Bitcoin Forum

To be exact, on September 4th last year (https://ibb.co/Jp60CpB) Lucy approached me and asked about me wearing his affiliate signature, then slowly the development was to have a signature campaign for his affiliate link. Bitcointalk user Zwei on October 6th (https://ibb.co/1q6S6br) was hired to design the signature set.

I started by giving the exact date and will try to continue with the dates where it's possible or I will write from my memory with possible references I can use. I contacted several reputable forum users to hire them for the signature campaign. Everything was ready. Lucy was ready to spend over $10k  on this campaign.

But at some point, It did not look right to me because spending $10k on an affiliate link without having any website of your own or not having at least a lead capturing page is just a waste of money (anyone experienced with affiliate marketing will understand what I mean here). I told Lucy that do you think it worth spending that amount of money just on an affiliate link?

We had long conversations, in fact from the beginning we talked to each other (on chat) almost most of the days. He always left me the impression that he is a very wealthy man and also open minded. We continued and he decided not to launch the campaign.

We continued talking to each other until December 11th 2021 (https://ibb.co/pxLVhHS)

On April 17th (https://ibb.co/x6SHBvr) he came back after a long time and offered me a full time job with the link of BitLucy that the site is almost ready. He decided to launch his own casino. I was happy to realize that this man valued my words and was even smarter enough that he came up with a better plan than I was thinking.

The site was not up yet but after a few hours it went up. And it was looking great. However I was not ready for such offers for myself so I asked him to give me time to think about his offer. In the meantime he told me to be on call the next morning. I was not ready for that either. It's the habit of a usual Bitcoin user. My privacy was important to me.

I had to think the entire night. The beginning, development of the relationship between him and me with so many other factors just to convince myself to trust him. It was not easy but the next morning we were on a call. We talked about the project, future plans and everything. At the end he gave me a better offer of being his partner and he will share a 10% GGR of total review. I did not have an idea of GGR at that time but he explained. Although I wanted something to start with a fixed salary so once the project becomes bigger and revenue starts coming then my plan was to ask for a small share. But since he was saying it's a better offer then I did not deny. That's how I started with BitLucy.

We launched on bitcointalk. Everyone was excited. I was asked to build up a team. He was busy with other sides (development, providers, site back office etc). All was going well. In the meantime from a promotion we had over 13k or 20k registrations in just one day. My side was busy handling customers' load and his side was busy keeping the site up and running because the overload was crashing up the site.

We were facing massive abuse by the visitors. Most of them were multi accounting and we really did not have any idea how they were doing it. We realized the abuse after processing around 400 withdrawals (according to Lucy). We had to stop promotion. And restructure the plan. In the meantime we had issue with payment processor coinpayment and moved to a new one nowpaymets.

Staff were due to pay and the first signature campaigners too. Since we were having bad time with processors he sent me $28** to pay them all. All staff received 25% bonus. Even some of them were awarded extra bonuses for their hard work.

At some point we moved from the current provider. He sent me some lose money around 39** Euro to convert in usdt and pay to an address. After trying a few more providers we settled with the current one we have.

Meanwhile we were having regular meetings with different people/companies. I was present in some of them and some of them were without me. It was not necessary for me to attend everything. Providers, streamers, influencers, agents of x footballers, singers etc. All those developments never looked unreal.

With us Lucy was sharing even his personal life. Trip to Disney with his wife and son, time in the zoo. Everyday we were becoming closer to each other like a small family. There was no reason to even think that he does not have money to run the business. All we were seeing is a man having some problems running the business but still he is not stopping from it. People were complaining about withdrawals. We were looking into it. Some were getting paid and more were coming with complaints. Since we moved to a new provider many people were coming for balance transfer too.

Time was going fast. Everyone needs money. The Staff were waiting for it. In the 2nd signature campaign x1 and avatar campaign x3, when things were not going as planned I had to pay them out of my own pocket. Several times Lucy asked me for money and I sent them to his given address too.

In the meantime Lucy missed several dates to pay the staff, processing withdrawals and me.

For the record I spent over $3.2k out of my pocket, from GGR I was supposed to receive around $1.5k plus and for the current month, since we were having problems with the site we decided to give me $2k salary not the GGR. Today is the 22nd. He sent me 400$ and 200$ but after a few days he needed some payments done and took $240 from me. That $600 that I received from him all together. The above $3.2+$1.5+whatever it is from $2k for the month are still due. I was not stressing for my money but stressing for staff and customers withdrawals. This was important for me more than anything.

Things were starting to change. This time I was pressuring for all the dues (everyone including withdrawals). Few days ago when I was angry and was insisting him he ordered btc 0.22* to my wallet via his bank. But after waiting few days he said since btc was dropping from $29** to somewhere at $22** or $23** the order was canceled. Then he decided to pay the staffs who are in the Philippines via their bank. But again after waiting for 5 working days it did not hit their bank until yesterday. In the meantime I told him to send me Western Union but even after ordering it and showing me a screenshot he never was able to give me a tracking number.

Meanwhile the withdrawals were to process at GMT 10am and 6 PM but it never happened. Staff were told they will get withdrawals including all customers in 24 hours which never happened and the last was today at 6 pm his local time.

The last few days were a complete disaster for me. It crossed my limit. It can not be continued anymore. So I resigned yesterday. He is insisting on me but it's impossible for me anymore. The deadline for his last promise passed. I was even giving him these options:

However, it's all done now. I am not with bitlucy anymore. I needed to be sure and it took me a while for that.

PS: I have tried to give a brief of what happened inside bitlucy and my situation with BitLucy. I had to skip personal information of anyone involved but in the meantime I had to say what I wanted to say. If any users have doubt of what I said then I am open to share some conversation data and possibly the transaction records of the payments. I can not share these things in public and you will have to be someone who I will trust too.

A copy (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uWn7zePH5XjnBzU8laYr53Byuv3WBrJW?usp=sharing) of my last long message which was sent to Lucy of me being done with BitLucy will help understand the situation too. (I have edited some parts which I thought not necessarily to be in public)

---

I have deposit data from the site. It's a few weeks old but I do not think many people deposited on the site for last few weeks. When I closed the form it’s still 4 people even after I had advertised it in several posts including ANN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60373594#msg60373594), reputation(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402179.msg60335332#msg60335332), (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402179.msg60389114#msg60389114) and yesterday in the service (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403487.0) board. The form is closed now since I do not want anyone to take advantage of it and fill it out with random data after this post. All these users will be checked and I will send their deposit back (I don't know how much will it be, if this is out of my limit then I will come to a contract with them to pay in installment). I will email you for a deposit transaction ID, and if it matches the given ID then you will get your coins back.

---

Sorry for all the inconvenience that you had because of me.

Royse.

As per my message to you on Telegram irrc around 10 days ago, the man is a scammer.

Sadly for you, you have been dragged into this.

I also appreciate your email and your kind words, but, this will not fix what this man has done.

He has no business acumen. He gloats about paying his staff $100 a week and calls it slave labour.

You seem genuine based on our chats, and, I am glad you listened.

Could you please respond to my email so we can put this to bed.

Regards,
Wildsy

Disclaimer: I've been in contact with Royse777 on Telegram in the past days. Part of what I'm typing here, I've said to him already.

To me, it sounds like "Lucy" got the idea to create a casino without having funding for a bankroll and promotion. I've seen people like that, also in real life. Typically, the promises keep piling up and it's always "tomorrow" or "in a few days" to keep you waiting without coming through. People like that can be very convincing, and I've seen many people fall for that for a long time. By the time they've had enough, others get stuck in the same web of lies and it continues to make new victims.

For what it's worth: I believe you (Royse777) didn't have bad intentions. But I also believe you messed up big time by not seeing the red flags. If a campaign can't be paid up-front, and if the campaign manager has to pay for things out of his own pocket, you can bet there's no money in the casino. The moment the campaign couldn't be paid should have been the moment to put the campaign on HOLD. As an experienced campaign manager, you should have seen the red flags. By continuing the promotion with your forum reputation tied to it, I can imagine that made people believe the site could be trusted.
I think you waited too long to pull the plug, and you waited too long to come clean here. I wish you the best though.

I literally had to spend 5 minutes to understand what really happened to you and the casino all this time. It seems that everything you talk about in the thread is something to be trusted even if someone will think that it is your attempt to increase your reputation. For a manager like you, of course it will take up a lot of time and jeopardize your reputation if you have to continue to leave this issue unresolved.

I was even surprised when many people began to doubt the clarity of the payouts for your new campaign because your reputation has deteriorated as a result of this issue. By the way, I think you've got the right attitude to withdraw from the ranks of the casino team that has put you in trouble. You get paid for the job based on your explanation in the OP, I believe you are not a shareholder in it. Wish you all the best.

I feel that here in bitcointalk all we have is our reputation. We take years to build it, and it may be lost at once.

Personally, I would be very reluctant to make an association with someone I barely know, risking my reputation, my money and hard work.

This might be a good lesson for all of us, to avoid associations with people we barely know .

I don't know that I can agree. None of us here really know each other, we know the persona we have created in our time on the forum. Not all successful companies are made from long time friendships either. It's ok to try and make a business with people you may barely know, but you always make sure you protect yourself.

In this situation Royse should have pulled the plug when funds started being late. Ok, I can understand he/she may not have wanted to be hasty, but red flag #2 is when they had to pay from their pocket. We are talking about a casino here, not a nickel lottery or something. They either had funds or they didn't.

It seems you let yourself(Royse777) be fooled and took way to long to respond to users on this forum. I don't think you personally are at fault for users getting scammed, but I can no longer trust your judgement as your actions likely cost other users more money by not closing shop/ warning the community sooner.

I'll remove my red flag and make it a neutral, but I think some sort of warning should stay on you for awhile. Good luck in the future.

Royse, I have no doubt that you are a good man, but I find that you have acted too naively in this matter, which I find hard to believe given your experience. Even though some will say that it is easy to be a general after a battle, I believe you shouldn't have allowed this to happen. I reviewed the whole bitlucy thread, and I think you had plenty of red flags to respond to. But you didn't. Furthermore, you asserted that bitlucy is the victim of scammers and abusers. Even after rebuilding the entire system and resetting all user balances (twice), you continued to complain that a number of users are abusing the system. In fact, even when you decided to stop promoting them on the forum and to lock the bitlucy ANN topic, you did not warn community about a possible scam, and your last words to the community were vague and could be misinterpreted. All of this indicates that you've worked only in your own interests throughout the whole process and never displayed any sense of responsibility towards the rest of the community. I agree with LoyceV that you waited too long, and your inability to be open about things here didn't help either.

I am not too sure how other campaign managers handle their business with their employers, and how close and comfortable they get with them, i know those who have worked with a particular manager for a long time might get a bit close to the person, but other managers can correct me if i am wrong that getting too personal with your employer, especially when your 'contract' is over the internet can affect and becloud your judgement when necessary. I feel Royse became too close to Lucy and it became very difficult to draw the line even when it was suspicious.

I feel if you didn't get too comfortably close with Lucy, you would have smelt that something was wrong, if everything was kept strictly at business level, meaning no funds everything should be put on hold, and even if you have to pay from your pocket, it should be only once, and that is when everything has been put on hold by yourself, then you can use your funds to settle the initial problems created and mitigate further problems in the future. If you fail to put it on hold, further problems will arise that could supercede the strength of your pocket and you find it hard to pay or solve.

We often have good hearts, and we think people over the internet would behave and be as good as us, but that is not always the case, trust is a hard virtue to come by these days, and if you must trust someone, it should be because you have seen their good and trustworthy deeds over time, but if you are just working for the first time, treat every red flag as a scam, unless proven otherwise. I am very sorry Royse.

I'm late to this issue - thanks for the update.  I'm reading my way through the threads.

It is very difficult to argue with what you have stated based on what we have read in this thread but yahoo62278 (below) has valid points.

I think you have have pretty much covered most of what could be said here.

It would be a difficult thing to face having covered payments from his pocket to the tune of several thousand USD$ but there is a line that should not be crossed between campaign managers and website owners/operators. I am surprised someone such as Royse777 allowed himself to be manipulated to the point where all this happened and he did not send out warnings to the community when he first ran in to issues. It seems there have been multiple errors on his part and that is unacceptable conduct from a campaign manager.

Going through some posts in the Bitlucy withdrawal problem, does this acceptable? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402179.0) thread I still am unsure if Royse777 was a purely a campaign manager or much more than that because of the multiple roles he seems to have taken on. Was he also a part-owner or investor in the Bitlucy website too? I know stated here he was working full-time for Bitlucy (whatever that may entail) but was there more to his involvement?

Very big event to read.

The whole thing would have been believable if it hadn't come from a Legendary.
The judgment of a Legendary escrow/campaign manager who has 1700+ potential earned-merit is so weak that I have to believe it again in the bitcointalk forum where everyone fights against scams 24/7 days!

I don't know how credible the incident is to everyone else but I really want Royse to refrain from associating herself with any big project in the future. we should understand that others should not be harmed for our stupidity.


Regards

Duke

It’s sad how this ended up. I can't see any bad intention from Royse. But being an old member here with enough experience of how things can turn into, Royse must not have gone with this.
Almost same thing happened with me. Back in 2019, I was asked to look for escrow service to hold 1 BTC for a campaign. I had contacted with Hhampuz and everything was okay. Suddenly, the guy disappeared. After few months (can't remember, it can be a year too), he suddenly came and share me a casino he was building. He offered me % from the profit for being a part of the project. Everything was up and I was asked to launch a campaign. Some can remember that I had posted the campaign thread too as I was asked to create. Once again I contacted with Hhampuz. But the guy once again disappeared after showing some excuses when I was asking for escrow the BTC for the campaign. I was lucky that I didn’t work on his promises.

Good Luck Royse. I really wish you to get back whatever you have lost, from the monetary loss to the reputation.

I think the same.

We can give her the benefit of the doubt because of her previous reputation and the explanations given, but I think they are not enough, at least for the moment, to wipe the slate clean. And even if she had no intention of deceiving anyone and was somehow involved in that mess, I think she should have ceased all collaboration before, as there were some very clear red flags.

I've been holding off on making any comment on this situation until all the facts were available.

While I agree with the points made above by Loyce and yahoo (namely, you were too slow in pulling the plug and too slow in explaining the situation), I also agree that you had no intention to scam anyone. Unfortunately, given what you have told us, it seems highly unlikely the scammed users will ever see their winnings, but I do think you deserve commendation for your offer to reimburse their deposits from your own pocket.

While I can understand and don't necessarily disagree with the trust ratings you have been left, I don't feel it necessary to add to them.

Everything I can say was already said. LoyceV was completely spot-on. Royse777 has fallen into a scam and was a little slow in assessing the red flags and stop everything.
I've had in the past (in completely different situations) the impression that he/she is a bit forgiving with people, but I never thought that this kind of disaster is at the horizon.
All in all I don't think that Royse777 is a scammer, even if the handling of the problem was... bad... and even this topic came a little late.

And, as I said, this mess will be costly to get cleaned. It will probably leave a stain on Royse777 reputation, whether people will or will not be reimbursed from own pocket (and may also end up reimburse scammers too, only because they're vocal).
I am really sorry about the way all this turned out. >:(

As o_e_l_e_o also said, the existing trust feedback already tell the story, there's no need to add anything there.



@Royse777 good luck, you need it. I think/hope that the worse has passed.

I'd say this is mismanagement from your behalf for not verify the Bitlucy team and only trust his word even though you're already go too far from it does. When you have use your own pocket money to pay the operational expenses, then I will say the man who talked with you are a scammer and seems like he doesn't have enough money for his project. Skepticism is a must when you need to deal a financial related activities, I would advice to use an escrow to prevent from this kind problem, or at least multisig wallet.

Royse777 you're not a scammer nor intentionally to scam anyone, but you're a team from a scam project which is you're still obliged to pay your clients including the winning, as long as they didn't break any TOS, I don't think the gamblers are wrong here. If you're only the campaign manager, then I would agree if you not need to pay the clients since you're not manage the scam project, but you're only promoting and you can close the campaign after there's a complain about the project.

I know you've pay with your own pocket money and resign from Bitlucy team, but that's not enough for the clients have been scammed so far. Sad to say, I demand you need to pay the whole winning amount except you're successfully negotiated with the clients to pay the initial deposit amount or other agreement.

