypto fraud has been featured in:

• Bloomberg Documentary (2025): A 20-minute exposé on Ponzi schemes and crypto card fraud
• News.com.au (2025): Profiled as one of the leading scam-busters in Australasia
• OpIndia (2025): Cited for uncovering Pakistani software houses linked to drug trafficking, visa scams, and global financial fraud
• The Press / Stuff.co.nz (2023): Successfully defeated $3.85M gag lawsuit; court ruled it was a vexatious attempt to silence whistleblowing
• The Guardian Australia (2023): National warning on crypto MLMs affecting Aussie families
• ABC News Australia (2023): Investigation into Blockchain Global and its collapse
• The New York Times (2022): A full two-page feature on dismantling HyperVerse and its global network
• Radio New Zealand (2022): “The Kiwi YouTuber Taking Down Crypto Scammers From His Christchurch Home”
• Otago Daily Times (2022): A profile on my investigative work and the impact of crypto fraud in New Zealand