Editor-in-chief’s note: Now presenting our first interview feature!

verb shtooping (Jewish, US, slang from Yiddish) – to screw

It’s been just over a month since Yigal Mesika doubled down on his plagiarism of Steve Sheraton’s idea with a lawsuit against Craig Petty for daring to talk about it. Allegedly. (Yeah, I’m sorry, it’s back. We can’t afford any legal trouble, we can barely even afford to exist in this weirdly often extravagant form. I assume. The editor-in-chief beat me soundly when I tried to liquor him up and check our finances.)

You’d think the universe would give Mr. Sheraton a break. But perhaps he’s already had all his breaks in life, because people keep on fucking him without his consent. Good thing he’s got his wits about him!

It’s the same in music: everyone operates with the same limitations of scales yet some produce chords and melodies that are unique and thus original.
~ Steve Sheraton, pull quote found below in our sexy feature article.

This time around, the fucking is allegedly being done by someone by the alleged name of Robin Matrix, a professionele goochelaar and now alleged ripoff artist. Why the fuck does every other Dutch word look like English but the word for magician sounds like someone obsessed with vaginas? I guess it checks out. Wait, our website’s own title kind of sounds like — you know what, let’s move on from this alleged train of thought.

Robin Matrix has decided to do the thing all the script kiddies on depraved websites called things like HackForums love to allegedly do. Rip off a bunch of ideas from someone they bought a product from and sell these ideas as a haphazard bundle with hairy-looking claims and absurd pricing.

Welcome to CrowdConnect, now “invite only”. I wonder why. As of yesterday, they have issued a formal statement insisting that actually, Steve Sheraton is allegedly the villain of this story. The bully. The alleged aggressor. The old mad dog who picked a fight with two innocent app developers who were allegedly simply out here building something beautiful and original and minding their own business until Steve came along with his $1 app and his alleged refund pages and his blog posts and his decades of documented prior work and ruined everything.

We read it. But we also spoke to Steve.

We have the messages. We have the videos.

Funny how that works out.

---

CrowdConnect’s statement, published yesterday roughly 25 hours before this article is being published, is a well-written document. It opens with wounded dignity—I’d rather not have written this—and closes with an appeal to the magician’s code. It also argues throughout that Robin Matrix developed his core concept publicly in 2019, that the technologies involved are generic, that Steve’s apps address fundamentally different use cases, and most importantly that when Robin reached out to simply calmly clear things up, Steve responded with legal threats, built a competing product, set up a refund page targeting their customers, and blocked them so they couldn’t respond.

It’s a sympathetic read. If it were the only document in the room, you might come away thinking Steve Sheraton had lost the plot.

Unfortunately for Robin Matrix and his allegedly verbally abusive coder, it is not the only document in the room.

Steve Sheraton has been building magic apps since before most of the magic community was even familiar with the term “smartphone”. The lineage is documented, timestamped, and sitting on YouTube: iHypno (2009), PandaQR (2014), InstaPrompter (2015), JOLT (2024). CrowdConnect, currently on sale for 1,000 euros, combines a hypnotic spiral reveal, audience-wide QR scanning, real-time synchronized predictions, and the mass forwarding to review pages that all of these apps feature. CrowdConnect’s statement addresses each of Steve’s apps and rebuts each one individually and in isolation. What it never does is engage the argument that CrowdConnect is the combination. The thing you get when you fuse all four into a single product and charge a grand for it. They may wish to give the impression that this is just an oversight, but it clearly isn’t.

It’s rhetorical strategizing, and manipulation.

Robin Matrix was, at the time of developing CrowdConnect, a JOLT customer. Their statement’s claim that the comparison “simply never crossed our minds” becomes harder to sustain when the person building the product had purchased and was actively using the product it allegedly resembles. Their statement also makes a great fucking deal of Steve’s decision to block both Robin and developer Chris Wagenmakers—while neglecting to mention that Wagenmakers sent Steve a message request containing personal insults before the block even occurred.

So, as you’ve probably guessed, we spoke to Steve.

Here now is that conversation.

Editor-in-chief’s note: The Magic Oval reached out to Robin Matrix for comment. He had this to say:

Thank you for reaching out.

I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to respond. My main request would simply be that, if you publish this piece, the full picture and complete context are represented.

Best Regards,
Robin

Got it, goochelaar. Full picture and complete context will be provided. Including the harassment from your developer that you didn’t want people knowing about. Careful what you wish for, you fucking KLERELIJER! Krijg het lazarus!