I'm going to leave you negative tag as you haven't successfully solved the case, I will wait until all the 4 clients that have fill the google form data confirming already receiving the money from you. However I don't think it's only 4 users to be honest, probably there's few users missed this news, if in a month(s) they will comeback and asking their money, I don't think they should be blamed due to late contacting you.

I hope you're understand my point and I hope you're in a good health to resolving this problem.

With this problem, anyone should learn an experienced and trustworthy campaign manager have nothing to do with the project itself, if the project is scam, then it will scam no matter what.

Well isnt this funny when the very man ROYSE who scammed others out of their deposits to BITLUCY is now on the short end of the stick chasing his own money.


This BITLUCY bookmaker is run by a SCAMMER. DO NOT deposit any funds there.


Just to sum it up (as the screenshot below shows) and this chat occured on their website directly with ROYSE who admitted the following:


1. They Lost all customer Balance data when moving their site
2. They can just about gather your DEPOSIT data... which means if you had deposited 1000 and won 3000 they would only ackowledge the 1000!

https://ibb.co/ydgt07N   <--- proof of this. 

I have had 600 stolen from me, sent them my deposit transaction IDS but totally ingored.

I have no idea whether you lost $600 or not but I am posting here just to display the image you posted. What happened in this situation should be an example to any and all would-be campaign managers. Those with a long standing campaign management history would probably never get themselves in to this situation.

Any losses that could have been curtailed or avoided (but were not because Royse777 did not raise the alarm sooner) are missed opportunities to stop the scam earlier therefore it is negligence on part of the campaign manager. I do not know where you fit in to this as far as losses are concerned but if what you said is true I am sorry for your loss.


https://i.ibb.co/5GsmTw1/photo5882258798125627327.jpg

I am glad you finally explained your situation in public Royse.
I watched one documentary about scammer who tricked and scammed many people (mostly females), and this case from Royse reminds me a lot about that documentary.
To know how scammers work you need to study and learn their behavior, and I think that Royse didn't have much experience with this, so it's understandable how Lucy scammer tricked him.
Pattern is the same, scammers like this are professional liars that usually live luxury lifestyle, they travel a lot around the world, and they are documenting this with photos and social media.

I think it is now clear for everyone that Royse is not a scammer here and red flags against him should be removed or at least turned to neutral, but Royse is guilty for being naive and for not asking help and second opinion from other forum members earlier.
He is just a human and it's not like all of us didn't make mistakes before in our lives, but maybe Royse can still help scammed customers with information from Bitlucy onwer.
Maybe they can report him to authorities and stop him before he recycles and rebrands his website into some new moneygrab scheme.
Good luck Royse.

PS
Maybe it's time to open Investigation topic about Bitlucy owner with more personal information.

Royse777, I know you're a good person but damn... you gotta do the right thing before red tags start piling on. Keep in mind that most people are very reluctant to neg-trust someone of your reputation, so if you start getting those tags you messed up hugely.

Hi Moon.

I know I am a nobody on this forum, but, Roysee I must say so far has been a man of his word. He said he will rectify the issue out of his own pocket. He’s almost maintained conversation with me for the last ~12 hours.

I’ll be sure to update you all as and when he closes my ticket from the Google doc.

I appreciate there is more people than just me, but, one step at a time..

based on all that has been said in connection with this case, I withdraw the red tag by my side and change it to neutral.
I don't think Royse intended to deceive anyone, in the end, he is most damaged here. With financial losses, he has seriously damaged his reputation here. I hope for some positive developments in solving the whole thing.

I see no reason why the original owner of Bitlucy to be protected. all available information should be provided, he is a scammer and if this time passes without any consequences, it is certain that he will continue his business.


this is how I see the whole thing. most often honest people are naive because they do not expect to be deceived, I would say the same is the case with Royse. However, if he wants to work as a manager, he must recognize such things and that’s what sets good managers apart from the average.

Mate, what are you talking about?


He was in on the scam all along with LUCY and now they had some disagreement over the scammed funds. He was telling me in LIVE CHAT that they lost all customer data and he continued to work for them and refuse payouts to people of their own deposits!



https://ibb.co/ydgt07N



ASK HIM to explain this chat.

Honestly, Royse777, as I read your testimony above, I find one thing difficult to understand.

As per your timeline, you started communicating with Lucy character on September 4th last year and continued until December 11th last year. Than, after a few months break, you reconnected on April 17th, when he offered you a business partnership.

But, how could you claim something like this just a few days later:


There is clearly some discrepancy here. Either you're so naive that you've trusted someone you've never met before, after just a few online chats, or you actually know the owner of BitLucy and that you're good friends, as you said, and now you're trying to hide the facts in the hopes of saving your reputation. I'm not sure which option to believe based on the current information available. Honestly, I believe you are too smart to be as naive as you are portraying here. Maybe you can help me see the third option, if there is one?

Knowing someone and being (or thinking that you are) good friends after some chats online is a thing these days. Feels weird to me too, but that's the world we live in. I don't think there is a contradiction in these claims, particularly considering that the "CEO" is likely a charismatic con artist, as good con artists tend to be.

What are the options for Royse777 now? He has a business in this forum. Looks like he won't get any more business now.

After reading the post, it seems that if anyone is at a loss here, it is none other than him. Everyone is saying that he is not a scammer and again they are giving him red feedback and flags, blaming him for everything. who knows what real situation he had?

I feel now that I have no idea how Trust Feedback, Flag and Trust include / exclude works lol. Everyone made me confused now, fucker 😘!  A 9103 word summary of a more or less 10 month long story is being judged by everyone just like that? It was good. 😉

How many of you have actually done financial transactions with Royse and what were your experiences? I would really like to know.

He was charismatic con artist for sure, and I think we saw many like him in altcoin, ICO and gambling space during last few years.
If you didn't watch it yet, check out this Tinder Swindler documentary about a guy called Simon Leviev aka Shimun Hayut, who stole millions from people, served only few months in Israel prison and he still lives a luxury lifestyle.
Speaking in strict terms he didn't stole anything, but his victims sent him all their money because they became ''good friends'' quickly... sounds familiar isn't it ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R3LWM_Vt70

Oh and btw he claims (lies) that he purchased Bitcoin back in 2011  :D well maybe he did, but not with his own money for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dUBPAsrzk0

My first impression was that Royse777 was as much a victim as those waiting for their withdrawal, and I believe he's telling us the truth.  I also don't see any contradictions in Royse777's claims, and I must admit there are a few people here on the forum whom I've never met in meatspace, but I consider "friends."  Hell, I have workmates whom I've only met in Teams meetings and also am very friendly with, and this is my analogue job.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that either, as it is more and more the world we live in.


I resemble that remark!  I have never had any issues with Royse777 and don't believe he's a scammer in the slightest bit, but I think I explained myself well enough for the rational behind my (now removed) red-tag.  Since I had been keeping tabs on this fiasco I've been waiting for an opportunity to revise or remove my tag, I never thought it needed to be permanent.  I finally revised my tag yesterday evening before I even saw this thread or read Royse777's post, only because I no longer saw BitLucy as threatening to accumulate more victims.

As for the remaining red-tags, I hope those who've left them will reconsider.

I have taken some time to read through, and It's just so amazing how things turn from good to bad in a matter of hours or days. I was holding back into getting involved in the whole situation because I felt the whole story was not complete, and I am glad you took time to describe to us what happened.

IMO, I feel you had some genuine intentions and ended up getting duped like all other players awaiting their payments. I mean, if you really didn't care since your reputation had already gotten messed up, you would have just walked away minus paying the signature campaign participants and trying to compensate some scam victims out of your very own pocket.

I hope the saga concludes in the best possible way, and also perhaps a lesson to you that there are a lot of wolves in sheep skin online.

I'm just seeing this topic, and after reading the Op and the comments throughout the thread, I believe we can all agree that he was driven by what the CEO offered him, that he failed to conduct a thorough background check, and that the Bitlucy team was so astute that they took advantage of his reputation to get what they wanted.

Money isn't everything, Royse777; always conduct a background check before accepting any contract; your reputation is enormous, and one mistake from you would attract an inordinate number of victims.

I hope this has taught you some valuable lessons! I'm sick of bitlucy nonsense. Off

I've reconsidered my tag

If I needed a campaign manager I think I would still consider Royse777. Nothing in this debacle indicates that he wouldn't be capable of doing this kind of job.

If I wanted to join a campaign managed by Royse777 I'd probably want to make sure that the funds are in escrow.

Well thing goes bad after his problem with Bitlucy, his campaign: Unijoin have ended the campaign because of his recent reputation.


Since he's still owe clients money and he isn't sure he can paid it all with his own pocket, I will reconsider to change negative feedback to neutral one because I didn't mean to hurt his reputation. I think the flag is already enough to warn other users with this problem and it's make sense to not leave negative feedback after I read this thread.

It's used for a scammer or high likely to scam, not the genuine user who want to solve his problem because he has been dragged with a scammer.

This.

I applied for my first signature campaign after ages and saw people withdrawing their applications in the thread because of the said accusations against the campaign manager and I was skeptical too. The funds were in escrow, and the project being promoted didn't come across as a scam to me. It would have made sense to tag the participants or the campaign manager should they still keep promoting the project knowing it turned out to be dodgy which isn't the case. This thread further clarifies it.

The rule of the thumb is: Stop participating in his campaigns if you don't trust him or do your own due diligence before putting a signature on your profile.

And the campaign managers of most of the altcoin and ICO scams got away without a scratch! What's the difference here? Royse777 was offered partial ownership, but it doesn't look like he had anything to say in the "company". He couldn't handle withdrawals and didn't have access to funds. Were should we draw the line?

You really don't know if something is a scam until it happens, but you can certainly have red flags and suspicions.
I would like to know if Royse signed any written contracts with this scamming owner, because trusting someone's word is just not enough when they give you a title of partner and co-owner.
If it was only a verbal deal, than I would ask for written confirmation and proof of funds, because I am by nature a little suspicious, but I don't know what other people would do.
As for campaign managers, I don't think Royse was the first or the last one to manage a scam project, but I hope he learns something from this.

The question that remains for me now is the support for the flag.

Most of us have given Royse777 the benefit of the doubt and changed the feedback from negative to neutral.

Also, many of us are still supporting the flag, and I think that is correct as there has been some sloppiness in Royse777's performance and it should be reflected in some way for a while as yahoo62278 said.

The only thing that seems a bit paradoxical, delete the negative feedback and continue supporting the flag.

I don't think this is correct:
The people who lost money, lost it when dealing with a casino website, not by dealing with Royse777 directly. It looks like Royse777 lost money too, while he did pay the people who joined his campaign.

Does this mean neutral tag alone is enough for a warning?

I need to look into this more before I make a complete decision, but I’m not seeing Royce as a scammer here..

When you get an opportunity to work for a crypto business like this you take it.. It doesn’t always work out, most startups don’t work out, you never know if they are going to be honest until they prove themselves one way or another..

Royce, don’t go broke paying people back who were scammed by them..
Maybe the signature payments if you really feel bad about it, but not the deposits..
They knew they were taking risks themselves..

He lied about going on a dinner date with the CEO in person; I believe he was aware that the company was broke, but who cares? He was only concerned with his own selfish interests; he was paid and he failed to conduct basic research; I regard him as a person who is easily manipulated. That's where the line should be drawn.

And yes, they lost it all thanks to Royse777, who assured them that the site was safe and that the owner had been his boyhood friend for a long time! We can't tell if he paid out of his own pocket because there have been so many lies that we don't know what to believe any longer. The flag is valid.

I reconsidered my tag not because I was wrong but because I've never seen him in such a chaotic situation before; he can be trusted, but he lacks management skills; I will not hire or recommend him.

Well... Not bad

It reminds me of the case where someone was scammed $50,000 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5368163.0) while using the most trusted escrow on the forum. Nobody tagged the escrow, and he didn't refund the victim.

Even if that's true, it doubt it influenced someone's decision to deposit Bitcoin to the scam site.

But he also paid campaigns out of his own pocket, and it seems like he's going the extra mile to pay back victims.

This I can agree with. Sometimes being paranoid pays off. That's why I've rejected most of the campaign offers I've received. I'm pretty sure some of them would have turned into a scam.

I think that right thing for you would be to consider changing your opinion about red flag you created against Royse.
Up until now I didn't want to give my opinion, but now I opposed this allegations against him.
I really don't understand some people who are acting like judge and executioner in this case, and continue to blame Royse for everything...
in real life they would probably cause someone to commit suicide or do something crazy  ::)
Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366632

I can't wait to hear some of those stories... maybe you should write a book titled What would happen if I was a manager in bitcotintalk forum.  :D

Well, there are two points I don't get here @LoyceV:

1) Why then would someone mention the dinner with the CEO in person if not for the sake of engendering trust in a certain person/audience?

Was it an important meeting? Like "Last night at dinner with the CEO we talked about optimizing the payout ratio for Bitlucy and improvements for UI/UX".

Or was it like "Guys, I was at dinner with the CEO in person and, you know, I am a well trusted member of this community with over 2.3k merits and I wouldn't promote a scammer"?

And even the first sentence could be incredibly smart and subtile in terms of placing an advertisement and engendering trust.

2) Really? We all know how subtile advertising works. Some of us are more aware of the mechanics and don't let ourselves convince by it, while others are not and base their decisions on, let's say, secondary trust relationships. That's how the whole influence game works. People buy products from companies that are advertised by people they follow and trust.

Also, let's say I would like to gamble a bit but I don't know which casino to choose. How would I go about it? Well, I'd probably prefer a casino promoted by someone I trust over a casino I have no idea about. Especially, when the person I trust is even actively involved with the casino service itself.

Ultimately, someone with Royse' experience and reputation should have been much more careful, especially when he decided to get himself involved in a conflict of interest. He knew that his most valuable asset actually is the constantly growing community following and trusting him, working with him. But then there came a point where he thought about leveraging it against a deal with a SINGLE other person to his own benefit.

This is by no means to say that Royse ever intended to scam the community, I emphasize this with several !!! But there are many situations in life where, for instance, a manager isn't directly to blame for certain events and yet has to go. Since I belong to the category of people who dislike outrageous hate against people who unintentionally *** fuck up once, I would also agree there must be a way back for him. It is not up to me to decide whether a red tag should remain, but I can and want to tell that I am very happy this whole community has JollyGood on board. He is upright, strict, and does what he does with integrity and consistency. Hence, I do support his decision to leave the red tag.

Edit: Ah, Royse even lied about the dinner. Missed that part.  Well, I leave there what I said, but lying about it is nasty. Even if some of us agree that it might not have influenced everyone with their decisions, but why the heck lie about it? Clearly malicious intent then... :( Even if a lie were not to lead to the desired outcome, the intention associated with it says a lot. A bad plan that fails doesn't make it a negligible action by that person because of that failure.

Clearly his employer does not think the same.
It's clear that they do not know his history as much as we do. So they panicked. Add some overzealous people and imagine the affects in their mind.  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403493.msg60412747#msg60412747)


I think we need to be a little more careful before we say anything carelessly. It’s a lot easier to say many things without being a part of the event that did not go well. You hear a story, take it, think it, add your thoughts in it and then you tell it in a better form depending on how you processed it.

I am assuming you haven't read everything very well. Many people don’t, they do not give time to understand a situation but leave a post with the words they are comfortable with. As far as I can see their communication channel is telegram, conducted many meetings and had voice communication. It is also very clear that they do not live in the same place. Where did you get that dinner date in person? I want to know what I am reading is wrong.

"I was not stressing for my money but stressing for staff and customers withdrawals. This was important for me more than anything." (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.0)
Not just it, many times he was talking about staff and withdrawal. If he was selfish he would push his first before anything else.

That's my point too. With all due respect, a few people are taking it as a chance to proof something from it so it benefits their own interest. After all one is down means several have the opportunity to fill up the empty space (hate it or love it).

Gotta agree with this. He for sure should have handled this situation much better, but was his intention to cheat anyone out of their money, or help someone doing that? I don't think so. So yeah, opposing the flag as well.

Yesterday, Royse777 moved from DT1 to DT2 (https://bpip.org/TrustLog). I assume he (she?) requested to be blacklisted.

With your reputation and influence, if you introduce me to a site to invest in and also assure me that the owner of the site is your boyhood friend, I will invest 100% without hesitation, because I doubt you would be stupid to introduce a scam site on the forum and if I end up being scammed, it will be on you LoyceV because of your huge influence.

