The Fall of Electrum Sabercrafts

The StarBird Core Disaster - The Forever Reason For Failure

The beginning of the end for Electrum Sabercrafts can purportedly be traced to their decision to develop a proprietary soundboard, the "StarBird Core," rather than utilizing industry-standard open-source options like the Proffieboard or Golden Harvest. To execute this vision, Electrum partnered with VOG App Developers. According to Dave Craswell, the owner and face of Electrum Sabercrafts, this partnership ended in disaster. Craswell claimed that VOG App Developers had provided "intentionally misleading" specifications and secretly reassigned developers to other projects while instructing staff to mislead Electrum about the app's progress.

Despite these internal crises, Craswell continued to promise delivery of all products and continued to take payment and orders. Customers continued to be quoted lead times of 6 to 8 weeks, which quickly ballooned into months, and eventually, years.

Then came Dave Craswell's sudden announcement of Electrum Sabercrafts closure

Deceptive Practices, Fabricated Receivership & Corporate Dissolution

The most damning evidence against Dave Craswell comes from official corporate registry and insolvency records. In October 2025, Craswell announced on Facebook that the company was "being forced to close" and claimed that a receiver would be appointed to manage the assets and remaining orders.

Instead, corporate registry records show that Craswell initiated the "strike-off" process to dissolve both companies as early as May and June 2025. They were ultimately dissolved in September and October 2025 for failure to file annual returns — not due to bank receivership. On October 21, 2025, Dave Craswell made his Facebook announcement claiming receivership. A coincidence in timing? Probably not — the moment the companies were dissolved, he announced.

Explaining the Individuals, Companies and Property

Corporate Registry & Insolvency Search Documents

3 screenshots of official government records proving no receivership or insolvency filing

‹›

1 / 3

Taking Money While Dissolving

Perhaps the most egregious violation of consumer trust is that Dave Craswell continued to actively solicit orders, make false promises, and take customers' money after he had already begun the process of dissolving his companies.

Facebook Messenger Conversation between a customer and Dave Craswell

4 screenshots of personal messages proving promises made during company dissolution

‹›

1 / 4

Facebook Comment Thread — Dave Craswell · 12 December 2025

Craswell claims he is "no longer the director" and is awaiting info from "the receivers" — a fabricated receivership

Evidence: Facebook Posts

Throughout 2025, Dave Craswell maintained an active internet sales presence on Facebook, posting manufacturing updates, delivery promises, and assurances to customers that sabers were being built and shipped. These posts continued even as his companies were being dissolved behind the scenes.

Facebook Posts — Manufacturing & Delivery Updates (2025)

18 screenshots of Dave Craswell's public Facebook posts

‹›

1 / 18

Broken Promises & Silencing

As delays stretched from 2023 into 2024 and 2025, a troubling pattern emerged in Electrum's customer service. Customers reported being strung along with constant, false estimated times of arrival.

Patterns of Deception by Dave Craswell

The victim testimonies detail specific, recurring methods of deception employed by Dave Craswell to placate customers, delay refunds, and obscure the reality of unfulfilled orders. These practices can be categorized into several distinct patterns:

Victim Testimonies & Evidence

Community posts and screenshots documenting deception patterns

‹›

1 / 5

Overwhelming Negative Consensus on Trustpilot

The severity of Electrum Sabercrafts' deceptive practices is starkly reflected in their Trustpilot profile, which holds an abysmal TrustScore of 1.5 out of 5, with 94% of the 31 reviews being 1-star ratings. A comprehensive analysis of these reviews reveals a consistent pattern of customer exploitation and broken promises spanning from late 2022 to early 2026.

Final Collapse & Scale of Harm

Based on order numbers tracked by the community since 2023, it is estimated that a few hundred customers have been affected by Electrum's collapse.

For hundreds of customers who had been waiting upwards of two years for sabers costing $400 to $750, the news was devastating. The vast majority of older transactions remain uncompensated, leaving victims permanently out-of-pocket.