---

The Magic Oval: Before we get into specifics; in your own words, what did Robin Matrix do?

Steve Sheraton: Robin Matrix stole three of my effects and is peddling them with a lot of get-rich language and hard sales pressure tactics at a Ponzi price point of 1,000 USD. (Editor’s note: Actually 995 EUR. Close enough.) He tried to intimidate me with accusations and personal attacks, so I blocked him and his similarly abusive tech bro buddy. Then I went to work and put those three effects into one single app called 5Star and priced it a joyful $1. Then I wrote about it in an unfiltered blog post titled “How to Kick a $1,000 Copycat in the Nuts.”

TMO: CrowdConnect’s statement says the accusation was never clearly explained to them; that you just said you had no idea what their product did and advised them to contact IP counsel. If so, what was going through your head when you wrote that, and more importantly how does that square with your recollections and records of the situation?

Steve: Want to see the messages to clear the DARVO fog?

TMO: Yes please!

Steve: On February 12th I posted yet another wacky reel using my invention JOLT (based on PandaQR from 2014): https://www.facebook.com/reel/1560098791913905

Then I got this message from Matrix telling me to stop showcasing my invention because it looks like his upcoming release. Remember: Matrix is a JOLT customer…

He then shares screenshots from Facebook Messenger, reproduced below. For the original screenshots contact themagicoval@themagicoval.com or Steve himself.

Hi Steve,

I’d like to clear something up calmly before it turns into unnecessary noise.

There seems to be an assumption that I copied this from Jolt. That isn’t the case. I actually purchased Jolt myself last year, and we spoke about it at length. I respect what you’ve built.

Yes, on the surface certain functionalities may look comparable. But structurally and strategically what we built serves a different purpose and operates differently.

I’ve been performing this concept publicly for over seven years. The video is here:

That was long before Jolt existed.

I’m not interested in claiming anyone copied me, and I would never approach things that way. I just want to make sure my reputation isn’t questioned based on assumptions.

If anything is being communicated that suggests plagiarism, l would appreciate that being clarified. I’m happy to jump on a call and walk through everything transparently.

I believe there’s room for multiple solutions in the market, and I’d prefer we handle this professionally.

Robin

Remember that bolded line… it’s a doozy, and it’ll come back to bite Robin in his allegedly prissy little ass later.

Hi Steve,

Just a small addition to my previous message.

I want to clarify something important. I’ve been using this system for seven years, including the review integration. This isn’t something we suddenly built for a launch. It has been part of my real-world performances for a long time.

When I now see reviews being positioned more prominently within your communication, l understand that you’re free to highlight any feature of your system. That’s completely your right.

At the same time, I hope you understand that from my perspective, it feels sudden because this specific angle wasn’t previously emphasized in that way.

I’m not accusing you of copying anything. I just want it to be clear that what we’re doing didn’t originate recently, and it certainly wasn’t built in reaction to anything in the current market.

We’ve invested years into building this properly, and we’re working with serious partners who trust the integrity of what we do. That’s why positioning and timing matter to me.

You’ve built a strong brand over the years, and I respect that. I simply believe there’s space for both of us without unnecessary overlap in messaging.

That’s all I wanted to clarify.

Robin

Again, mind the bolded line.

Steve: Then I was provided with some links to one of his hard-sell webinars and saw that he’s pitching 3 of my inventions (2009-2024) for a mind numbing $1000. Considering he was accusing me of stealing his “invention” (my JOLT from 2024) I replied professionally with the following:

Robin,

JOLT launched publicly in March 2024 with URL forwarding as a core feature – including forwarding entire audiences to Google Review pages, social profiles, and client CTAs. I’ve showcased this functionality consistently since launch.

I have no idea what your unreleased product is or does. Yesterday I posted a humorous 15s video of multiple phones glitching out, then going to a Google Review Page for a dog dressed as a dragon. It was posted to my own followers and existing customers, not to public magic forums. I regularly share product updates and creative applications with the people who’ve invested in my work.

I will continue doing so.

If your upcoming product centers on functionality similar to JOLT’s, I’d recommend having your team evaluate its originality and consult IP counsel. As a JOLT customer, your use of the product is governed by our licensing terms, which prohibit creating derivative works. Licensing arrangements exist for those who wish to build on our technology legitimately.

I wish you well with your launch.

Steve

Steve: I then kept getting a barrage of messages (crazy girlfriend style) and a message request with insults from some dude who seems to be the coder for Robin Matrix. I never opened it but I saw a preview on my Chromebook. Here it is:

As with the other messages, we have preserved the line breaks, or in this case the lack thereof.