If I am paid $20k for my work and the total amount scammed is less than $15k, I can easily pay from my own pocket to restore my reputation. I'm just giving an example. I can't confirm where he paid off, so please get me some information.


You could have asked nicely, you are too late to the show, I've been on this table from day 1.  ;D

That's stupid not the smartest thing to do! Did you also invest in [ANN][ICO]HoweyCoins: the only BitcoinTalk-endorsed ICO - GUARANTEED PROFIT (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3920469.0)? It's literally the only ICO endorsed by theymos!

Seriously though: this is exactly why people lose their money on Twitter when someone's account gets hacked again. They just hand it over the the scammers.
This is the internet. I wouldn't trust investment advice from professionals. After all, why would they need my money if they're that good? So don't trust random people on the internet.

I don't think the campaign manager's profit margins are anywhere near those numbers.

Hanging out together in a chat, I assume?

He didn't cheat anyone imo, he's pretty much a victim himself, I'd agree he was naive and probably waited too long to pull the plug, however, I still believe if he had just come out as the campaign manager without saying that he was close to the owner/co-owner most of the victim would have joined any ways, none of the victim I've seen so far are close to Royse in the forum, so I'm not so sure how his statement were the main deciding factor for their action to bet on the site. Royse is not just as guilty as any manger that have promoted an ICO that turned out to be a scam, but also very every bounty participant that joined and influenced via the social media accounts, articles and/or video reviews.

The flag says:

By my interpretation of the above statement, that's not true. I'll be opposing the flag.


Come on man! He didn't come short or failed at his role as a campaign manager or marketer, if there were many users as victims shouldn't that means he did a good job or his influential, ironically ? ..

What happened is not good for his reputation and, he should have known better given how long he's been in this sphere and how many scam casinos/bookies have come and gone on this forum so I wouldn't blame UniJoin for calling it quits with him, yes because most people will be cautious of using any service he's representing or introducing to the forum henceforth.

I am not that much into English law, but there are certain categories:

1) Intent
2) Gross negligence
3) Light negligence
4) The classic "Ignorance is no excuse" (which is kind of a variation of 2) / 3) )

Given how this all enfolded from a time perspective, when warnings were received and responded to, I'd say that one of these categories probably applies. The only one that involves clear intent is obviously 1). 2) - 4) do not involve intent, but guess what happens at court: you get punished regardless. The only difference being is the severeness of the judgment against one. What also counts I'd say is the actual amount lost, obviously. So saying "There was no intention so who cares" just doesn't sound right to me. However, it also doesn't seem to be right that Royse can't make up for the mistake. Surely, there must be a fair way back to the pre-incident status quo, that's no question to me.

I really think it is important to know how much was actually lost and whether is realistic for that money to be paid back, even if over time. Or at least if the parties make deals that both sides can agree on. Now another problem is that, reading from some comment here, even balances went missing and that means winnings are essentially lost while deposits must be proven. It is not an easy process I guess, but open dialogue with the victims and a public explanation by all parties involved that a solution is under way, I guess red tags could carefully be reconsidered. As long as there are victims who prove they are still left behind, in my opinion red tags should prevail. I am even sorry to say that, and I am open to criticism regarding my statements here. But I think it is only fair also to those people who are new to the forum and do not know him as well. That is what the trust system is for: give them a fair chance to make a reasonable judgment whom to trust and whom not.


Edit: Sorry, but this just came to my mind in a certain way and I would like to add it.

We all too much argue from the perspective of forum reputation. If we make forum reputation the base principle of how the forum is governed and the trust system is applied, we run into a lot of problems. I'll elaborate on that in a second. If we have a sort of "rule by law" approach (and I know our pseudonyms here are neither lawyers nor judges), it makes much more sense.
If we go with the first approach, merits and trust could also turn out to be dangerous. Why would someone not abuse merit and trust if the forum demonstrated that you can get away with it exactly because of your awesome scores? Also, if someone is new to the forum and runs into a "Royse-like" situation, but with a less trusted or less-known manager, and the person opens a scam accusation thread. What would happen? Usually, most here would say "how stupid can you be, trusting a bounty manager with zero trust and low merit score?". And then the person responds "well I found this thread with this super high trust manager and I could have lost my money the same way I did with the low score manager, no?".

I always understood the merit and trust score as an asset to the person owning it. The person can decide whether to put that merit and trust score on the line whenever he or she wants. Royse chooses to put it on the line, Loyce decides against it. Both have their reasons. But when that score is put on the line because one engages in an activity for whatever incentive there is, shouldn't that person also be held liable for any damage others incur?

That is why I think the example one brought up here with the $50,000 that went lost is a good one. A red tag should have been given. Or let's say the lending market: someone with super high scores receives collateral and the money that someone borrowed is paid back in time according to the rules. Now out of a sudden the lender says the private key to the collateral is lost. Well, what are the options? Pay from own money or get red tagged, no matter what the trust score is. Perhaps it was true. The lender writes a three pages long outstandingly convincing explanation. Totally crazy story and it must be true. But the victim doesn't get paid. What would we say? In my opinion there can't be any doubt that it is a red tag unless there is a reimbursement at some point in time to which both parties agreed upon.


I also want to say this thread is hopefully not perceived as a hostile argument between some or all of us. I like reading your opinions and I think it is for the better of this forum if everyone pitches in. Might help for the forum to have a solution if these things happen again in the future.

Cheers for now! ;)

It's human nature; we've been like this since the beginning. There were men who were willing to die for Donald Trump when he lost the election; people do crazy things. Every year, members of Christ Embassy Church donate their January salary to their pastor (Pst. Chris). Humans were designed to make stupid decisions.

Anyway, how did the infamous thymos ICO go? Everyone became a billionaire, I suppose. ;D

Being a marketing director and a co-partner?  Should pay more.

Sounds more like a pizza date to me  ;D

The first rule of marketing is to know what you're selling! Something that everyone should understand.

Royse777 should head up and prove everyone of us wrong, he can.

How do you do that? I've had a look at the link and it seems to me that she has distrusted usually trusted people and the other way around. So people will exclude her. Is that it? Is this something usual? It seems kind of weird to me.

Ask theymos to blacklist you.

That's mainly because of the way BPIP (https://bpip.org/TrustLog) works:
Royse777 was removed from DT1. After that, BPIP doesn't see who he (she) trusts anymore, and shows them as if Royse777 removed all of them.

I give Royse777 the benefit of doubt as far as I do not feel they set out to scam anyone. That fact alone changed my negative to a neutral. If I feel there was intent, my negative stays forever.

I still support the flag because I feel money is owed.

This statement from Royse777 themselves makes me feel that Royse777 is liable for any money owed, the same as the CEO. If Royse777 was strictly acting as a campaign manager and stopped promoting when he thought the company was a scam, then all is forgiven and life goes on. That's clearly not the case, Royse took ownership of any and all debts when agreeing to be a partner no matter how big or small a partner.

If all debts are settled or agreements are reached I have no problem removing support for the flag. I really cannot disagree with any who still have a negative on Royse at this point, but since I feel there wasn't intent to scam on the part of Royse777 I will keep my tag neutral.

As far as Royse still managing, I'm not against the user earning money because once again, they didn't have the intent to scam. It's up to potential clients as to whether or not they wanna hire Royse777. I do feel that maybe escrow might be an option for payments while money is owed, but that's not my call.

Generally, I agree with everything yahoo62278 said, and that is why I still support the flag. I mainly resent Royse777 for failing to alert the community when he had a clear knowledge that BitLucy intended to scam. As a matter of fact, he hasn't done so to this day, despite the information presented in this topic.

There might be some who haven't seen this, so I'll repost it again.


I know it's a long read, but I think it's worth reading. The juiciest part of it, of course, comes at the end. I'd love to see your comments on this because I think this vividly describes how a sweet-talking scammer "handles" his victims. The fact that Royse777 commented on the post, and didn't dispute the information presented, raises the question of why he continued to promote the casino for over a month after that.

Owed by whom Royse777 or "Lucy" the CEO ?

DT have become a game without ethics.

Opposing the flag, by looking at some biased DTs here who can't even see through a simple situation of an innocent person being trapped.

---

Fully agree with you, on users acting as crabs here.

Go ahead and oppose, that's your choice. I don't see where I am biased? Royse took on a partnership role, not campaign manager. When he does that, he/she is now responsible for the casinos actions IMO. Now, Royse has the choice to make the gamblers who have a complaint whole, or run off. Then, take the CEO to court to be repaid of seek criminal charges.

It's no different then robbing a bank. If we are walking down the road and go into a bank, and I rob it and we go home, if you don't turn me in you are considered an accomplice and guilty according to the law.

As an added note, I have not been managing any campaigns lately and I am not gaining anything here with my opinion. I am not making this a personal attack for my gain.

1. Royse was told that he would get 10% of the revenue as salary.. What are you all considering the extent of this whole “partner” thing to be?
If the casino was to be sold outright, would Royse have been entitled to 10% of the sale proceeds?
Did Royse have full access to the backend even? Could he have saw bad balance or fishy transactions?

2. Let’s say I go to work for a company that is coming out with a new car..
You can preorder these cars for a deposit..
My job is to advertise these..
The owner/CEO embezzles all the money from the deposits and disappears..
Do I go to jail? No..
Do I get sued personally? No..
The company is what gets sued/liquidated, and only the guilty employee/party goes to jail..


I would like to see this lie about them going out to dinner..

What am I looking for in that long ass chat log where Royse did not refute it being called a scam or something?




Well, except for Lightlord campaigns.. Some of the longest running on the forum..

Both are valid points. I haven't voted on the Flag because there are arguments for both sides.

---

---

When, after the disaster, I asked someone IRL why he didn't tell me about his financial problems instead of creating a web of lies, he said it was because he's ashamed. It gave me a "fake it till you make it" feeling, and I still think that's what "Lucy" was hoping for.

I didn't expect this case is more complicated than I thought, many users have different perspective they look into this case. I think right now, it's a best for me to withdraw my support opinion since it's on grey area where it can't be said Royse777 either wrong or right. It doesn't mean I run away from this case, but I give more time for Royse777 to taking care this case especially the refund to 4 customers has been said by him before.

If it's too long and I don't see anything change, I will support the flag. If there's an activity where he already refund to the 4 customers, I would oppose the flag. I think this is the most correct in this situation.

Apology if that offended you. Being with it from the day 1 does not guarantee you are well informed. Hanging out does not mean that it was a dinner date in person. Bad choice of words to make the situation convincing for your argument. Process information without adding your imagination.

Disclaimer: I had access of some information that I was able to verify.

I see where is the problem. I expect Liverpool to win all their matches. I consider them unbeatable. Only in EPL, in a season they play 38 matches. I expect them to win all. Because I am a crazy fan. The expectation from Liverpool is so high to me that when they lose an ordinary match which is not gonna effect their point table at all, I feel upset. But when they lose an important match that cost them the title race, I feel devastated. I feel good by blaming each of the players on the ground to everyone relating to the club. Do I consider the pain that the players feel? They give their blood and sweat to win a match. Each of them are world class. I don't consider the hours they give to be in a match, I do not see the sacrifice they make to stay fit and be the footballer. All I have the result of the day. I don't know how appropriate this example was but I have a point.

Royse paid many users and worked with many projects. He organized many pools and non-profit events including a charity. None of them seem to go wrong. With the reputation he had, he could have easily collected money from many users with any excuse. Create a fake project, walk away with the funds. He could easily do that. You don't know when was the right time for him to pull the plug, you were not in his shoes. Lower your expectation. It's a person with flesh and blood. No saint.

I don't believe Royse should display a flag of high-risk. The system does not fit the explanation. I am opposing the flag.

Why not just say: me and my friend, we wanted to do an online business, it seems the bonus money offer was way too much, someone won big, we couldn't afford to pay so now I am saving whatever is left to be saved from our reputation. You are not the only one who tried to create a business and failed, rest assure, without failure you can't prospère. I mean of course you had to pay the users with your own money, you were part of the project, part of the team. Do you want us to make a pool to reimburse on your mistake?
Acting like a victim is lame.  ???

Well, you must understand, another day another scam from the « trusted » members of this forum. Verdict: you can scam people here and keep your job, your trust score is still ok. Not the first time. I myself got a taste of this yet the scammer is still going perfectly fine on this forum, trust score untouched.  When someone is caught in a lie and a scam is involved, the trust score founder will tell you « this doesn’t change anything, you must understand there’s 2 sides of the story: the scammer’s side and the victim’s side, so let’s stay neutral and continue our scam business » So lying is ok, scamming a bit less but it’s ok since you didn’t mean to do it right? Of course not. Poor scammer.

But until some of the responsibles here or their bosses get to pay the real price of their criminal activities, some way or the other, nothing will change.

This is a tricky decision to make because even if Royse777 covers the losses will her reputation ever recover?

If salvaging reputation is the driving factors behind the decision to make victims whole again then Royse777 might have to make decisions which could impact her financially for a very long time as she tried to make victims whole again but even with that noble thought pattern does it negate the negligence that occurred in the bitlucy scam?

I think Royse777 should think very carefully about whether she is doing the right thing by trying to make victims whole but that decision is for her to make and she should be ready for the fact that her reputation will probably take years to recover regardless of the course of action she employs.

Thankfully the number of victims does not seem to be huge otherwise the amounts being mentioned by victims would be running at astronomical levels.

All those that support the retraction of the flag or support the revision of negative tags to neutral (or even having them removed) are well within their right to feel so but those that think the flag should be supported (and that negative trust should be applied) are also within their right to do what they think and follow the course of action they feel is the best way forward in this situation.

By not pulling the plug earlier or by allowing users to deposit funds when the warning signs were bright red is not a small issue, it is a very big issue and by using previous conduct by Royse777 as mitigation is something I am not allowing to cloud my perspective.

I have taken a decision to keep support for the flag and also to not revise nor remove the negative feedback I left. The way I see things are that Royse777 has been grossly negligent on several fronts and in the capacity of being a campaign manager there is added responsibility that comes with the job.

It must hurt Royse777 financially though to lose incoming funds when trying to make victims whole again but it is understandable for Unijoin to have taken that stance, it is hard to fault them to associate with Royse777 as their own reputation is at stake.

You probably already know this by now, from this experience, but to everyone else, I will tell you from my own experience, Do Not Attempt To Launch A Casino By Yourself!

Casinos must be ran similar to responsible companies. Contrary to popular thinking, casinos have thin margins of profit, because their entire revenue depends on people losing the games in the long run!

So, if enough users do not use the site, or the crypto prices suddenly crash (it can be mitigated somewhat by converting the cold wallet storage to USDT, or USD in a bank, but the hot wallet must always be replenished at all times), you will run out of cash to pay users.

Also, crypto casinos in particular get abused by multi-accounters with no mercy, so if you cannot afford sophisticated, state-of-the-art blockchain fraud detection then you will be robbed by your own users.

In summary, if any of the below are not true:
1) You have incorporated the casino to avoid personal liability of debt payments
2) You have institutional lenders willing to loan your casino money (wealthy individuals do not count)
3) You have already installed blockchain fraud and DDoS/malware protection for your backend
4) You have enough reserves in hand to pay your staff and the hot wallet for at least 6 months in case of an emergency

Then DO NOT LAUNCH A CASINO for your own sanity' sake.

---

I do not believe that Royse777 had any negligent intentions when associating with the BitLucy owner, so I have opposed the flag (it would be better warranted on BitLucy the owner himself for not having enough funds to run a sustainable financial operation).

---

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I should probably suppliment the fake investor warning sticky thread in scam accusations to include warnings against this type of scam involving casinos.

I imagine that with the flourishing gambling industry in the world of cryptocurrencies and as can be seen in this forum, there are those who think that setting up a casino is relatively easy.


Interesting. I would add some betting limit so that a Whale doesn't break the bank, although I don't know if they all do it by default.

The thing is that once launched, if you manage to operate avoiding the mentioned problems, online casinos are money making machines.

So, we could think that in the case of Bitlucy the owner had no idea of scam from the beginning, but that what happened was due to bad management and unprofessionalism? I remember that Royse777 mentioned the abuse of the no deposit bonus and that the events coincided with the recent drop in the price of Bitcoin.

Anyway, the owner is also liable for negligence.

The bonus was 7 euro free bet for 777 users (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.0). That's 5439 euro, minus the house edge because of wagering requirements. Even if it's abused, a few thousand euro shouldn't be a problem for any casino. Unless there's literally no money.