A formal complaint has been filed with the Alberta Consumer Investigations Unit requesting an investigation into Dave Craswell for unfair practices and potential personal liability for carrying on business while dissolving the corporation.

My case successfully filed with the Alberta Consumer Investigations Unit (CIU) was recently closed without formal enforcement action, largely because the complainant (me) successfully recovered their funds via a PayPal dispute, thereby failing to demonstrate the necessary unrecovered financial loss required for a strong test case. However, the CIU confirmed that the complaint remains on record as a reference point against the business. Victims who have suffered actual, unrecovered financial loss are strongly encouraged to continue filing well-documented, factual complaints with both the CIU and national anti-fraud authorities. The closure of one refunded case does not end the wider regulatory effort, but rather highlights the need for organized, evidence-backed submissions from those who were not refunded.

UPDATE AUG 2026: Where Is the Inventory? The Property Question Nobody Has Answered

And some clues from Barry Nykyforuk & Associates Inc

1. What Dave Craswell told the community

When a customer asked publicly who now held the stock — because he had sent in a hilt he had physically owned for years — Craswell replied that the hilt was not sold to a separate entity, that send-ins, repairs, and manufactured orders were labelled for the customers to whom they belonged, and that ownership of the assets was "somewhat nebulous as creditors filed a claim over the business." He added that nobody had given him clarity on the inventory or on whether he could continue to send out what was there at his own expense, and that he was working with a lawyer.

Read carefully, that answer identifies nothing that can be checked. It does not name the creditor. It does not identify a receiver, a liquidator, a trustee, a court file, or a security agreement. It does not say where the inventory physically is, who is storing it, or who has authority to release a single item.

A general reference to "creditors filed a claim" is not a chain of custody. It does not tell a customer who has their property, or who is legally entitled to hold it.

Facebook Post — Electrum Sabercrafts Owner's Group · 1 May 2026

Culver Dow asks about his sent-in repair hilt; Dave Craswell responds on inventory and "nebulous" ownership

Nor was this the first time Craswell hid behind a fabricated "receivership." Months earlier — on 12 December 2025, weeks after the closure announcement — he told a customer publicly that he was "no longer the director of Electrum" and was "still in the process of finding out concrete info from the receivers." That statement was false: he dissolved the companies himself, and no receiver was ever appointed. The pattern is the same throughout — deflect responsibility onto unnamed third parties who do not exist on any official record.

Facebook Comment Thread — Dave Craswell · 12 December 2025

Craswell claims he is "no longer the director" and is awaiting info from "the receivers" — a fabricated receivership

2. I asked the Trustee directly — and the answer was clear

Rather than rely on second-hand claims, I contacted the Licensed Insolvency Trustee named in connection with David Craswell, Barry Nykyforuk & Associates Inc., and corresponded with Insolvency Administrator Andy Wong. The email responses are reproduced in the screenshots accompanying this section.

BNA's position across that exchange was consistent and unambiguous:

Email from Andy Wong (BNA) — 11 August 2026

Confirming BNA acts only for David's personal insolvency; scope "has not and will not change"

Email from Andy Wong (BNA) — 26 March 2026

Corporation is not protected by personal insolvency; customers may pursue the corporation

This matters for two reasons.

First, a consumer proposal is a personal debt arrangement, not a corporate wind-up. It is administered by a Licensed Insolvency Trustee, the debtor discloses personal assets and liabilities, payments flow to creditors through the Trustee, and — unlike bankruptcy — the debtor retains their assets provided the terms and secured obligations are met. [2] It does not place a separate corporation's inventory, tooling, or customer repairs under anyone's administration.

Second, BNA itself pointed customers outward — to consumer protection and police — and told them the corporation could still be pursued. That is the opposite of a process in which some appointed official is quietly sorting out the sabers.

The bottom line: "my finances are with a Trustee" is not an answer to "where is my hilt?" The personal proceeding and the company's property are two different things, and BNA has confirmed it in writing.

