The CEO of Payward/kracken has also posted on Reddit a demand that Mt. Gox pay his price or they will "suffer."
That's simply false. Our CEO has only said in the Reddit thread that he would be happy to sell the domains to Mt. Gox at original cost - all they have to do is ask. It wasn't a "demand" for money with the consequence that Gox will somehow suffer.
The posting speaks for itself. The demand stated Mt. Gox had to pay at a Bitcoin rate back in 2011 so the demand is for several thousand dollars. This kind of thing could put the MSB licenses in jeopardy so it seems irresponsible to do such a thing given that Payward already has a portfolio of Bitcoin-related domain names. This "all they have to is ask" is childish and immature and is not an excuse. There is also the issue that the domains are configured to capture e-mail as well.
Sure, the offer is for cost given the rate in 2011. Our CEO thinks that's a fair offer and I agree with him. But I'm sure he'd be willing to negotiate if Gox feels it isn't fair. My point is just that it's an offer, not a "demand" accompanied by the threat of "suffering" for Gox if it isn't met - nothing like that is said in the thread.
Your point about the domains being configured for email seems a good one to me. Since we're not doing anything with the email, it shouldn't look like we might be. But it's really our CEO's decision how to respond to the points that have been made here and in the Reddit thread. I don't want to get into the debate too much, especially since it was pretty well hashed out on Reddit. It seems to be a polarizing issue, with some people thinking it's pretty bad and others thinking it's no big deal and still others saying it's a smart move on our part. As I've said in this thread before, we appreciate everyone communicating their opinions to us, and that certainly includes members robanswe and HELP.org. I just don't want our words to be misrepresented, and I think it's a misrepresentation to say that we're making a demand for money with the threat of suffering if the demand isn't met.
I have been involved with domains quite extensively over a number of years. These kind of stunts are seen as childish and idiotic and when a dispute is made finding of "bad faith" is pretty much a sure thing. The CEO calls himself a crypto-currency "magnate" and he already has a substantial portfolio of Bitcoin-related domains. Why he feels the need to do this shows a lack of judgment and just overall immaturity. I had opened a Kraken account and I was waiting until it became available but I would not send funds to a company that does this type of thing and then argues with people when they point out how ridiculous it is.