Most of them have around a $10000 betting limit and maximum winning caps in 5 digits for each cryptocurrency. The issues come when the casinos only have a backroll in 6 digits, or even worse, in 5 digits only.

At minimum you need $1 million dollars inside your bankroll at all times (sites with thousands of active users should have at least $10 million) , whether it comes from investors, or old coins which have suddenly become valuable.

So what I think is that the excuse was bullshit, because with the wagering requirements, I think it would be less than few thousand euros, no matter how much abuse there was, and if you make a promotion like that you have to have it backed with funds.

Surely they were very short of bankroll, seeing the amounts that NotATether mentions, who seems to know well how the subject goes.

This statement is 100% correct. Royse777 is 100% responsible for the consequences. Do not believe all the shit about his friend is the ceo. Royse is the man behind the project.
Pretty strange that some people changed their tag to neutral. The victims must be paid. Not only begin refunded, pay all their innings.

Can you prove this or is this just bullshit spewing from your mouth? By all means, if you have proof the Royse777 story is bullshit, then share with the rest of us.

I changed my tag to a neutral because I don't think Royse set out to screw anyone, but at the same time I feel they are responsible for some of the players that couldn't withdraw. Everyone doesn't agree with that, and that's ok.

Now, if you really have proof that the story is bullshit and Royse is 100% the owner/operator of the casino then i'm sure some opinions will change for the worse against Royse. If you don't have proof then quit running your mouth and move on to a different thread.

We both know that all the bounty exploiters who got caught have here the opportunity to hit Royse777 while he/she's down.
It's inevitable.

Asking them about proof to show they're bullshitting is a good approach. Just make sure you don't find yourself caught in fighting the windmills ;)

Indeed, as I very nearly experienced Royse's fate by almost lauching a similar project at someone's request on Telegram last year (it was never finished, because the developers deserted it).
And actually, there was a second casino for which I was recruited for development work via Discord, but as a small group of 3, they did not have any work to give me so I sat idly by watching the development. A few days before its abandonment, the would-be owner compulsive-gambled away the entire bankroll and doomed the project! So this serves to teach you that some casino founders/owners are irresponsible, so watch out for them.
And I'm never going to make that mistake again.

What you say sounds very harsh but to some degree there are aspects which I cannot blame you for wanting to believe but that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Allow others to disagree with it.

If memory serves correct, I recall a thread where you were looking for either partners or investors because you were creating a casino or a casino type of website from scratch. Did you decide to cancel the idea or is it something that is still in the pipeline?

What evidence do you have that Royse777 is the main protagonist here?

I have seen others refer to Royse777 as 'she' therefore I started doing that too. As far as I am aware (and only from what I have read), she was employed as a signature campaign manager but that branched out in to too many aspects of the company/website and far more involved. That was when things went wrong for her. There is nothing to suggest Royse777 set out to scam users.

I would love to see an update by her/him (whatever, I didn't know she was a girl and I see that everyone calls her that)
here were some promises to come to partial payment or at least the payment of the deposit for some users. whether there is any shift in these cases?

I also believe that Royse did not embark on all this with the intention of deceiving anyone, but I'm not sure why the "original" starter of Bitlucy is still protected. The apparent fraudster remains unknown to us, or to wait for him in a new business under a new name?

Oh, My dear!

A lot of drama already happened with Royse777. This will be a lesson for Royse777 and other campaign managers too. I believe Royse777 doesn't have bad intentions, but he/she was tricked. I don't know if it will be possible to recover his/her reputation. But, As he/she promised to pay the users out of his/her own pockets. I believe DT members have no reason to keep the red tag and flag support. Let's see where it ends up. But, I am feeling sad for Royse777. You were making enough already.

Well, this is basically my view on this as well, and I'm probably missing something here... If Royse could shed a little light on it, that would be great. The mystery, as far as I see it, remains: what really happened with BitLucy, and who was behind it?

In all honesty, we have no proof that the person behind Bitlucy is the same person behind Royse777's account. But, if Royse777 was a front for a scam, why is the original scammer still protected by Royse777? In fact, despite Royse claiming to be a victim of Bitlucy, we still haven't seen screenshots or chat logs between him/her and the BitLucy CEO (like the one posted by teyttrs (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60053921#msg60053921)) to prove anything to us.

Anyway, this also makes me believe that there is more to the story than we may realize. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure what exactly happened, but I don't like the way things were handled and all that secrecy. If I were Royse777, I would opt for full disclosure and post all the information I have about BitLucy in the Scam Accusations or Investigations child boards. For the sake of Royse's reputation, I think it's important to hear the reality on the ground in terms of what actually happened, as well as how he feels about it.

He already explained what was happened and how. Please read his full post carefully. I don't know what else do you expect from him? What else can Royse provide? Sharing Lucy's Bank account? Social media account? Conversation screenshots? He already explained his feeling about what happened, and he already promised to pay users out of his own pocket. I am not sure if it will help him restore his reputation. Good Luck Royse777.

Sharing forum PMs is a big no-go, even when it's about bad shit. There's always someone going to complain that it should remain private. I don't see why chat logs would be any different.

I don't see it that way. Sharing PMs and chat logs as evidence in trades that go wrong or disputes between peers has been the norm for some time. ^{[One smart guy even created a bot (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5386000.0) to publish PMs automatically. ]}   :D

Anyway, as I said, this is something that I would probably do in such a situation if my reputation were at stake. Royes777 must decide for himself in this situation. Of course, any private information can be easily censored.

Hey guys, would you give Royse a break please?
He sent his private chat conversations to me and to few other DT members from forum (including LoyceV), so I don't think he should post all that stuff in public.
From what I saw (and you don't have to believe me), it's obvious that he was having conversations with some people from Bitlucy, but he was not really in charge of anything.
Those fake claims posted by some members saying that he is the owner behind this are just bs.
I am not defending anyone, but give Royse some time to recover from this situation.

Oh wow, he sent his private conversations? really? So what? Stop defending scammers.

The most laughable part is that his account (@Royse777) is here since 2014, then all of a sudden in 2022 a scam comes out with 7 euros bonus for 777 users, then he lies about meeting the owner of the scam casino Bitlucy, then he ignores all of the warning signs, and of course, we can rest assured that he just didn't pay attention that he was promoting a scam, and 100% certain he's not the owner, and his trust score must stay positive.

This is purely and simply scam activity being encouraged in a scammers place. Just another scam like FortuneJack. Some are less selective than others, but they're all scams.

not everyone knows what really happened but I'm sure royse777 is the victim in bitlucy's case. I don't know him but I'm sure someone which spending his personal money (he runs a signature and avatar campaign to spread his services across forums) to enhance the reputation that has been built over the years is a person who can be trusted.

I find it ironic that Royse777 is still more trustworthy than the members who's red-tags remains on his trust wall.  I would have no reservations about engaging in a trade deal with him.

It's also strange that this is still an issue for some; the guy made a mistake and admitted it.  We all make mistakes, and I'm far more likely to trust those who take accountability than those who keep bashing someone after admitting his mistake.

There's really no reason not to believe you. I did say that I might be missing something here. Apparently, I was unaware that he had private communications with some DT members and that he shared more information with you. I apologize if it was mentioned somewhere and I overlooked it.

And who paid for that mistake?

I doubt you. Your history does not tell that you have raised in a good family not at least when I find you are overzealous towards others. You are not helping anyone but trying to satisfy your dump brain with baseless shitposting. You did not raise well, sorry.

What is your fight here?
Trust system, some members you do not like, wanted to exploit a casino but it did not work. Which one?

Attention.  It's how trolls get their nourishment.  Just ignore him, and he'll wither away eventually and become forgotten like the many before him.  Besides, responding to him here is just driving this thread further and further off topic.

I think what you said is particularly effective when the word reputation comes in to play as it does in this case: Royse777 reputation

If any member of the forum was in a situation such as this, they should try to post as much evidence as possible to show they were innocent (or post enough evidence to demonstrate they were at the very least culpable by minimal involvement because they were not involved in the technical, financial decision making and business side of running the website).

What breach of what code takes place when a scam is involved? Once a scam has taken place there is no need for anybody to withhold PMs unless there is sensitive information stated within them but still can be redacted before making it public. If I was scammed by someone in this forum which resulted in losses to third parties that put their trust in me, I would do exactly what you just stated FatFork, I would publish the PMs trying to explain to the wider forum what happened because it would not be unethical to post them in those circumstances.

Regarding other comments here about PMs, I do not know why Royse777 or any other member in her situation would release PMs to a select few members and not the whole forum after such a big debacle but there might be important factors behind it. Having said that, when it comes to things such as these, personally I am highly sceptical by nature and am not easily convinced nor impressed. As I said, maybe there were important thing Royse77 wanted to keep away from a wider audience but why show it to a select few and what was to gain from hiding it from the rest of the community?

I can see several members here that have been highly critical of Royse777 and have very little sympathy for her because of the manner in which she conducted herself in this Bitlucy drama therefore what was the reason she decided to not send identical PMs to those members? Or better still, why not post identical information openly in the forum?

As for those that seem to be claiming the Royse777 and Bitlucy relationship was far more than has been stated, I would say that I still have seen zero evidence to suggest that Royse777 intended to scam therefore I disagree with the conspiracy theorists who probably have their own agenda to make those claims against her... but by making certain members privy to certain information is something that makes this drama look even more of a mess than it already is and that sort of behaviour something I would never advocate.

Give the PMs to Jolly..

Let’s see what he says..

There are a lot of issues with this statement:
1-You don't have to have evidence for everything, except maybe for when sending someone to prison or death penalty. Some things you'll just have to assume. It is very clear, at best, that Royse777 knew that those who trusted him were very much likely to get scammed, and he did not do anything because he also knew that this wouldn't affect his job on this forum.

2-The trust score, as it is being advertised, is supposed to evaluate the trade risk, not if the person is intentionally scamming or not. So this must also include if someone is stupid enough to get you scammed.

3-PM are not proof of anything. He could have prepared this beforehand and was conversing with himself just to show it after the scam.


So if this was a place that is supposed to not encourage scams, there shouldn't be any need to keep people like Royse777 and let them ride with a high trust score.


He doesn't have to. His trust score is already restored and he's continuing business as usual.
By the way, are you also @SatSnatcher? You both finish sentences with 2 points

It's been cancelled since January even though I only locked that thread last week, not only because of the developers but I had to leave the project for personal reasons (I was not the owner, only a former associate of him).

It looked as though we were very busy last year - and we were - with many aspects such as support and advertising, but ultimately the project was running late and could not be finished, so everything just fizzled out.

Im not going to defend one Sid ein this conflict since I am not really that educated about all the details. But I have seen many campaigns of Royse777 and if you start to assume that he knew of the scam, than you have to also ask the question: What is the benefit for Royse777 in this whole situation?
-It is possible that he was payed an amount of money that was so high that he decided to just do it (unlikely, since then he would just leave the forum/create a new account)

And what is the negative impact on him if he intentionally scammed?
-His reputation would be completely destroyed
-He would not be able to have a steady source of income in this forum again, only maybe the one time benefit of a high payment for the scam
-Possibly legal actions against him

If you consider this it is not very likely that he was aware of the scam, since he had way more to loose than to win. Still with his reputation he should have chosen a better advertising partner or at least have enough funds as escrow to pay for the campaign. With this in mind I think I will have a lot less trust in him as a campaign manager but not any less trust in him as a person on the forum.

;D

What would I say and what impact would my say-so have on the current situation?

To be honest with you eddie, there is an unhelpful movement within the forum where some members who find themselves in certain situations decide to use the PM route for their own particular agenda. I am unsure what Royse777 would gain from showing PMs to certain members in order to demonstrate (using an unknown barometer), that she was not a scammer amongst other things. For example, if several forum members registered to play at a website that I was promoting and things went completely pear-shaped, what good would it do to the community if you and several others stated you had seen various PMs from me and were advocating I was not a scammer? Likewise, what good would it do to the community if after receiving the PMs you and several other members decided to not comment at all or to state the PMs were doctored?

Royse777 would probably not even consider sending me the PMs probably because I am one to extensively analyse various bits of information and maybe because I am known to have very little sympathy towards those who should know better. Keeping that aside, we have not always seen eye to eye and have had issues in the past. I recently removed her from my exclusion list only to re-add her a short time later because of the Bitlucy drama.

Even now to this point there is some degree of sympathy for her because of the situation she finds herself in but after reading the scam allegation thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402179.0) and the come clean thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.0), has everything really been said and done? It seems as though several facts and vital bits of information are not being put in the public domain by Royse777.

Returning to what you said about me being sent the PMs... I doubt I will be sent any of the private correspondence (between Bitlucy and Royse777) to peruse.

I think we should agree to disagree on the issue of you saying not having evidence can suffice in almost every case. In general, some evidence is needed before a serious conclusion can be made but I am inclined to partly agree with you when you say that Royse777 did know users were likely to get scammed and nothing for a period of time. In my own opinion that period of time (the interim of being aware users would most probably lose financially and her actually saying so and taking action) cannot be mitigated at all...  but others disagree with my view and they have just as much right to their opinion as I have a right to mine.

As for the trade-risk comment you made, I broadly agree with it but with my own perspective added for consideration that is why I left the negative tag. In my opinion the flag should have stayed, I supported it along with others yet on the other hand others opposed it. The one who created the flag decided to withdraw it (as he was well within his rights to do so) but each member has their opinion how to conduct themselves in this highly unusual set of circumstances: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366632;page=iflags

Your final comment about PMs should not be specific to Royse777 but could be applied generally to any form of issue where evidence or communication was presented. From what I understand the situation to be (based on what I have read), I am fairly certain you are wrong because Royse777 was not sending PMs to herself using multiple accounts in order to use as a defence if/when a scam was to ever take place. On the contrary, it seems fairly clear she was duped in to participating in the Bitlucy facade but questions about the full extent of her involvement in the business and the extent of the relationship between her and the Bitlucy owner - are open to debate because she has not made all the details public.

Out of curiosity, how much of the decision to pull the plug on the project was down to there being dwindling finances?

Well, I have to say from what I recall you seem very talented in your code related tips, advice, comments and contributions in the forum therefore how much of the project not proceeding was simply a side effect because you were no longer a part of it? I would not be surprised if you were carrying the bulk of the workload which resulted in you being the main catalyst therefore that probably played a massive part.

I hope in the near future your skills will be put to good use in a different project where your talents will be showcased to their maximum potential.

1. You could say if their is a good reason not to publicly release them, such as if they include doxes of the innocent or also private information..

2. I know you are extremely strict and “analyze small details”..
Their would be a lot to tell from your understanding of the events..
If you came out with an unchanged opinion I could tell that their is nothing damning in there, though I also wouldn’t expect you to get the feels for their struggle much..
On the other hand if it improved your opinion it would mean quite a lot, because I believe that would be quite the achievement.. You are obviously not biased in their favor..

I trust your judgement quite well, but at the same time think your overly harsh at times..

And I like Royse quite a lot for some of their other traits that have nothing to do with handling money or conducting business, other than their ethics their of..


Well, that doesn’t completely resolve it for me..
I’m not trying to decide to tag them or not, I’m trying to decide if my opinion of Royse should change or not..

Royse has impressed me a couple times in the past and they are one of my favorites.. If that should change I would much like to be aware..


Yes..
Good eye..

Lot of bullshit has been written bij Royse777. We should stay only to the facts.
Royse777 made the ANN post, which made him 100% liable. He must pay all the people that are scammed. Other information is not relevant.

Is that how it works? Lmao..

I know a LOT of people that owe a LOT of coin then..

Casino's and other businesses like to hire reputable members to post an announcement thread for them. They think it will help them, but in the long run, running a business legitimately is the only thing that really helps a casino or other. Usually I would advise a person to post a disclaimer if they are contacted for such a service, but even if they don't, they are not personally liable if the casino or other project scams participants. If a person is aware that a project is a scam, they should make an announcement and close the thread if they posted it.

The only thing that makes me feel Royse is responsible was announcing he/she was a partner. Taking that away and I would say Royse has 0 responsibility here. Bad judgement for sure. Even with saying hey I'm a partner, i'm still confused as to what level. Was royse responsible for making the day to day decisions? Was royse only being paid a small salary for their name to be attached? Was royse under the pretenses that they would get a portion of the profits monthly?

