This post documents our direct experience working with Onify Co., Ltd., commonly known as Onify Tech, formerly operating under the name Trienpont. Onify Tech is an international website development company based in Thailand and markets its services globally through https://www.onifytech.com/.
Publicly Listed Company Information
Based on publicly available information, Onify Co., Ltd. lists the following details:
Onify Co., Ltd. (Head Office)
163 Rajapark Building, 15th Floor
Sukhumvit 21 Road (Asok)
Khlongtoei-Nue, Wattana
Bangkok 10110
Thailand
Telephone: 090 220 6617
Mobile: 090 220 6617
Website: https://www.onifytech.com/
We are including this information to ensure transparency for businesses conducting due diligence, particularly when engaging with international vendors.
Our intention in sharing this experience is to inform and caution other businesses so they can make fully informed decisions before entering into a development engagement.
Who We Are
Dank Cannabis is a multi-location cannabis retailer operating in Alberta, Canada. Like many regulated retailers, our operations rely heavily on accurate, real-time inventory synchronization between our point-of-sale system, Cova, and our ecommerce platform.
We engaged Onify Tech after our previous developer introduced them as a larger, more capable team that could complete the project properly.
What We Were Promised
We were told that:
- The project would be completed and ready for launch within a reasonable timeframe
- Inventory synchronization would work one-to-one
- QA would be handled by their team
- The system would be launch-ready
- Issues had been fixed and tested
Over the course of the engagement, multiple launch dates were committed to and subsequently missed, despite repeated assurances from Onify that the system was ready.
What Actually Happened
Over the course of the project, we paid close to CAD $30,000.
Despite repeated assurances from Onify Tech:
- Inventory synchronization never worked reliably
- Testing was incomplete or inconsistent
- Lot numbers, which are a core requirement in cannabis retail, were mishandled
- QA failures were repeatedly discovered by our team, not theirs
- The system was represented as ready when it clearly was not
If we had not personally verified the work, we would have launched a system that allowed customers to order unavailable products, displayed incorrect quantities, and created serious operational and compliance risk.
A Pattern of “Fixed” Issues That Were Not Fixed
Throughout the project, we experienced the same cycle repeatedly:
- We reported an issue
- We were told it was fixed and tested
- We performed basic validation
- The issue was still present
- We provided evidence
- The issue was acknowledged only after escalation
This pattern occurred across multiple locations, datasets, and testing scenarios.
In one instance, Onify Tech leadership questioned whether external API changes were responsible for the failures. The API provider confirmed in writing that no changes had occurred. The issues still persisted.
QA Was Billed, But We Were Doing the QA
Onify Tech publicly advertises that it has 100+ team members and has launched over 200 projects.
Despite this, our non-technical staff repeatedly found themselves creating spreadsheets, running exports, verifying lot quantities, identifying mismatches, and proving errors that had already been approved as correct.
At one point, after months of development and QA billing, we were asked whether lot tracking was even required. Lot tracking is a fundamental requirement in cannabis retail and should have been established at the very beginning of the project. This raised serious concerns about whether the full scope of the project and the underlying Cova integration were properly understood by Onify.
Live, Recorded Proof Exists
At one point during the project, a live, recorded working session was held specifically to review inventory synchronization. During this session:
- Inventory failures were demonstrated in real time
- Multiple spreadsheets and exports were reviewed side by side
- It was explicitly stated that the system was not working
- This occurred despite significant development and QA hours already being billed
Transcripts, recordings, emails, and documentation exist and clearly support these findings. We will be publishing additional evidence in future updates.
Scale of Involvement and Accountability
Over the course of this project, numerous individuals and third parties were involved across development, QA, project management, and external services in connection with Onify Tech and its affiliated entities. We are including the list below for transparency and to illustrate that these issues did not arise from a lack of access or cooperation on our part, nor were they isolated to a single individual.
Individuals Involved in This Project
- Rob Elliott — [email protected]
- Rohan Brammall — [email protected]
- Khristine Soltis — [email protected]
- Usman Mohammad Saleem — [email protected]
- Denise Liebregts — [email protected]
- Chakrit Wichian — [email protected]
- Kamonwan (Praew) Saengsong — [email protected]
- Benjakul Kaeoseekhao — [email protected]
- Anik — [email protected]
- Maxime Grandjean — [email protected]
- Accounts — [email protected]
- Rob Elliott — [email protected]
- Rohan Brammall — [email protected]
- Aiden Trienpont — [email protected]
- Korakot (Pang) Seekheawsod — [email protected]
- Kwantip Sathapongpakdi — [email protected]
- Kachamas Sae-lee — [email protected]
- Sasina Wichien — [email protected]
- Sakrapon Teachasawatdipong — [email protected]
- Pavinee Suemanotham — [email protected]
- Ken Tovich — [email protected]
- Ivy Sayer — [email protected]
Despite this level of involvement, accountability for core functionality and quality assurance remained unclear, and fundamental issues persisted.
Where Things Stand Now
We are currently seeking either:
- A full refund, or
- A live, recorded demonstration proving the system works as originally represented
Our refund request is a good-faith attempt to resolve the matter without further escalation. If this is not resolved, we reserve the right to pursue additional losses related to internal time, delays, and operational impact.
Why We Are Sharing This
This post is not written lightly.
We are sharing this experience because:
- We do not want other businesses to go through what we experienced
- The time, cost, and stress involved were significant
- Accountability matters
- Transparency matters
We will continue to update this page with additional information, including videos, screenshots, transcripts, and technical documentation.
If You’ve Had a Similar Experience
If you have worked with Onify Tech, Onify Co., Ltd., or Trienpont, or if you are considering working with them and want more information, you can contact us directly:
We are happy to share our experience and documentation privately.