Hi Steve, I’m the developer behind CrowdConnect. Robin just showed me what has been happening in the last few days, the screenshots, the new page, the messages, and the lack of response to his message. After I read about iBeer I used to view you as a genius creator, but what I’m seeing now has completely changed that. Seems to me you’ve got blinders on and didn’t even consider the possibility that he didn’t rip you off. You just assumed, reacted, and built an entire counter positioning, and even a separate app around that assumption… I’ve genuinely lost a lot of respect for you over this. It’s sad really 🙁

Awww, poor guy. Let down by his hero. Shame he’s full of shit.

TMO: Let’s play devil’s advocate and say he did invent it in 2019. Yet, if the only genuinely new element that JOLT introduced was the review redirect, what would that 2019 footage actually predate?

Steve: PandaQR forwarded to websites for this purpose. That’s in 2014. The reason PandaQR never made waves was because back then people required QR scanner apps. Now you just use your camera. Also in 2014 magicians laughed at my price of (I think) $20. And I didn’t want to defend the concept of “app magic” in the Magic Cafe while I was nearing a major life event and was selling my last business.

TMO: Do you have documentation of PandaQR doing review redirects specifically?

Steve: I’d have to check ancient videos.

He later found the PandaQR tutorial, timestamped February 6, 2014, showing everyone’s phones forwarding to websites. Watch it here.

Shortly after, unprompted:

Steve: I just checked with one of the folks who requested a refund and he hasn’t received a reply in over a week.

TMO: You’ve gone up against Coors in court and Mesika publicly. How does this situation compare in terms of what was taken and how clear cut it is?

Steve: Clear as day. You watch my videos from 2009, 2014, 2024 and then watch the CrowdConnect video and tell me it’s not the same thing!

He then sent two photos — JOLT being performed live, later credited to David Penn; CrowdConnect being performed live, later credited to Scott Tokar. We could not tell which was which.

At left we have David Penn performing JOLT live, image provided by author. At right we have Scott Tokar performing CrowdConnect live, image from Facebook. Can you tell which is which without the caption? We certainly couldn’t.

TMO: Give me the timeline from when you first became aware of CrowdConnect to when you released 5Star. How long did that actually take?

Steve: I was made aware of CrowdConnect when Robin Matrix accused me of stealing the app he stole from me on February 12. On February 13 I pulled my old code bases from 2009, 2014, 2024 and refactored them into 5Star, which was released on February 14. I don’t waste time!

TMO: What outcome do you actually want here? Is this about getting CrowdConnect shut down, getting compensation, having a joyful time, or something else?

Steve: I want to celebrate original invention and bring affordable joy to the magic community. And I want to stand in stark contrast to Manosphere tech bros who rip off real creators, then pickpocket those with the least resources.

I believe they wanted to bribe me when intimidation didn’t work. I had so many Dutch people message me for them. Flying monkeys. It was super scary. I think a lot of folks had put fat money in this project and stood to lose a lot. I understand that some people hit on hard times and seek ways to pay the bills but if they violate the safe space that we share (magic) I see it as my duty to speak up.

TMO: That would make sense.

Steve: Just a thought: Why did Matrix not contact me in 2024 when I supposedly did with JOLT what he did in 2019? Was it maybe because in 2019 he was inspired by my 2014 PandaQR? Why did he purchase JOLT, then use verbatim passages from my blurbs (five star ratings, social followers) without checking with me? If a product is in commerce and you create a derivative with similar functionality, in this industry you’d ask for permission or clarification before releasing, no? My take (if it hasn’t been made clear enough yet) he thought he could get away with it, then fabricated “prior art from 2019”, being too ignorant or sloppy or narcissistic to acknowledge that all my inventions predate his by decades.

TMO: You call their pricing “Ponzi pricing.” Is that just a shot at the size of the price tag, or what aspects of their business specifically scream Ponzi to you?

Steve: It’s illustrative of the scam-like feel. It also conveys my feeling that there must be a huge hole in the budget that needs immediate filling with new capital, i.e. Ponzi. From what I heard a lot of folks offered services for a cut of the profits. So there’s that.

TMO: Their statement says they’re open to publishing the full message exchange if you agree to share your side… ah, no, this is an outdated question bank, it seems you HAVE published the full exchange. Alongside this interview and probably on magic.pm soon too. Well then. Any guesses how they’ll react?