Now getting to all this pm business. Why wouldn't you want to post everything you have and make the story clear? Why wouldn't you want the opportunity to make your name clear? I don't agree with pm's being private at all in this situation. They can black out any info that they may deem personal or would have them doxxed.

It's all confusing to me as to why this is happening the way it is.

Of course Royse777 was the CEO, maybe the same share as his friend but he is not as innocent as he is trying to make everybody believe him.
I do not care at all about those so called DT members, everybody knows the DT trust system is a big joke and that sportsbet.io owns the forum. All these so called DT members are just some annoying trolls and they should have put back in the whole were they came out from.
Yes, I can say that the bitcointalk staff is also corrupt as they were trying to steal 0.5 BTC from me with a scam email!
Back to Royse the muppet.
If his interest in this project was so small, he would never made the ANN with his account. Does not make any sense.
The only reason he made the post is because it is his project, only then you could efford yourself to make the post, hoping it will generate a lot of money.
All his conversations were just simply photoshopped, as it is his last try to save his "reputation". Yes, if somebody made the post he is 100 liable, that is with every site.
Royse must solve all the accusations and make sure everybody gets paid.

Dear bitcointalk friends, colleague, competitors (sorry if this sounds bad but it is an unfold truth!)
I really find it stressful when a few are thinking what things I have to hide, why not I bring everything in public?

Yes, I have many reasons to conduct private. If this is not possible then limit it to a circle at least. It is very important for me not to publicize the blockchain transactions which will easily lead to the online services I use or the wallets I use frequently which even could take back to the main storage I have. Isn't all risky for me?

I didn't want other bitcointalk users to be in trouble who were as helpless as me in this situation. The faces a few of you already showed me, makes me think that sharing them even in private with some of you would be riskier for me, forget about being them in public. If I really need to black out or censor some sections then what is the point to share it at all.

Dear Yahoo and JollyGood, maybe privacy does not mean much to you but it matters for me. Looking at how you conduct your business, the theory and strategy you are applying to justify the case, it's not very good for someone to share private info to you, at-least not me.

It's dirty when you pretend to be a friend to benefit your business.

Sorry, I wanted to digest all blames on me but some of you were taking the opportunity to overdo it.

Let's start with blockchain transactions. I could care less about any address you might have had money sent to or sent from. Sounds like an excuse to me, but the blockchain is public, not private just in case you weren't aware. Regardless I have never asked for an address I don't believe. I'm also not asking for your home address( another thing I do not care to know).

What is being asked for is you to prove you are not the owner of the casino(which most of us do not believe you are), prove via conversations with this mystery person whom you are so good of friends with that you are innocent. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't want to prove that.

BTW I'm using no strategy here. 1 company contacted me due to your rep for a 1 week campaign. Don't get yourself in a mess and companies wouldn't wanna stop associating with you. I did not cause your mess so don't try to blame me for your mistakes.

You called yourself a partner, people lost money, I think you are lucky you aren't painted red by 50 users at this point. Most of us are trying to give you a chance to clear your name, but IMO you are letting anger get the best of you and not solving much of anything.

At least ask some of the users who worked with the owner. Even some of them already told in public that it was not me. I don't understand how you missed it if you are so much involved in the case or al least you feel you are.

Please don't. I am not asking for it to have your sympathy. Haven't you done your part yet?

Don't lecture me blockchain. I know very well how it works. When I connect an address known to me which I don't want in public then I don't. The moment I tell an address is mine know to everyone that it's mine.

I'd say 50%. Owner was going to launch with a reserve of just $10K in USDT, it was all he could muster. I was also going to contribute about $2K to the bankroll until my finances were hit with a really bad and completely unrelated scam last October [which I have since recovered from]. I was also managing $300/month worth of servers arranged in a K8s cluster that was supposed to host the backend.

This corresponded to a quite ugly (at the time) drop of the BTC price, and with the slow progress being made, it simply did not make sense to continue throwing bankroll money at infrastructure, and that's when I decided to pull the plug - at first by delaying the launch, as I genuinely thought the markets would recover. They did not, as we can all see, and actually since I withdrew they've gotten even worse.

And although I wasn't paid for my work - which is something I specifically negotiated with him to avoid straining the finances, and that I'd get a large share of the casino revenue - the owner ultimately could not pay for additional developers to save the project. Everyone was basically going to get a share of the revenue at launch, so no salaries bogging down the bankroll here. I get the impression that the owner was not wealthy (he told me this project was specifically to generate some wealth for him).


Sure, I was the main driving force of the project, but I was also the last one to leave it (not including the owner). I'm not Superman - there's only so much that I can do by myself. So that's why the project became crippled when developers suddenly started disappearing.


Thank you, I appreciate it.

The Michael Jordan quote about failure is relevant here. (And also for Royse as well.)

---

Anyway, Royse, I think that it is sufficient to publish excepts of your Telegram convos with the owner (screenshots are sufficient - no photo attachments, blockchain transactions, personal info etc - your username can be blacked out for privacy) to silence the critics here. That's what I'd do if people started accusing me about my gig. Of course, I also had blockchain transactions in the convo (I was not too close & comfortable with him - our business was strictly professional). Besides, trolls could claim that the blockchain transactions do not prove anything.

I wouldn't know how I can prove I'm not the owner of Bitlucy, so that's pretty much impossible for Royse777 too.

I concur. I think it's better to respond a bit more often here, even if it's just to say trolls like bislom (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60499205#msg60499205) (who's now on my Ignore list) are wrong.

I will not respond here again, it looks like you just want to get smug with me. Good luck with your ventures on the forum, make better decisions!!!!

I guess I can help a little bit.
@Royse777, I want to be anonymous in this forum. After this post, Only you, bitlucy owner, and another guy from this forum will know who am I. Please don't reveal me.

@yahoo62278 I was referred by a guy from this forum to Royse777. Bitlucy was looking for a Support Agent and I was looking for a job.
Since there is a question raised about Royse777 being the owner of Bitlucy or not, I can confirm that it doesn't look to me that he is the owner.
I was looking for a full conversation with Bitlucy owner and Royse777. But, I figured out either Royse777 or Bitlucy Owner Deleted the group and cleared the conversation. So I am unable to submit the full conversation. But, at that time, I took three screenshots to give to my current employer. That's all I have right now. After reading the conversation, You may decide something.


https://i.postimg.cc/W31K06RG/photo-2022-07-03-21-34-02.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/QMbwBYzN/photo-2022-07-03-21-34-20.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/N0YZjvpP/photo-2022-07-03-21-34-23.jpg

One From Personal Chat With Royse

https://i.postimg.cc/d3MxgMkB/Screenshot-1.png

Good, so this should mop all the skeptism about Royse not being the Bitlucy owner under the rug. Now can we all move on from this Shakespearean drama?

Royse the clown is still really believe his own lies? Notather only showed us now that he is an aky of royse or just a friend.

Royse told that he invested 3.2K from his own pocket. But wait, he did not know the guy well? He just send him a message and Royse decided to invest 3.2K to somebody with a website that he does not even know in real life? LOOOOOOOOL  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

He never pretended to be a friend and you don't know what happened with him taking over some of your campaigns, but I guess I could also ask him to prove how he got this latest job  :D
However, Royse I think you don't need to reply like this with counter attacks, it's much better to prove you are not owner with few telegram conversation screenshots.
One image speaks better than thousand words, and I have to say that you could handle this much better.

I think that JollyGood and Yahoo62278 are being a bit overzealous, especially Yahoo62278 who gave Royse a negative feedback just because he was not happy with answer he got from Royse.
Yahoo should read better what was written in this topic before, because I said that me and several of DT members read some of his private conversation, that is showing he is not the owner of Bitlucy, so no need to keep insisting so hard on that.
I have no idea why he keeps pushing so hard and it's not like his history of campaigns is perfect, or was it ok to promote Yobit and similar stuff ;)


Guys, we don't need manager wars in forum  :P

I did not show anything. All the evidence was posted here by @AnotherAlt.

It's Better not to respond to those trolls like this guy. LoyceV already put him on the ignoring list. You better follow LoyceV.
I know after this post, This troll will say I am also a friend of Royse777 or some of you.
But, I want to tell. I know Royse777 as a good campaign manager but never worked with Royse777 before.
I am still afraid because Royse777 is not my friend and I can get exposed by Royse anytime. I am just trying to tell the truth here.
I hope Royse will help me stay anonymous. Else, I have to quit this forum.

History of JollyGood matches very well for the side he took in this case too. JollyGood is out of question for me. A hundred dollar per week for few weeks was not going to change anything for me so there were no manager issue from me. But yahoo taken his notes on this.

I really do not understand yahoo's crying. Stretching anything is fine but it seems he will not be satisfied no matter how far the situation is stretched. Did he feel bad because I did not give him attention that why did I not share him whatever I shared with few users?
1st you were not in mind like there are many others.
2nd I wanted to share with the people who were already involved in the conversation and have good judgemental power.
3rd you did not achieve a level of trust that needed from you, sorry.
4th you did not ask nicely.

Question of me being the same guy as Bitlucy?
1. This (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402179.msg60383131#msg60383131) does not make sense. The campaign manager is a liar? Yahoo even merited the post. Okay considering he did not read the post.
2. dkbit98 is confirming.
3. A confirmation here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60421775#msg60421775).
4. Another user confirmed somewhere.
5. Another one here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60500779#msg60500779).
6. He could ask the designer I mentioned in the OP (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.0).

It seems he does not want to accept anything at all.

Ta-ta!
Your good luck sounds go to hell to me but thank you.
However, right now it's not clear who is to get smug with who, not at least after the tag (https://i.ibb.co/b3zcwQX/Screenshot-2.png) you left which sounds retaliatory. Getting suggestion or advice of making better decision from you really does not make much meaning for me considering the history you have to protect your employer in the past. Are you asking the card you played, I should have played similar card? Sorry I do not play dirty. I like to play real as much as humanly possible.

Your secrets are safe with me as I sent PM earlier to assure you. I appreciate your courage. Thank you.
It was me who deleted the chat because that group was temporary to only have the group conversation between three of us. We conducted many recruiting and with all of them there were similar temporary groups which were deleted after successful or unsuccessful hire.

If you are privacy concerned then it's not easy for you to make everything public. I have given some reasons (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.0) already. We make mistakes but the privacy is more important than the reputation I have. I hope you understand it.

It seems now started personal attacking,,  :)

So, nowadays people can scam forum members without having any forum account, lol.

The person who wanted to spend ~$10K on Bitcointalk, without having any forum account or website, At a certain period claimed Bitcointalk is a hostile place and decided to cut all connections,, lol.

Curious mind wants to know if Lucy ^{[the mysterious guy]} is watching these fights !!

If the guy is someone from bitcointalk and used Royse777's reputation by tricking him (which is the case here I think, Lucy used Royse777 reputation as face value), he is definitely watching all these. However, that's not the case here, that's not the purpose of this thread either.

Bitlucy has a forum accoun (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3470990)t that was created by them a few weeks ago I think. Why do you think they don't have a website? As Royse said, The Lucy guy created the website and came back to Royse with the link.


Thank you very much. TBH I didn't look for the group anymore when I saw there was a lot of drama happening on Bitcointalk. Thanks for the explanation.

Looks like something's gone wrong between some members in this thread. There has been a polarization, with some attacking on a personal level, which I think is wrong and not the topic of the discussion.
Royse, I understand your defensiveness, but I believe there are still some unanswered questions about your relationship with BitLucy owner and why you promoted his business so long despite its obvious red flags from the beginning. As dkbit98 pointed out, you don't need to reply like this with counterattacks, but rather with evidence and facts. This thread isn't about JollyGood, or yahoo62278, or any other member of this forum; rather, it's about your involvement in the BitLucy case, so there's really no point discussing their history. You did the same thing here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402179.msg60335332#msg60335332) when the accusations against the casino started piling up.

Unfortunately for Royse, he/she lost more than 1 campaign due to this.

It really looks like someone is making sure that businesses who hire Royse are well aware of his reputation and of his negative trust comments, which is why he's losing jobs.
I'm not taking sides here, just stating the facts.


In business there's rarely any friends, only friends with benefits ;D

Haha I am a troll. But this "troll" was right from the beginning. I already warned people how things will end up and royse777 and his site is a scam project.
AnotherAlt = Royse777 and LoyceV+Notether are probably Royse or a friend as well.
Time for Royse777 to stop the shit talk and pay the victims that he scammed

Yeah. It is quite strange that some people sympathize with Royse777, who has been promoting scammers for months. It's like he's the victim not guys who trusted him. It was clear from the start that bitlucy would take any excuse not to pay but Royse777 was fine with all the red flags.

You just blew what little credibility you had.

That you were right that the Bitlucy story was going to end badly is probably due to pure chance, like the monkey throwing darts and hitting the stock market. You probably can't see Royse777 because he tagged you for being a bounty cheather or member of 1xCrap on your other account, and everything you have said so far was wishful thinking, which in the case of Bitlucy, by chance has coincided with what has happened in the end.

I dont need any credits on this forum. i am here to warn people about Royse777 that he is a scammer and that the forum DT is a big joke with conspiracy.
Still a lot of talking, but right now the ony thing that royse is doing is trying to get away with his scam project, while he is liable for the losses and he should pay the victims.
If another person would have made the posts, he would surely already received -20 at least. And because royse is a fake DT member people spare him. JOKE
Time to pay the victims, you fucking scammer royse

Yes that has been raised several times by members but I doubt the intended effect was to cause you stress.

Probably yes, it could be risky for you to publicise various addresses you use if the intended aim is to maintain privacy. You stating it is important for you to not publicise the blockchain transactions for reasons you stated, though understandable from a certain perspective related to your privacy, it does not satisfy or bring closure to all interested parties.

But it appears you did share information related to Bitlucy and your relationship with it, within a closed circle but did not share widely in public threads. Whether your PMs included blockchain transactional details is not known to those excluded from the PM circle but what brings confusion is you wanting to not publicise blockchain transactions yet you stating if you really needed to censor sections there would be no point to share in the first place. Strange contradiction.


I think the accusations you made against myself (and yahoo62278) are absurd because privacy by default does mean a lot to everybody.

As for the PMs, it is not a problem for me because I was not looking forward to receiving anything otherwise I would have analysed it and interpreted it in a manner you probably would not have appreciated and it would have been counter-productive to your reasons for sending it in the first place, therefore I understand your reasons for not including me in your PM circle since I am not known for having too much sympathy for those that should know better and of course I have been on occasion called 'harsh' too.

I still fail to understand your real motives for wanting to send PMs to any circle you selected. If you included non-retracted blockchain transactions then you defeated the object of your earlier stated goals of keeping that private. If you included retracted information then you also defeated the object when you stating there would be no point in sending it. Furthermore, if your PMs contained anything else, once again your motives for sending them to a selected circle make no sense unless you state your intentions for sending them.

Who is this directed at? Well, yahoo62278 is a signature campaign manager, not me therefore one has to assume it is towards him. Again, the notion that yahoo62278 or any other campaign manager would use the opportunity of your business failures and your misguided conduct in order to benefit their own business is unacceptable.

It seems you are alluding with you out of the way other campaign managers will get more business yet fail to understand the questions and concerns of not only a fellow member but also a fellow campaign manager.

And rightfully so, you should accept the blame for your part in the Bitlucy debacle because who else is to blame apart fro yourself and Bitlucy?

I did not see a single post in this thread where any member has taken the opportunity to add more blame on you than you deserve, on the contrary I see more compassion than I think it deserves but each to their own.

I've read through all that happened as explained by Royse777, and what I have to say is that, from this incident, we all have learnt that our reputation on this forum is everything, and that not all that glitters are not always gold, it is said that when something sound too good to be true, it is likely not true, I am sure this Lucy man gave Royse777 what seemed to him to be a good offer which he couldn't easily resist, unknown to Royse777 what the true motive of this Lucy scammers was.
The deed is done, and I hope Royse777 is able to gain back he's reputation, and as for as many of us here, there is a lot of lessons to learn from this, most especially, the managers, not every big offers and truly big, some of them is an exchange for your reputation, we all must be very careful.

You did what you had to do. I owe you nothing and I feel nothing to make you understand too.

Edit: I will close this thread after 24 hours from now.

PS: @Everyone, If I owe anything to anyone then it's the group of people who are still putting trust on me. I had a rough time but I hope you understand that I have given my best for it.