3. Was there really a creditor claim? Where would it have to appear?

This is the part worth understanding, because it is verifiable. In Alberta, a creditor who actually asserts rights over a business and its inventory does not do so by word of mouth. It creates a record in a specific place, and those places are searchable.

The Alberta Personal Property Registry (PPR) is where interests in business personal property — inventory, equipment, goods — are registered. The relevant registration types are published by the Government of Alberta and include a PPSA Security Agreement for a security interest, a Receiver's Report for the administration of a receiver who takes over a business, a Writ of Enforcement enabling a creditor to take enforcement steps, a Writ of Seizure and Sale, a Court Order, an Attachment Order, and Crown or statutory charges. Alberta also warns registrants that they must have sufficient grounds and register in good faith, since improper registration can expose them to a damages claim. [3]

The Alberta Court of King's Bench Civil Search records lawsuits and related proceedings. A party-name search — often called a litigation search — lists actions commenced by or against a named person or company for a $25 fee per direction of search, with the ability to search a specific action or file number. [4]

The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) maintains the federal public records for insolvency. It provides a Bankruptcy and Insolvency Records search covering all bankruptcies and proposals filed in Canada, a Licensed Insolvency Trustee lookup, and a separate CCAA records search for companies granted court protection. The OSB also publishes guidance specifically for people who are owed money by a bankrupt or a debtor who filed a proposal. [5]

Now apply that to what customers were told.

Two further points make the "creditor claim" explanation harder to sustain. The Alberta announcement of closure was framed in terms of a receivership, yet a receivership is exactly the kind of event that generates a Receiver's Report registration and an OSB record. And the companies were already being struck from the register for unfiled annual returns during the same period, which is an administrative default by the director — not an enforcement action by a creditor.

There is also a bitter irony in the PPR list. One registration type Alberta publishes is a Sale of Goods/Factors Act financing statement, expressly used for a buyer's interest in goods left in the possession of the seller. [3] That is precisely the position hundreds of Electrum customers were placed in — fully paid, goods never released — and it is a mechanism a buyer can consider with legal advice.

4. If the companies are dissolved, who holds the property?

Alberta publishes the default answer. Property of a dissolved Alberta corporation is transferred to the Province of Alberta and may only be claimed back within the period set by legislation, and an interested person — including someone whose monetary or legal rights were affected, such as a creditor — may apply to revive the corporation within 10 years of dissolution. [7]

Alberta also states that where a corporation being dissolved still has liabilities, a liquidator must be appointed to deal with the assets and settle those debts. [6]

Read together, these rules have three consequences for Electrum customers.

Company-owned stock, tooling, components, and unfinished sabers did not become Dave Craswell's personal property simply because he was the sole director or had physical possession. Nor did they fall under BNA's administration because of a personal consumer proposal. And if no liquidator was ever appointed and no creditor process was ever registered, then the "nebulous ownership" was not created by creditors — it was created by letting the companies lapse without dealing with the property or the customers.

A customer's own hilt is different again. A hilt that a collector already owned and shipped in for repair does not become company inventory merely because Electrum held it. The company's role in that situation is custody, not ownership. For those items the question is not corporate law at all — it is simply: who physically has it, where is it stored, and who is refusing to release it?

5. The questions that require documents, not statements

• Who is the creditor? Name the party said to have filed a claim over the business.
• What document created that claim — a security agreement, financing statement, demand, writ, court order, receivership appointment, or liquidator appointment — and on what date?
• Where is that claim registered, in the PPR, the Court of King's Bench, or the OSB records?
• What property did it cover, and did anyone assert that it covered customer-owned repair items as well as company stock?
• Who physically held the inventory and the send-ins on the dissolution dates, and where was it stored?
• Does an inventory or repair ledger exist, listing customer names, item descriptions, serial numbers, work order numbers, and locations?
• Was either company revived, and by whom?
• Has any property been sold, transferred, scrapped, or removed since the dissolution dates, and under what authority?