Steve: You have my so far unpublished, professional reply to their accusatory message. I didn’t open any subsequent messages (but previewed that nasty message by the coder) so I’d hardly call this a large conversation. I know they used other people to try to send many many more messages but I have excellent impulse control and am extremely manipulation-resistant.

How do YOU think a narcissist who just got owned would react? The usual process will be more lies, technical nitpicking, and many attempts at discrediting the person. Because I’ve done this for decades with far more imposing parties, I’ll sit back with a bucket of popcorn.

TMO: Does their offer to “publish the full exchange” land differently knowing they omitted the Wagenmakers message entirely?

Steve: It’s a red herring. There isn’t a “full exchange” because I replied professionally once, then blocked them because of the barrage of insults. They imply that I threatened legal action by saying something about IP counsel and make it feel like I had draconian follow-ups. None of it is true. It’s there to manipulate. You have their shitty accusation with the Euro snowflake icing tone (I’m Swiss, so I know this shit) and you have my professional reply. That’s all there ever was. I could probably go into blocked messages and look at all the horrific insults and manipulation attempts but my mental health is simply worth more than the ego of some Manosphere magic con artists.

TMO: They argue that the technologies involved (websockets, QR codes, page redirects) are generic web tools used everywhere. LOL. Sorry, that was a typo. L and O are right next to each other on the keyboard. I meant, what’s your response to that?

Steve: Now they’re running out of arguments and start throwing around tech jargon. It’s the same in music: everyone operates with the same limitations of scales yet some produce chords and melodies that are unique and thus original. The way lawyers usually illustrate this and the way most laws define infringement is “can a consumer be confused into buying one thing because it looks like the other.” Case closed.

TMO: They close their statement by invoking the magician’s code; implying you violated it by undercutting their launch. Your response to that specifically?

Steve: Magician’s code is asking for permission. I didn’t undercut. I just kept posting videos of my long-existing apps. Then decided to roll three into one and celebrate Original Invention Month with a one dollar price tag.

TMO: A joyful one dollar price tag.

Steve: Of course.

TMO: Is there anything in their statement you think is accurate? Anywhere that their characterization of events matches your memory?

Steve: None of it. See above.

TMO: CrowdConnect is currently being sold to working magicians for €995. What happens to those customers, and to the product, from here?

Steve: CrowdConnect is exactly the kind of product that gives apps a bad name. Fly-by-night stuff that doesn’t last past the initial hype. The consumer is left holding the bag. They’re welcome aboard 5Star if they want reliable functionality from a working professional with an excellent reputation for professional apps that don’t falter under pressure.

TMO: Is the goal to get it off the market, or something else?

Steve: Robin said this in his initial communication: “I believe there’s room for multiple solutions in the market, and I’d prefer we handle this professionally.” I agree, but it seems Robin changed his mind.

TMO: You’ve fought Coors and other multinational corporations. You’ve fought Mesika. Now this. What do you want people in the magic community to take away from the pattern?

Steve: I don’t think the community cares as much as the creators do. We’re all consumers too. We shop around for “the same thing” by feature and price, finding the thing that provides the most “value” for our needs.

TMO: Is there something the community could do differently, in a structural sense maybe, to make this harder to pull off?

Steve: Most creators simply can’t afford to speak up against monopolist criminals like Murphy’s and Mesika. Bullies like Robin Matrix fit right in with this kind of ethics. You see it in every industry. Unfortunately those snakes are now also violating our safe space, magic. I’m glad to speak up for those who can’t.

It takes more guys like you to actually take the time to do research and independent thinking. That’s what makes all the difference. In a world of clickbait and thumbnails of grimaces, we need solid points of reference whether we agree with them or not. In magic, most if not all are dependent on Murphy’s one way or another and let that jade their reporting even if it means simply omitting a story.

You wouldn’t believe the amount of major names in magic who reached out to me, congratulating me for speaking up in this matter but in the same breath asked not to be mentioned.

TMO: We’re gonna get this piece out less than 48 hours after Robin’s statement! Fuck yeah!

Steve: Don’t mince words. Call me an asshole if you want. I’ll take one for the team!

TMO: We don’t tell such lies about assholery. No can do.

---

So there you have it. Our first interview feature, with none other than the illustrious Steve Sheraton!

The next interview is currently being edited (there’s over 3 hours of footage) and will be on the site soon enough. We had to do this one over text due to the time-sensitive nature, of course.

If you have any comments, please share them! This is a new format for us and we’d love to hear what you did or didn’t like about this interview.

Thanks so much for reading, and may magic move past these clowns.

Let’s raise our glasses. A toast, to Steve Sheraton!