Cheers,

It's fair to point out that I was among the circle invited by Royse777 to review the evidence.  Unfortunately I didn't have to time to follow through, so I have nothing to add regarding the messages.  But, his invitation does say something considering I was the first DT member to red-tag him.  The circle of individuals he selected included those who were critical of his behavior.

So what? you've already said it was ridiculous to red tag this scammer. You've already given your opinion, so what are you trying to imply here? Your post means nothing and doesn't level you up to be a honourable person, it's just professional nonesense talk from a person who can't be better at anything else.

Some people here are right about wanting to make a difference between honest and scam promoters, and rightly so tagging the scammer Royse777.

Seeing your trust, it doesn't seem to me that you are to give moral lessons to anyone.

Was this ever actually addressed by Royse777? Was a straight answer ever posted addressing this issue about the dinner? If so, can anybody provide a link before Royse777 locks this thread.

Was there an actual in-person dinner between Royse777 and Bitlucy where they met or was it an online chat only. I am confused, did they ever meet in real life to discuss Bitlucy as a business? Were they actually friends in real life or was this specifically a cyber friendship where the two main protagonists never met in real life?

Hard-push advertising is common everywhere in all walks of daily life but subtle influences most definitely would have an impact too especially in a community such as this forum because some members are more likely to send funds to an unknown website if they trust the person promoting that agenda. That is simple to understand.

Again you raised another valid point.... based on who is recommending the casino or betting website, it is likely to influence the decision made by either experienced or novice individuals.

If a forum member had -20 feedback was recommending this-is-a-great-casino-website.com I doubt it was gain much traction beyond zero but if a member with some sort of reputation was to recommend or vouch for this-is-a-great-website-i-can-vouch-for-it-because-i-am-promoting-it-and-maybe-am-a-part-owner-look-at-my-forum-reputation-and-do-not-miss-out.com then even if was not blatant promoting rather it was subtle, it can have an affect on any member ranging from gullible to experienced covering all in between.

Some say that incident was akin to Royse777 being fooled/duped by a scammer in Bitlucy whereas others say it was mismanagement and negligence.

I never thought about it the way the you described it as leveraging their own reputation on a single deal for their own benefit. Come to think of it, there is nothing wrong with that assumption because from a particular vantage point it seems to be true.

It seems Royse777 hedged all bets (no pun intended) on Bitlucy but lost and in the process a small number of users became victims. Not pulling the plug and not disassociating herself from Bitlucy earlier when red flags were visible was negligent on part of Royse777.

Such as a football manager having to go (be sacked) even though he is not on the field kicking the ball but has to carry the consequences of the outfield players because he is responsible or part responsible for their actions? I see part of the analogy.

Thank you. I try to remain impartial, I try to not let sentiment sway me and I am glad to be on board because this community means a lot to me  :)

For clarity sake I should express I am surprised at the amount of good faith, pity, sympathy and compassion shown here by members towards Royse777. After looking at the facts as I saw them much earlier, I had a degree of sympathy too but that has subsided because of the way Royse777 has posted with an offensive aggressive stance which resulted in alienating herself from several members including myself but my red tag was given impartially before that happened.

As a forum member, my trust list (included and excluded) is there for all to see but that does not mean I would literally trust all of them beyond this forum and even within this forum we all define "trust" according to our interpretations rather than how theymos wanted it to be defined. We all apply the trust and exclusion and feedback system in ways some others would find incorrect. Even those that added me and others to their trust list would probably not really trust me and others outside this forum... a continuation of trust from inside the forum to outside it, is something not afforded easily.

Even some of those staunchest of trust-advocates that have not added me to their trust list or excluded me (some citing I am too hasty leaving negative tags as their reason, others have their own reasons or agendas) have themselves left highly dubious or factually incorrect negative tags for others thus contradicting themselves but I have tried to remain focused on the responsibility I have in conducting myself as a responsible member of this community. Others conduct their own responsibilities in the forum how they deem appropriate, there are no wrongs or rights, it is about interpretation.

Having said that, I would personally outside this forum trust just 3-4 members at maximum on my list literally and again I would define trust in the way I interpret. Regardless, I would not be influenced at all by reputations nor be bothered about falling foul of certain cliques, I would say what has to be said because I believe it to be the right thing... maybe that was part of the reason you made that comment about me using words such as strict, consistent and integrity.

Can you define what you mean by Royse777 lied about the dinner and provide a link?

I believe he is referring to this:

I highly doubt it since Royse claims they started communicating again shortly before the BitLucy casino launched. Considering the time period and that they apparently live on different continents, it is highly unlikely that they ever met in person. Royse mentioned that he participated in some meetings with potential partners, but these could very well have been virtual meetings only.

So the moment I was offensive aggressive to you, you prioritize your emotion over facts and whatever you are trying now is to feel better for yourself? It's amazing how you are suggesting others to join you. Learn from my experience. A single slip will take away everything from you.

Yeah when I say hangout then you interpret it dinner date in person. Bud! you have not even looked at the details I have posted publicly (forget about private) yet you are here arguing BS to establish your thoughts.

I will keep this thread alive.

JollyGood would be more aptly named JackBootedThug.  I find it amusing that he's been ignoring me for months, and refuses to engage in a dialogue about his abusive use of the trust system.  His silence speaks volumes.

Yet, he'll write walls of texts to harass people, demands they capitulate to his whims, even going so far as insisting they breach their own privacy or the privacy of others just so he can get his fix of drama.  All while holding them hostage with his red-tags.

I also would like to see where Royse777 said he was dining with the CEO in person. Would you mind sharing the link to that post or at least the archive?

Why don't you ask the person who mentioned it first? What does JollyGood have to do with this?
Apparently, there are some forum members who got special treatment and got a glimpse of Royse's private conversations with Lucy. The rest of us can only speculate on what went on.

---

Actually, it wasn't Jolly who interpreted the dinner date. So, rather than making accusations, you might want to be a little more precise with your arguments.

It didn't mean to ask JollyGood. I quoted JollyGood posts because I agree with him and my question is the same. I asked that guy. Don't you think there is a better way to ask a question? The more day I spend here, The more I am getting surprised by members' behavior. It feels like I am in Korea. LOL

My understanding of online discussion forums is that when you quote someone and ask a specific question, you are addressing that person. I could be wrong, though.  ;)


In which one?  :D
But, let's stick to the topic.

According to the bold part, you are expecting everyone to add you in their trust list. If they don't then they are staunch? You are now mad at the users who excluded you from their trust list including those did not add you at all.

I asked Royse777 if I can see the details and he/she shared it with me so I was among the circle too. But right now you are accusing us and saying closed circle as it sounds we gave him a friendly pass without justifying the entire situation.

Where is your problem? Royse777 decided to share the information with some of us or he did not share everything in open forum.
If not sharing in open forum is your problem then I can confirm, he didn't do it for his own privacy and security as well as few others too. None of us can protect him if something turn wrong against him.
If sharing the information with us is your problem then it's a strange feeling. 🙄

I kind of agree with DireWolfM14 but would like to add, someone is rightfully concerned about their security while you are being so curious to fix your drama.

JollyGood didn't claim that there was a physical dinner date. JollyGood asked me to provide the source that I based my comment on. I can't find some piece right now because I cross-read a couple of threads and I don't exactly recall what place it was. I do think thought that @igehhh was the first to claim it at least in this thread.


Lol... :D

So maybe @igehhh has something to add regarding the dinner date.


On another note, there is a document circulating that really got me baffled. The user @teyttrs uploaded it after having an 11 day conversation with the mysterious CEO about getting paid, was suuuuper patient, and the last couple hundred lines ultimately proved what a scammer the unknown CEO is. Now the problem I have with this is: that user also was asked by others to calm down and there is no way people get scammed because "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60055562#msg60055562" ("handled by Royse, regarding the discussion here about trust and so on...).

The unknown CEO is such a scumbag, even so stupid to have such a conversation with some unknown dude from the Internet, that I can't believe 1) someone like that person to run an Online Casino without 2) getting detected by someone with Royse' experience. She knows how all this stuff works, promotional campaigns, requiring funds for escrow and so on and so forth. She should have puledl the trigger earlier and warn all the community she appreciates, and that appreciates her so much... It is a sad ending and when I see how this unknown CEO communicates, Royse, if it is really true, how did this CEO talk to you without you getting suspicious when this CEO talks that way to everyone in PM?

There you go, I can't quote since the thread is locked:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60052582#msg60052582

That file is removed in that post, but whoever wants to have a look at it can find it in this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60053921#msg60053921


No joke, I really took the time and read it completely... I had the choice between hitting the gym or waste some time and chill. When I found this document while searching for stuff in response to @JollyGood's post, I thought I'll give it a read.

Part of my conclusion is:


And this is where I also wonder whether Royse did any research at all regarding the required skillset, be it technical, social, financial, industry experience etc. This unknown CEO from Bitlucy really had no clue what's going on. Links pointing to Betcoin.ag, wagering requirements totally unclear, no idea what arbitrage bets look like (you can read from the document I suggested above, etc. If I were to start a casino (which I won't unless I would find myself in a circle of proven experts for some weird reason), I would do tons of research. It's kind of a given in that industry. Especially when you partner up and buy shares in the company as Royse publicly said:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg59956927#msg59956927

I mean, how does this all make sense? I know not everyone has partnered up with someone else and set up some contract or even a legal entity, but wouldn't you vest your partners beyond accepting fotos from Disney Land as proof of sufficient personal wealth in order to become the "biggest online Crypto casino and sportsbook on the planet." Quote was also from Royse, and I get all the enthusiasm when one is about to get something off the ground and is dreaming big, but come on...

I initially thought that Royse might have been scammed by a really, really clever person in a very sophisticated way. But after I read the document, and given that it came into existence through a chat with a person completely unknown to the CEO, neither "clever" nor "sophisticated" is likely to apply. Hence: gross negligence would be my judgment.

I stand by my word though that I would also support the possibility for Royse to get back on track. It is very true she doesn't owe any specific information to anyone, but that is her judgment as well. If she thinks that what she needs to protect from being known by others is more valuable, that is to be accepted. Other than that, I would still trust her as a campaign manager and even for some other things. But the harm has been done. When you drive too quickly, you get a red tag in a certain registry unless you have very, very good reason and can PROVE it! Other than that the red tag stands, and if you get caught again, things against you start to accelerate. Same speed but harsher penalty because there is this register that tells the driver to better not repeat what you have done wrong before. That is why I support JollyGood's judgment. Now someone might argue the registry doesn't apply because other drivers can't know whether the one in front of them has a big fat history with red tags.That is true, so we trust the police to do the right thing for us. But in this forum, there is no hidden police. It is the nature of forums like this that things are publicly discussed and publicly available when they involve public interest. If you ask me, the public interest is clearly given here, especially when people were still allowed to deposit while withdrawals weren't already functioning anymore. At let that is what I understand from the walls of text I read about the whole Bitlucy topic. Correct me if I am wrong, but deposits weren't stopped when withdrawals were already on ice. Big no-go!

When it comes @JollyGood, I have no personal relationship with him, never had any transactions with him or anything like that. I just started following him at some point because I liked that he cracked down on scam after scam AND he put effort into it. Not just distributing red tags as is sometimes claimed here by some, but certainly not by many... In my opinion @JollyGood is a real asset to the community. It is good to know that there is someone who really puts puzzle pieces together when there is something suspicious going on. Hardly anyone (if anyone at all?) would take the time and put in the effort. And in all fairness: he might really be on the edge in some cases, I don't know, I haven't studied them all (haha), but has he given away some clearly wrong red tags? Like, plainly wrong and arbitrarily? I'd be very surprised.

I'd say it was a bit of both. I'm not even sure Bitlucy intended to scam from the start, but it's obvious they tried to start a casino without having funds. They must have gambled on the first users losing a lot of money, and if that would have happened, they could have been successful and nobody would have known about the lack of funds.

Again, if you drive a car without a driver's license, might work out, sure, if nobody detects it. But if it is detected, it is getting pretty rough.

When you read that private conversation between the guy who got scammed and the "CEO", you'll clearly get my point. That is why I said I can't even believe for a second that Royse really thought it could work out with that dude. Then again, Royse might have been the passenger, also without a license. Somewhat in her defense I'd say. It also feels a bit like megalomania on Royse' part when she said it's going to be the biggest online casino on the planet. Well, on what evidence or substance was that based on? Did this CEO sign a message from a wallet with 10,000 Bitcoin?

My opinion on the tiny bit that seems to have sparked the "attack between a few reputable members" which is "The proof of Royse's conversations with Lucy", in my humble opinion such proof has little to no value, at least, it shouldn't be the backbone of any conclusion someone arrives at.  Royse could easily fake a few conversations dating back to any date they chose, even the blockchain transactions could have been set up, there is no way in hell to know for sure if there was another person with the name of Lucy who is/was not actually Royse777.

So that leaves us with only one option and that's what Royse claims, it's either you take Royse's for it or you don't, if you think Royse was Lucy all along and then a few "screenshots" would change your mind -- I think there is something seriously wrong with your judgment.

Personally, I believe Royse is a genuine person, maybe she got a bit greedy and saw a "huge opportunity" which she didn't want to lose, which led her to ignore all the obvious red flags which then resulted in a loss for everyone who was involved, one might say that her judgment is not to be trusted and that would make sense, but again, I don't think she had any intention to cause damage.

Thank you for the information. Can you provide a link for where Royse777 made those comments apart from in the OP?

You are factually incorrect on several fronts.... my emotions never got in any way of anything related to Bitlucy therefore you are clutching at straws and are trying misdirection tactics.

Let us be clear, it was you who created this mess with Bitlucy therefore why should I be making myself feel better? I was not a part of it, all I did was point out that I left negative trust for you long before your outburst therefore accusations of bias should not be levelled at me yet you take the opportunity to post incoherent ramblings.

Where have I asked others join me and exactly what would they be joining for? You are in serious need of a reality check.

You are right when using the single-slip analogy, I cannot argue with that advice. I hope others read it and take heed too.

After reading your walls of text, it seems mostly created by you with a view to garner sympathy for yourself, it is easy to miss parts or not remember others. Having said that, I asked a question if a dinner took place and asked for clarification and did not establish my thoughts.

What would have been the harm if you replied stating you used the word hangout when you should have instead elaborated fully what you interpreted that word to mean considering the circumstances and what was at stake.

What would have been the problem is you had simply provided a link? It was this same type of aggressive yet nonsensical behaviour akin to a tantrum that has alienated some members.

Good news you are keeping this thread unlocked.

Since it will not be locked now, I would like to take the opportunity to go back to something yahoo62278 asked about before you started your conspiracy theories.

I partially defended your reasons for not wanting to show blockchain transactions between yourself and Bitlucy on the basis of you maybe having some reasons however his questions and concerns in the post below are valid therefore maybe you should at least consider providing some blockchain transactions as evidence to show you are not connected to Bitlucy far more than some are suggesting or thinking: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60500366#msg60500366

@Royse777

On January 22nd, did you think that @JollyGood is an important asset to the Bitcointalk Community?

Without being dramatic you could quote it. I am not in a situation to solve puzzles.


Because you are having so much fun so here you go:
- Blockchain transactions that you and yahoo wanted to see
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/f58c549959b0d064e92966475c59d3c25db8f423f7c510f97f8639e72b2d2ba5
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/1bea9d558d80b1e38549f9435d4bc783aaae6c0e8c3dda04c3607990a77678ef
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/b06b24911432d1e9adaa89c6f366ffe3e262bd32f8d312123c9c10cc17ccb67e

I will not provide ownership of any address, make me.


Don't tell me you do not know how auto-suggestion works in our mind. Reality Checked.

Do you still say your emotion was not effected? You edited your post after my response and added the tag thing.
Do you really think I am concern about the tag you left? I am concerned to see your desperate approach to harass others and using the trust system in your favor. If you are doing it to me when I have a long history of the forum, how would I now not be concerned that you are not doing it from years against the weaks.

Can I ask everyone to stop quoting me in this thread please. I'm done with the situation and attitude. I would rather not get 5 notifications a day from this thread.

Obviously, it's up to you to do whatever you want, but I think it is better not to do so. The only thing it's going to do is make you angry.

Those of us who changed the feedback to neutral already are not going to be affected by what is discussed here and those who maintain it are not likely to change anything based on discussions that only serve to further entrench positions and get angry.

In that case, the passenger doesn't get punished (but shares the risk of crashing). That seems like a pretty accurate analogy.