Until those are answered with paper, the "creditor claim" remains an assertion — and the whereabouts of paid-for sabers and customer-owned hilts remains unexplained.

6. What you should do now: file with the Alberta Consumer Investigations Unit

Do not wait. BNA has told us in writing that the corporation is not shielded by David's personal proceeding and that it can still be pursued, and it pointed victims toward consumer protection authorities. A formal complaint from each affected customer is what builds the record.

Service Alberta's Consumer Investigations Unit (CIU) investigates potential breaches of consumer protection law, including unfair trade practices. The published process is: [1]

1. Call or email the Contact Centre first — toll free 1-877-427-4088, locally 780-427-4088, or cs@gov.ab.ca, weekdays 8:15 am to 4:30 pm Alberta time — to discuss your concern.
2. Receive a Complaint Identification from the Contact Centre.
3. Use the automated email to log in to the Consumer Complaint Portal and submit your complaint, providing full copies of all documents related to the incident, copies of all written communication to and from the business, and a detailed statement including dates, locations, individuals involved, and contact information.
4. CIU assesses whether an offence occurred and whether to investigate. Published factors include jurisdiction, the evidence supplied, prior complaint history, the number of people affected, and consumer vulnerability.
5. CIU responds with the outcome, which may be an investigation, a referral, or an advisory letter to the business. At the conclusion of an investigation, CIU may issue a warning, recommend a licence suspension, director's order, or administrative penalty, or file charges in court.

Because "number of people affected" is an explicit assessment factor, volume matters. One complaint is an anecdote; hundreds of documented complaints describing the same pattern are an enforcement case.

The evidence pack to attach

Assemble a clean, chronological package rather than loose screenshots. Include your order confirmation and invoice; proof of payment with the amount, date, and method; the promised delivery window and every message where it was restated; all Facebook, Messenger, and email correspondence with Dave Craswell or Electrum, with dates visible; any shipping label issued but never scanned or delivered; details of any item you sent in for repair, with photographs, serial numbers, and shipping proof; the closure announcement of 21 October 2025; the corporate registry records showing the strike-off and dissolution; and the BNA correspondence confirming the personal-only scope of the insolvency.

Write your chronology in plain dated entries — what you paid, what you were promised, what you were told afterwards, and what you never received.

Also worth doing, in parallel

If your monetary loss is under $100,000, Alberta directs consumers to the option of filing a civil action in the Alberta Court of Justice; CIU expressly does not recover your money, mediate, or enforce court orders. [1] Where the transaction was by credit card or PayPal, pursue a chargeback or buyer-protection claim within your provider's deadlines. If you believe you were induced to pay while the companies were being dissolved, that is a matter you can also report to police, as BNA itself suggested. Anonymous tips can be made through Report a Rip Off via the same Contact Centre numbers. [1]

One line to remember: the personal Trustee is not holding your saber, no receiver has ever been identified, and dissolved companies do not quietly hand inventory to their former director. Put your claim on the official record with the Consumer Investigations Unit.

7. A "scratch and dent" sale — weeks before the closure announcement

On 2 October 2025 — just nineteen days before his 21 October 2025 closure announcement — Dave Craswell posted a "scratch and dent" hilt sale in the Electrum Sabercrafts Owner's Group, offering discounted empty hilts from a "big shop purge," asking interested buyers to email him directly.

The question this raises is unavoidable: could these hilts have been salvaged from customers' products sent in for servicing? Hilts that customers had physically owned and shipped in for repair — stripped of their electronics, reclassified as "scratch and dent" shop stock, and sold on to third parties.

Do you recognize any of them? If you sent a hilt to Electrum for repair or customisation and never got it back, study these photos carefully.

Facebook Post — Dave Craswell · 2 October 2025

"Scratch and dent" hilt sale posted 19 days before the closure announcement

Hilt Collage — "Scratch & Dent" Sale Photos (Updated)

15 frames of discounted hilts offered for sale — do you recognize any of these?

Timeline of Events