Umm...? That is actually what I asked you since three days ago and I've been waiting ypur answer to weighting my further step. They did not give me any follow ups and I was hoping they put an effort from your side. I take it that the silence goes on, although they were online couple of days ago and could reply for a case in AG only yesterday?

Not sure where he got that idea, the credit given by NotATether was more than sufficient and clear to anyone reading the thread, or... why he choose to take that thread into his own hand and make a fuss about it, where some other --one might argue-- more demanding topics are in danger needs of his attention.

I believe yours is the one with a lot of posts in all caps and profanities? Sorry, I couldn't force myself to finish reading that thread and, thus, didn't have an understanding of that thread. I rarely PM representatives for cases that I didn't oversee, and I didn't oversee cases that I didn't have an understanding on.

Perhaps I was a bit unclear with what I previously said and quoted above. I re-read the post and see it is quite ambiguous. What I tried to say is, I asked if they allow total withdrawal or just returning the deposit. It'll be helpful for me to know this, because I can use that info write an accurate neutral feedback based on their answer, to warn other users, whether to write "refusing to perform such KYC will void your winnings and only entitle you to your deposit" or, "refusing to perform such KYC will remove your ability to play on their casino with your progress so far paid to you" or, perhaps they can add more to this story.

Won 88mbtc from sportsbetting from 150mbtc deposit when his issue came up. I don't think it can be considered as a good profit, no?

---

OP, has BC's representative got in touch with you? They were online yesterday and today, and they're yet to address any of the open accusation against them. Kindly update us from your side.

I am encouraging you both to move and focus the discussion for that matter in the designated thread, especially as Razer has replied there. It'll be helpful for every party involved and people overseeing the situation to follow the discussion if it happens in one place rather in two simultaneous thread.

I have to agree with several members here that it's a rather poor justification. I intially thought --half hoping-- you'll come and explain that this is not something normal and acceptable by your platform, that the security staff were requesting such invasive verification was doing it by their own initiative instead of your SOP, and that you'll make sure such... probing will not happen in the future. As I previously said, I can understand that you require your user to logging in and out of their account during video verification, but to show their google and binance account? I have to say I am not comfortable with "KYC" that deep.

I hope you can explain more, and perhaps answer what DaveF asked, it'll be helpful for me to write a neutral feedback to warn other [future] users of this... depth of KYC they might have to undergo, and their option, whether they'll get refund or are allowed to withdraw if they refuses to do so.

I've send Razer a PM about this and invite him to that thread, he is not constantly online so let's give him a time to come back to the forum and address the concern.

I would argue a little wiggle room that if their video verification includes logging out and into their platform, it can be accepted as a countermeasure of fraudulent activity by faking credentials for KYC, using someone else's ID for their KYC, but asking for a screenshare when accessing binance and google account is... I don't think they have any basis to justify this action and kinda upsetting.

I'll PM Razer and invite him to this thread, see what their defense for such invasive investigation.

I've done that earlier today, just in case OP can't send them a PM due to newbie restriction. Hopefully they'll address this matter. It'll be nice to see their representative attending to cases and solving them again.

That's highly dependant on which side and perspective we see it. From an investor who currently in the middle of their DD? I think they'll find it useful and someone nicely pointed things out. From the perspective of a project with questionable quality? Yeah, I can understand why you don't like it when someone pointed out crucial flaws of your project, and spelled it out how it translated to incompetence, and how likely the project gone missing in a very near future.

You don't want to be criticized and your mistakes pointed out? I suggest next time when you have another shady project, make sure you re-read your whitepaper before publishing it.

Unless there's something you leave out from your story, I find myself in an agreement with your case. They warned you and you asked what's allowed and what's not, and then what's allowed [in a written statement] suddenly became not-allowed. I can understand that interdepartmental miscommunication are something that frequently happens, and though the above situation can be considered as a poor communication between your host and the security team, their decision to lock you out seems... wrong, especially if there's nothing wrong with your KYC and you do everything honestly.

I'll write to BC's representative, though my previous PMs and the past [active] cases against them are not solved or attended yet. Please update us if there's any development from your side.

I understand that one of the thing you tried to acquire here is a way to freeze the fund in his address, suppose it's binance hot wallet's? Unfortunately, I agree with hosseinimr93, I don't think that's binance hot wallet, that's the scammer's personal wallet, so there's no way we can ask binance or other custodial wallet provider to freeze the fund.

Best path to chase right now is to file a police report, though I personally think that'll lead to a dead end, given the only evidence is a dutch phone number [with high probability of being a disposible number]. Other way is to closely monitor the fund in that address and wait for it to move, hoping that it moves to a centralized exchange or a custodial wallet provider, then ask them to froze it.

Just because someone help answering a question by other user [on this case, decodx answered question addressed to OP from Coin_trader] doesn't necessarily mean they're the same user and it's their alt account.

---

OP, please confirm this and after you managed to withdraw the amount, mark this thread as solved and lock the thread

Read again, updated situation on post #6

As decodx said, it's there. I gave the pdf a read [it's not that long] before I first replied to this thread, and can confirm that the ToS should be the one applies when this thread is made and the most updated one, it's the one where we got redirected upon clicking the link next to the box we should tick to prove our agreement.



Nonetheless, OP is in touch with their admin, let's wait and hope it solves his problem.

Wolfbet's representative has not been online for a while. I can try to reach them through other channel if you want to, but I think... though I fully understand it might be inconvenient, would it not be better to just reach the 50 USD minimum withdrawal amount? It save some tx fee too. If that is not feasible or convenient to you, I'll try to find a way to invite their representative to this thread.

Thirteen people and none realized or have any time to proof-read the document before publishing it? A document that's very crucial on presenting your business? Nice. I think it shows enough of the seriousness of this project. I'm out.

Do you mind sharing the screenshot of that message? The one that says minimum withdrawal fee is 50 USD. And on what chain were you trying to withdraw? Although I don't think any chain currently have tx fee as high as 18 USD.

Oh? I noticed that he wiped out all of his feedback because I visited his trust page after he's off DT and it looked like this,



but it didn't come to my awareness that he also retracted all of his flags, mainly because the list still shows "created flag" and I didn't dig further. It seems... excessive. I am not sure if it's a good idea or a step forward toward betterment.