Lots of talking, but when is royse going to pay the victims? royse = bitlucy. Use your mind

But if the passenger is the owner of the car and allows a driver without a licence, it is a problem

This is not sympathy, compassion, and definitely not good faith. All of this story is making so much fuss because a lot of the members here are scammers like Royse777 and they do not want it to be a habit here on this forum of giving negative trust scores to scammers. Instead, they ask for pity to be paid for by the scam victims + the future victims. They want to dilute themselves between honest businesses, but this shouldn't be allowed.

It's not the same thing to run campaigns for legitimate businesses or to run them for scams. People who run legitimate campaigns should try their best to separate themselves from the scammers and as much as possible exclude others with scam histories. That is why @yahoo62278 and @JollyGood are the only ones doing the right thing here.

Yes, shares the risk of crashing. Thanks for getting the point.

Let me ask the community here: going from where Royse is and we say she is NOT to be red tagged, how many percentage points of her current reputation score should we deduct to come to general consensus that a red tag DOES apply?

Minus 10%? 20? 30? 40? 50? 60? 70? 80? 90?

And then, based on what reasons? So, 30% sounds fine? Cool! Let's go with that!

For those in "defense" of Royse, I am also in defense of Royse. Clearly, as Hhampuz stated, transactions including myself going first are still possible (not sure how much Hhampuz would go for though), but what about the red tag policy? Should we fuck up just anything below "Legendary"? Or is it the merits? But we need to check whether there was merit abuse at play then right? Or is it just the "subjectively perceived" reputation? Well, then give Theymos a call and tell him to get rid of merits.

I am definitely not making a case against Royse, I am making a case against making a case an emotional lottery (or subjective policy). It is and will always be complicated when a highly trusted member of our community gets involved into dubious stuff. Slippery slope, my friends. And a slap in the face for newcomers who try to climb up the forum (political) ladder without any chance whatsoever.

You are right I did not make the statement, I merely asked about the situation.

Correct again, I merely asked if there were any links provided to show the effect and asked if the event actually took place.

Do not be surprised at some of the comments being made here. Some members have taken a line or two from a long post only to take it out of context or misquote me to deliberately cause misdirection in a thread that is supposed to be about Royse777 and Bitlucy (not about me, you or any other member).

You are factually incorrect because according to the bold part it is incoherent unless the full sentence is taken in to provide context but it seems you possibly took my post and deliberately linked it towards words I simply did not write. Having said that if you want to copy and paste the comment (you either failed to understand or deliberately are trying to create diversion tactics) by all means open a new thread in any board you want to discuss it.

Again, you are factually incorrect. I stated nothing of the sort, you can ramble on with your nonsense as much as you like. Furthermore, I have no interest in what you claim happened between yourself and Royse777  ::)

I do not have one

And?

You said "If" and there is no "if" therefore you are wrong, again. I have zero problems but you are overlooking in to this too much. You are panic-posting in similar fashion to Royse777 with ramblings and misdirections. Try to relax, it might help with your temperament.

In my opinion the drama was started when Royse777 and Bitlucy became associates but keeping that aside feel free to agree with who want and likewise feel free to disagree with who you want but afford the same luxury or courtesy to others to make their own decisions too.

Even though your post is full of nonsense, I replied as a courtesy. Even though you have been overtly and most probably deliberately incorrect when quoting me and you have been creating your own misdirection here for your own purposes, I entertained it for a while but expect no more replies if you continue to create your own drama.

I should have been clearer: "Some say that incident was akin to Royse777 being fooled/duped by a scammer in Bitlucy whereas others say it was mismanagement and negligence on part of Royse777 (to get in to that situation)."

You are right, it is not clear if Bitlucy even intended to scam from the very beginning and it is also not clear if Bitlucy was created with the specific intention of an exit scam. If the latter was even true the amounts involved would not be worth the hassle in the first place.

It seems you are right again because they probably did not have the funds to actually start a casino in the first place and they hoped to make an income to cover any potential payouts based on initial and early customer losses. I agree, had they succeeded then it would never have been made public that Bitlucy was on the verge of collapse from day one of their operation and subsequent history could have been different but here we are.

LoyceV/JollyGood,

if I start a casino with 3000 in the bank, am I a scammer? If I start with 2000 in the bank, am I a scammer? 1000? At what point am I a scammer? When I don't process withdrawals anymore without proven history of doing so?

Edited: to correct the quotation stuff.

At what point am I a scammer? Let's assume I am a scammer, but demand to be called a "newcomer"? What then? @JollyGood is applying his rules. Nobody here has to agree with them, because we are what we are, a free forum, but frankly, I will listen to him anytime! Hate me or love me, and anything in between.

It's a scam bound to happen when the casino doesn't have a safeguard against winning more than the bankroll. If the maximum profit per bet is $30, you can have a casino with $3000 bankroll. By the time users have won $1000 in total, the maximum profit should be reduced to $20. That way, you'll never run out of money and never have to scam. You may run out of users but at least you'll be honest.

Thanks for the maths!

If you can't cover the largest bet payout, then you are a scammer, or at worse in deep financial trouble.

If for example "roulette" with its highest payout of 35:1 and you don't have $35 to cover a $1 bet, then you are probably a scammer.

My opinion to put the little doubt myself/anyone else could be having about the slightest idea that Royse could have been Lucy all along without anyone knowing, Yes! that's very possible, but I guess that'd have made it much more easier for him to pull the plugged way very early at the first set of issues, since he'd have known there wasn't going to be an easier way forward for him if he was the one bankrolling the casino, he could have falsely called Lucy(himself) out and not so many people if at all anyone would have thought of the possibilities of him being the same person right ?


I slightly agree with greed notion, but I guess the benefit of the doubt from him could have been for a fact that the casino is very new and needs a bit of time to be fully functional and with the time Royse said he's been in contact with Lucy would have been slightly unfair to call him out at the slightest of issue and as Royse claimed he wasn't fully aware of every issue at the very instant might be part of what actually happened but I strongly doubt it was solely greed that got the better of him, going by the little conversation I've had with (minimal) and it was much about gambling pools and stuffs like the Covid-19 raffle which participated him.

What I find very ironic is that most of the users bashing him (not the sock puppets) would still finding comfortable with trading him without the fear of getting scammed ? Why then would they want new projects or to be wary of him, despite having admitted and owned up to his mistake, almost 8 years in the forum and what he's contributed so far should all count for nothing ?

You know, and I wouldn't even want to be so harsh about Royse. I do indeed concur with the fraction of people here who say there was no intent. I truly and deeply believe there was no intent. But the problem is: the numbers! What you described nails it perfectly! Roulette is probably the best example in this situation! If I offer a game and can't serve the odds that are against me, I am actually a scammer! The word is hard, but it is what it is. Very true point.


It wasn't a puzzle, because you could exchange January 22nd for any other date, and in my opinion he'd still be an important asset to the Bitcointalk Community. Back at the time you would have probably seen him with different eyes. That was the point I was trying to get across.

Yes I merely asked about a link to read for myself if a dinner with the CEO took place since that was quoted by members earlier.

First of all thank you for the link (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60055562#msg60055562) because I was not really interested in that thread and probably never visited it until I clicked your provided link.

Secondly, the words written by the user in question with those overzealous and over-protective remarks towards Bitlucy and then including the comment that gave Bitlucy far more of a seal of approval than it deserved by mentioning (words to effect of) Royse777 would not manage a scam campaign. That part is hugely problematic because it in essence means three important things:

i) asking users to put their trust in a certain newly created website by sending funds to them on the basis a particular forum member is promoting them

ii) shutting down any form of dissent, concern or claim in earlier manifestations before they became widespread - again, on the basis a particular forum member is promoting a certain newly created website

iii) it allows the particular forum member to either buy time to try to fix any issues by liaising with the website (since their reputation is on the line if a scam takes place) or it allows that particular forum member to refuse to accept the red flags and with that ignorance fall deeper in to a bigger hole.

The unfortunate side-effect of both is that by not pulling the plug earlier and by not completely disassociating with the website at the first opportunity, that particular forum member has facilitated a mechanism where the number of victims could increase. This was one of the reasons why I stated in my feedback there was negligence on part of Royse777.

As I will mention below again, I have not read in full the 11 day conversation between the user in question with the Bitlucy CEO, I will try to read it to get an understanding.

Maybe Royse777 was gullible. Maybe a combination of being gullible and greedy led to Royse777 getting in to this situation. Maybe something else.

I hope to read it in full within 48 hours, the text in the lines I have read shows a very informal chat from a CEO who is conducting himself as a typical salesman rather than a professional individual but I need to read through it to understand what chat took place over the days they communicated.

The flag was removed by the user that created it therefore regardless of support or opposition, it does not mean much now.

I never knew about this post, I read what Royse777 wrote and once again thank you for the link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg59956927#msg59956927

It was utter stupidity on part of Royse777 to post using words which were probably deliberately used in order to have dual meaning, such as Royse777 stating being "good friends with the CEO for over a year" as well as "hanging out regularly".

What does that mean to a layman when someone says they are "hanging out regularly" with each other and have "build up trust of each other over a year"?

Exactly who could be blamed for putting their trust in a trusted forum member after reading him or her vouching for a business they are part owner of without actually stating "trust me and take my word for it, this is no scam" but never uttering the words?

By simply using the reputation attached as to be taken as a seal of approval to those unfortunate to believe it, Royse777 is in this situation today. I would not surprised at all if using her own reputation was part of the leverage Royse777 employed in negotiations with the Bitlucy CEO to become part owner maybe with a promise of adding her name to the casino for the sake of showing it as legitimate and it being not-a-scam... but then again until or unless a full transcript of their chats is made public we do not know what prompted the Bitlucy CEO to not only employ Royse777 as a campaign manager but also to give a percentage of the company in lieu of being awarded the title of Co-Partner & Marketing Director (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg59956927#msg59956927)

Who would not believe a campaign manager with green trust when they state they are part owner of a casino or when that same member effectively says "Hey, trust this website because I am staking my reputation on it after all I am part-owner and because the CEO and I have built up a massive amount of trust over a period of a year. For your information we are very close and we are hanging out regularly. On top that, between us we both understand the gambling industry inside out because we have phenomenal experience in this field and we shared a common interest in starting a casino therefore we simply decided because we are the best people who can create a new casino which will become the largest crypto casino/sportsbook ever, we will do it"

To answer the question: Me. I would not believe it.

As a continuation of the answer: Many people and many forum members will not believe it either.

As a further continuation of the answer, it is safe to say: some people and some forum members will believe it and the reason for that misguided belief would not be because a newbie account created 30 minutes ago was vouching for a newly created casino... on the contrary the reason why some people including forum members would believe it is because someone highly trusted and in a position of trust and in good standing with peers (operating an account with several years history) has basically stated they own part of the very same business they are vouching for.

Previous good character or previous good conduct or previous good standing along previous contributions cannot negate the utterly appalling decision making process taken by Royse777 related to Bitlucy, nor should the facts about the Royse777/Bitlucy relationship be watered down because there is no evidence Royse777 intended to scam from the beginning but there those that expressed opposing views and that is their right.

We have had or almost had zero contact before corresponding in this thread. I cannot recall interacting with you but I enjoyed reading your posts for the quality and time taken to write them presenting them with links providing background information with evidence. You have also shown the correct attitude when standing up and taking a stand in what you believe in such as the high quality posts in this thread even in the face of opposing views.

It is slightly off-topic but to be fair my time for clamping down on scam after scam, almost day after day of doing it are behind me now though I do try to take an interest and post intermittently in the Reputation and Scam Accusation boards. Thankfully there are many forum members contributing positively in the Scam Accusations board on a regular basis and I am grateful to them.

Anyway, moving onwards and back to the issue on hand regarding this particular thread:

- Does anybody know what the percentage of the Bitlucy company given to Royse777 was?
- Does anybody know if there was any paperwork signed between Royse777 and the Bitkucy CEO transferring that percentage over?
- Does anybody know the full name of the Bitlucy company with LLC, LTD etc?
- Does anybody know the current legal status of the company and the legal jurisdiction the company falls under?

Well if you are correct then what do you think drove Royse777 to get in to a partnership in what was a doomed relationship from the very beginning? I do agree with you, megalomania seems the correct word because the way Royse777 was posting about her relationship with the Bitlucy CEO and the part-ownership of Bitlucy shows telltale signs of it.

I agree, the alleged proof does not bring closure in this situation at all.

What somewhat compounds the issue of the alleged conversations is what motives Royse777 had for releasing them to a select few as well as why that particular select few were chosen. The latter (if I recall correctly) was recently addressed by Royse777 in a semi-rant of a mostly incoherent post but the motives for wanting to share in the first place were never addressed. It remains unknown what Royse777 wanted to gain from it.

I agree.

I broadly agree because you have summed it up in an apt manner. I think greed played a huge part in the mindset of Royse777 in that period and I think the degree to which she leveraged her reputation as a campaign manager and trusted forum member in order to deepen the relationship with Bitlucy to become an unknown percentage owner of the company remains unknown.

280 words and one emoji for the response you left for me.

"deliberately" X 3
"diversion" X 1
"ramble"/"rambling" (words) X 2
"nonsense" X 2
"misdirection" X 2
"panic-posting" X 1
Questioning my "temperament"
Accusing me for my "own purposes"

Bitch your brain is not in the right position. You are attacking and ignoring arguments of users who do not feed your wall of nonsense texts.
You are the one who is overlooking. Your motive is questionable.

This is irony, I will still trust Royse777 for a large trade but with you I will have huge hesitation if this is over $500.

Edit:
I was almost posting this and saw your reply. It's clear from your comments that you did not read the entire story but creating wall of text asking sources from others.

LOL.

Quoting the full post for visibility.

Just so people can see that this is a clear example of what I mentioned in my previous post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60574413#msg60574413).

I think JollyGood has broken the record for the longest post my eyes have seen in all the time I've been on the forum. He has even beaten JJG.

If something so trivial such as the length of a post or something so unnecessary such as quoting a post already visible for full visibility made you LOL, then I am very happy for you.

Most of the post was related to replying to mv1986 who has made excellent contributions to this thread and I look forward to his replies to my comments.

Back on the issue at hand, especially this part:

- Does anybody know what the percentage of the Bitlucy company given to Royse777 was?
- Does anybody know if there was any paperwork signed between Royse777 and the Bitkucy CEO transferring that percentage over?
- Does anybody know the full name of the Bitlucy company with LLC, LTD etc?
- Does anybody know the current legal status of the company and the legal jurisdiction the company falls under?

Doesn't everybody know that in order to do business on bitcointalk.org you have to send your KYC to JollyGood first?

Another drama begin Red tag reference for yahoo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5406722.0) I don't know why this kind thread need to be opened and it's a locked thread where he don't have any interest with other people view regarding his thread. I think it's should be solved personal and not trying to attack each other.

I'm not sure Betesports can be said as a troll since I see his accusation was legit.

Anyway it's already a month, any news about the refund to those victim especially those who have been filled the google form?

Interesting observation, but those who know the forum well also knew that you must have been wrong.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405021.msg60567589#msg60567589

If you mean just the "length" as in terms of geometry, it is really close. If you go with the number of characters not quoted, JJG clearly wins! ;)

It says "red tag" in the thread but the actual trust rating is neutral:


But using a locked thread (although "legal" for trust ratings unlike e.g. for flags) is a dick move to say the least. It would be better to point it to the actual post that triggered the rating (or an archive thereof), or at least have an open thread for it.

Thanks for that. As you can see, I was talking about my personal experience but thanks for pointing me to that JJG's post.


That's what I call a neutral tag of negative spirit. It's clearly negative but of neutral color.


I agree.

Not sure how well you know the forum to be honest. But since you used the short form "JJG", I somehow felt you could know him pretty well.

I also don't know how sharp your view is... Anyway, four eyes are likely to see more than two eyes. You are very welcome.

There are posts in this thread pointing out Royse777 showing anger and frustration, I would liken those outbursts akin to throwing tantrums. Creating that locked thread Red tag reference for yahoo (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5406722.0) seems to be yet another manifestation of that tantrum and anger on part of Royse777.

Royse777 is playing a game trying with some of the most desperate attempts at creating misdirection in that locked thread along with trying to cause further fragmentation between members on the subject of the Royse777/Bitlucy scam.

Creating that thread trying to tarnish the reputation of yahoo62278 with nonsensical drama in an attempt to have that negative trust removed, really is a new low for Royse777. And that neutral trust Royse777 left for yahoo62278 (saying he cannot be trusted) is ludicrous to say the least because of the two: one of them announced herself as "Co-Partner & Marketing Director" of the Bitlucy scam casino and the other quite clearly said nothing of the sort.

Still the wait goes on. Instead of trying to drum up more diversions it would have been a good move on part of Royse777 to have commented on this herself without anybody having to ask about it because that is where the priority should be: refunds

First I thought to leave a red tag (same as he did) then changed mind because leaving red will be completely a misuse of current trust rating. Edited the title (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5406722.0).

Betesports removed. My mind was tricking about him being one too.

Two never replied my email.
One observed everything and insisted me that he / she is fine and understand my situation. Thank you if you are reading it.
One ended up being too hostile and decided not to co-operate me. I was asked to KYC him (my hands are still tied and considering the situation it will be for good) because he was threatening to kill the CEO and confirmed hiring professional killer from darkweb. He denied even after I had evidence of the conversation he was posting in his private social channels to his audience.

In the feedback page we do not have option to create discussion. Following that setting, whatever comment left on the feedback page - if anyone wants to defend then they usually create a new thread or continue in any existing thread which is related to the case (like this thread). I did not want to hijack the topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5406629.msg60583537#msg60583537) to post off-topic.

Right, but you already created a thread, why not leave it open instead of making people look for context elsewhere? Now here's what happens: someone sees a trust rating on yahoo, they follow the reference link (possibly months/years from now when the memory of this current dispute has faded), and there is only your opinion in a locked thread. That's kinda misleading. It would be more fair to leave it open at least for a couple of pages so that yahoo and/or others can respond, then you could lock if it starts getting off rails.

why do you still insist on KYC in order to repay deposits? what is it for?
as far as I've seen Bitlucy is dead, and the website is offline. so there is no one behind it, to whom KYC is actually shown?
I understood that KYC verification was requested for the return of the deposit, correct me if I'm wrong.


Creating a new thread and locking it, it's kind of bad practice. especially when you criticize someone a lot.
this topic (started by you) is quite enough for your feedback/reference to yahoo, you always can point a reference link to your post here.

I hope you will consider the annoying users like JollyGood and some others who will give their everything to make the reader to forget what they read in the main reference post after reading two pages of conversations if I unlock the thread. Besides the post is full of references linked to various posts. If anyone is genuinely interested then they will take the time to visit the some of the links.

However, if yahoo has anything to add then ask him to apologize first for saying misinformation about me (If I could be disrespectful to the trust system then I would ask the apology in the same fashion). Then I will give him a chance to reply to the topic (only for him) before locking it again so that JollyGood does not get a chance to write their nonsense arguments to mislead the reader.

Don't forget to complete your quest by ~yahoo62278 in your trust list. I'd at least like you to look like you have a clue.

It does not bother me anymore. You should be happy that I did not use my DT status against you that I did not paint your wall red.

Do you really think a red tag from you would irritate or hurt me in the least? Tag me. My tag on you just needs reworded and it's still valid. Your tag is just you being a baby.

Obviously you do still care

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5406722.0

Bottom line, I got pissed at the way you act like a child towards me and decided to remove myself from the situation and readd the red tag that I gave you when the situation started. You created the situation, and IMO are obligated to answer any goddamn question that I might ask as long as it pertains to the situation. Instead of trying to answer questions with a cool head, you decided to be hotheaded and childish and not only not answer my inquiries, but also accuse me of stealing clients lmao. Your client contacted me for a 1 week campaign.

I was trying to be sympathetic in the beginning but you changed my feelings.

Do you deserve an apology? No, maybe a pacifier. Do I deserve 1, a case could be made both ways. You dragged me back into this disaster acting like Koil and creating a thread and locking it showing the community even more of your childish behavior.

I'll lower my tag to a neutral, but not because of anything you did. I got my answers in the next post from AnotherAlt whom I merited if anyone wants to check. I think you are easily aggravated and very hotheaded and have no business in DT. Go try and enjoy life instead of blaming everyone else for your mistakes.

You're not in DT.

Do we really need to have one more thread talking about relationship between this two members?
I think that opposing party Yahoo asked everyone in this topic to stop mentioning and disturbing him, because for him this case is closed.
If they can't come up in private messages, and both say sorry for their actions, than it's better for them to ignore each other, instead of creating World War Manager.  :P

I don't know what you expected to achieve, but you are just making things worse with creating one more topic that is locked.
Can't you just say sorry and try to talk with him in private?
You don't have to like each other, but stop acting like spoiled school kids.

You should have the reworded tag in the first place before making it sounds a way of demanding apology in exchange for it.

I cared for the lie you were spreading against me. You even emphasized that I was the same as the mixing service and plain unprofessional.

I don't bother to "~yahoo62278" because it's not accountable anymore.

In your mind when a DT member is pissed then they word/reword their argument and leave a red feedback (2nd red feedback) for others? Unfortunately, you are misusing the trust inclusions of others.

What do I owe you?

Do we have a love like relationship? Sorry to break your heart. (broken heart symbol)

Stop calling childish behavior. This does not make you a mature adult.

---

Are you sure you lowered the tag (2nd tag) because you got your answer in the next post from AnotherAlt? Sure it is not. You knew your answer long before the post you are referring. Stop rewording and escaping.

Since you want anyone to check then here:
=> This is the post  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60500779#msg60500779)made on July 03 (yahoo's reference post)
=> June 17th a post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5402179.msg60383131#msg60383131) from a reputed manager, yahoo even merited.
I posted about it in the next response if not immediately.

When you are saying you lowered the tag then be careful it was not for AnotherAlt's post. It now sounds like you were looking for a good excuse to lower it.
Your intention to give the tag (2nd)
1. Slandering.
2. Wanted an exchange.
I explained all in the locked thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5406722.msg60588709#msg60588709).

Stop using the word everyone too whenever you get a chance. Where did you get the idea of I being blaming everyone for my mistake?
Clearly I said some of you. And these some of you includes you and JollyGood with maximum 2 to 3 more users. Does it sound like a blame by the way or more of pissed to find nonsense demands?
Your implying of everyone is wrong. It sounds like everyone gave you a job to speak for them. In your past you have your mistakes too so don't wash your hand and say hey look! I am clean!

Sorry dkbit I really wanted to live in peace after all these happened to me but some users are taking away my sleep. This is an emotional place for me. Long years. It's been a part of my everyday life. I am fine to take criticism based on the facts but I will not allow anyone to spread lie against me. If I do not reply then after few years when everything will cool down then they (who had no idea what happened) will make it guaranteed that these lies were true.  

@suchmoon, how to you copy and paste an entire feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60589791#msg60589791) please?

I use my browser extension: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224821

Otherwise (and the way I did it before the extension) I have a template saved as a text file, so I would copy-paste that, and then copy paste relevant bits from the feedback page:


This is for negative trust. The color/b/i tags would have to be changed for neutral and positive (just "i" for neutral and just "b" for positive).

You have raised a valid concern but as usual Royse777 has not answered questions she finds difficult to explain. Bitlucy does not exist. Under which rules and under which jurisdiction is Royse777 asking for KYC?

It seems KYC or not, Royse777 stated she will not send the victim money that was scammed by Bitlucy even after Royse777 promised to return to all victims.

Quite a while ago I had distrusted Royse777 then later I removed that distrust as I couldn't recall why I'd placed them on my distrust list. At that same time a few others also removed their distrust of Royse777.

Reading through this thread my thoughts were indifferent, then I read this:


~Royse777

Any negatives by Royse777 against myself from this point on I will consider to be retaliatory.

You are welcome, anyone is.

But, I really hope you did not misunderstood my words.
In other words, Yahoo should be happy because I never sent any retaliatory tag or even supported it against anyone. I had very good chance to paint yahoo's trust page if I was supporting retaliatory feedback.

Why would I leave negative to you? Because you made above post. No!

He got his answer within 5 to 10 minutes of asking it.

I asked some questions almost a couple of days ago, there is another added now. Maybe you can reply:

- what percentage of the Bitlucy company given to Royse777?
- was there any paperwork signed between Royse777 and the Bitkucy CEO transferring that percentage over?
- what was the full name of the Bitlucy company with LLC, LTD etc?
- what is the current legal status of the company and the legal jurisdiction the company falls under?
- does anybody have a copy of the ToS/ToC and Privacy Policy of the Bitlucy website?


Link? I quoted examplens, where did you quote examplens and answer his question within 5-10 minutes of him asking?

I have to admit that I was wrong in my previous post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60574413#msg60574413), as Royse777 has managed to get a negative tag changed to neutral by keeping the thread open.

So she seems to be starting to regain her reputation. Now I only see 2 negative tags but I don't know if that depends on my trust list too and someone who doesn't have a custom trust list would see more or fewer negative tags.

I think it was 10%.

Paperwork on the internet? Unlikely.

As far as I know, this is unknown. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I've seen enough anonymous entities to know they can be good trade partners in crypto. But anonymous people should for instance never ask for KYC.

Unknown.

Add ;dt to the URL: there are 2 negatives from DT.

I believe you overlooked yahoo's change from red to neutral?

Edit: ah, you didn't miss it, you were just wondering whether there was more you can't be aware of. Got you @PokerPlayer

This is no longer a Royse777 name-clearing thread (the proof was shown about 2-3 pages ago), now it's a Royse vs. yahoo drama.

I think you forgot JollyGood.

And Don't forget JollyGood who is not satisfied yet with all the answers. He want some special treatment from Royse777

While Royse requests KYC from a customer for a company that doesn't exist anymore while insisting on keeping potentially relevant information private on her own.

Hm... Sounds kind of special to me as well.

May I remind
Please don't consider that it was given.

Please don't sound it like it happened today. When I was in contact with the user then bitlucy was up and running.

Do you give attention to everything I say? I hope you are not feeding JollyGood only for entertainment.

I believe I read another member quoted 10% but did Royse777 ever state the percentage voluntarily? I tried searching but that part remains elusive.

Let us say for example it is 10%, did Royse777 ever she state what Bitlucy as a company would receive in lieu of giving Royse777 that 10%? After all, if it was the CEO who held 100% of the company but he surrendered 10% of his holdings, what was Bitlucy going to gain from it?

If there was a registered company called Bitlucy or a parent holding company that owned Bitlucy, then in order to be given 10% of that company some form of paperwork had to be exchanged. If there was no paperwork exchanged between Bitlucy and Royse777 and no contract was signed, exactly how did Royse777 gain 10% of the company?

Agreed.

With no Terms of Service, no Terms and Conditions and no Privacy Policy it will impossible to know what the company stood for before it scammed and shut down. Without those details it will be impossible to know if any clauses were inserted that allowed victims and others who wanted to start litigation (and in which jurisdiction).

Unimaginable!
Mr. Bitcointalk forum Lawyer, do you even do your case study?

May I ask you now, you keep rumbling all these what to achieve? I question your motive.

If you think you are wannabe Lauda then you have a long way to go to meet her/his standard.

I beg to differ, had he wanted to add my name he could have but I am not part of any drama  ;D

You are part correct and part incorrect.

No, I am not part of any drama just because I asked questions and refuse to accept most of what Royse777 is stating but can the same be said about you? Since you uploaded images of alleged chats which you claim as proof that the elusive Bitlucy CEO and Royse777 are different people, all that by using an alt-account instead of your regular forum account, you have made yourself part of the drama.

Yes you are absolutely correct I am not satisfied with the answers.

No, I do not want special treatment from Royse777 on the contrary I just want the part owner of a scam casino who held the official title of "Co-Partner and Marketing Director" to stop being economical with the truth and if possible for her to stop using her bouts of aggression and tantrums as misdirection tactics because questions related to a scam should be answered.

The company and legal status of BitLucy Casino have never been publicly disclosed, as far as I know. According to their T&C, the legal jurisdiction is Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, although I'm not sure that is true since all other information is unknown. No address or other contact information.

Here is a snapshot of the BitLucy T&C as of June 23, 2022:
https://archive.ph/iRVLo

I believe there were several iterations of the documents since they changed the software and started from scratch several times, but this is the only copy I'm aware of (and probably the most recent one since they shut down the site for good not long after).

it's true, I got some kind of answer. I would say that there is a realistic explanation for not publishing certain data. Apparently, everything has gone so far that he justifiably worries about the safety of himself and his family.

however, I think that the whole communication, in this case, and everything that happens afterwards, could have been set up better. To avoid wrong interpretations and subsequent explanations of the same.

I just shared here what I had to share. I didn't say that Bitlucy CEO and Royse777 are different people. I said it doesn't look to me like they are the same person. You can read the conversation and Judge. I don't have to make a judgment.


Because I am afraid of some wolf crowd, they can do anything without proper evidence. The funny thing is, My main account is on newbie rank. However, theymos optimistic about it, and I would like to follow him

Because Royse didn't send you the chat conversations and transaction history in your PM?

My assumption was that sharing ownership was based on a gentlemen's agreement.

Don't we know the answer to this already? Bitlucy has gained a reputable face in the community, something that made people trust it easily, a face that was to blame when everything has fallen apart.


Indeed. Somehow the communication in this issue was.. sub-standard... (for example, I don't understand why the closure for the famous google form were not announced^{[or I just missed that??]}, it could have been helped).
But with so many people pushing Royse - maybe some for good reason, but certainly some others simply for their own benefit - rushed and heated answers are not that much of a surprise.

---

I try to stay somewhat away from this drama, but I still want to say something to JollyGood: you've done very good job many times in nailing scammers, but I have a feeling you're exaggerating in this matter. Of course, I may be wrong, still...please think on this.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60422111#msg60422111
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60425170#msg60425170
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60450938#msg60450938
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60462680#msg60462680
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60488534#msg60488534
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60491108#msg60491108
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60532892#msg60532892
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60570452#msg60570452
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60573935#msg60573935
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60577306#msg60577306
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60582400#msg60582400
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60583312#msg60583312
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60590102#msg60590102
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60591168#msg60591168
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60592966#msg60592966
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60593767#msg60593767
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60593835#msg60593835


JollyGood explained himself

---

Until now JollyGood made 17 (+/-2) posts only on this thread. Most of them are by asking questions. He then elaborates his thoughts of why he was asking the questions and what he thinks all about. All these posts are long repetitive posts, unnecessarily longer then it was supposed to take (Are you working on applying the next chipmixer open spot) . Poker Player was correct in his comparison (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60583170#msg60583170).

In his long line of texts he asked many questions that clearly means he did NOT bother to do proper case study (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60593833#msg60593833).
How can someone spend hours of time for days without doing their homework correctly? Or a) this is intentional attack because he felt unnoticed of not adding him in the PM circle / b) he felt insulted because I was not responding his nonsense / c) I was criticizing the way he justifies a case (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60500138#msg60500138) / d) to achieve some name from the bad situation I am in / e) anything else?

One will need to read the post (^^^)to understand the context.
The answer of all above including many questions were already made in the first post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60421519#msg60421519). For example share of GGR.

To conclude,
In many cases but safe to say in my case, JollyGood did not do proper case study. Which makes me believe that he does not do proper case study of the allegations he makes against anyone or any project.
If a long lasting member like me is having very difficult time to handle his nonsense clueless allegations, unnecessary demands which I am not comfortable to share with him furthermore he personally has no business with it then imagine how difficult it is for new users and lower rank users who has not established them before going face to face against Jolly.
JollyGood takes the opportunity of him being forum police/lawyer and leave red tag to the users.
I do not trust his judgement. His motives are questionable.

---

To make it worst, this is his reason for him to leave the negative tag. Because the flag is inactive which was a combined effort from many users. Since the flag is not active he decided to use his sole power of using the red feedback.

Yeah, I think JollyGood actually turned from good scam buster into ghost hunter, who is giving negative feedbacks like candies, but Royse777 you are also keeping this circus show alive.
I ask you to cool down, apologize and move on, but no, you continue again with new analytical post, justification and going into attack mode.
Just for stats, top five posters in this topic according to Ninjastic website:
https://ninjastic.space/topic/5403679

PS
JollyGood if you want to ask your 1001 question to Royse than ask him with private messages.
Royse, for the last time I am asking you to chill, because you are not going to help your case like this.

There will be no PM between JollyGood and me. I do not trust him. I will say dear he will make it deer, I will say beer he will make it bear. Then new open topic to explain dear and beer then another new drama.
I hear you buddy.
Thanks. I would like a peace.