Understood, thanks for clarifying this. I saw that Razer was online two days ago, but didn't respond to any other threads I am pointing him to, probably he was just going online for a very short time and couldn't address any issue. I'll try to hail him once more with the updated development of this case.

Ok, I was wrong and stand corrected, the previously mentioned matche at 01.42 a.m. could be not a re-play, and thus, the final score on the second match could probably not be used as a reference to mark your bet as lost. Should it not be voided, though? Well, can you provide the final score provided at the end of that match? Because... unless I'm wrong, that's how and when every market settled.

Umm... here's the thing, a match was ended abruptly at minutes 66, less than an hour later, the exact same match with the exact same people playing the exact same team [different result, though] are being played, and the explanation that it's not a re-play for the previously unfinished match is: "that's how it works"? To put it roughly, you were asked for a backing reference, and your answer is basically, "source: trust me dude"?

You will really go with this? Ok, let's assume you're right, let's try to turn this as your basis.

Do you mind to provide several other matches with this scenario [exact same people play exact same team in a very short time]? Let's leave the part where the previous match was not finished for now. I figure if it's how it works, and it's 100% not a replay, there will be other instances. It can be a good backing evidence to support your claim if you can provide it.

Ahh yes, it's not specifically for FIFA, pardon the small difference. It's for general e-sport, which FIFA is one of it.

Now, do you mind providing reference that explains it's a new match and completely different than the first one that didn't finish due to technical issue? That they just happen to have exact same players playing the exact same team and exact same match with the previous one instead of a re-play? Or was that just your assumption, that it's not a re-play?

Your post is ambiguous, please clarify, did the transaction got reversed by Razer [the withdrawal process got cancelled and you got the fund back into your rollbit account] after the KYC finished or any time during that KYC request, or did the transaction stays at processed status and once you did KYC, Razer sent it through with the detail as you previously submitted back in 2022? In short, was it reversed [cancelled and the amount reappear as your account balance] or was it not [got approved and processed as per the withdrawal request 15 months ago]?

I looked at Stake's ToS, and can confirm that what acroman08 and Kirito89 said is what's written on their rules, [this was also quoted nicely by mahdirakib, I drafted this post few hours ago, and managed to make screenshots to complete the supporting evidence just now]. Aside from that, there's also additional rules for FIFA,



I haven't dig more, but at a glance, from OP's video, this match [Arsenal Alicia v. Chelsea Millie, at 01.05 a.m. UTC] had a technical issue on minute 66ish, and it seems they did a re-play four hours less than an hour later, at 01.42 a.m., with the result as below,



the match: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5g0y8VfKFt8, starting at 17:15.


the result:


So, unless I am wrong, your bets are actually a losing bet, if they didn't void it and treat it as a same match with the one at 01.05 a.m. Still want them to be unvoided?

---

It's not about pre-match or live, it's about the result of the match itself that was cancelled due to connection issue. And just in case you misunderstood, it's a FIFA match, not an actual soccer match.

---

Edit: adding more supporting evidence.

Though the idea you propose is not without merit, especially for totally innocent customer who will probably lost their fund when this kind of scenario happened, I have to disagree for the same reason I gave to BGC on #37.

Two things that probably worth adding, normal users during normal situation will tend to try to solve their KYC issue as soon as possible, so this whole cluster mess can [and probably will] be avoided. And two, regarding sacrificing their personal and sensitive information, KYC is part of the ToS they agreed, that platforms can ask it whenever they deemed it necessary. Thus, as they've agreed that they can be "subjected" to a "random" KYC, there should be no reason to feel like they're wagering their sensitive information for a chance to get their money, they sign themselves up with the full awareness of this clause, not to mention that it doesn't need to be a wager if they do it in time.

The scenario here, where the fund went to oblivion, is simply because the user dragged their KYC, and losing control of their own wallet. Wouldn't that mostly the user's fault then? To prolong the KYC and to lose their keys or access to their wallet. Suppose they clear the KYC within weeks [if not days], they'll most likely still have access to their wallet. And suppose they lost access to their wallet... how is this not the user's fault and carelessness?

Simplified, what I tried to argue, as they've agreed to KYC, why bother dragging it for over than a year, with a chance of losing the access of their wallet and got their fund delivered to a "dead" address, while they know it's an inevitable process once asked [the request will still be there an hour later, tomorrow, or the next decade] and they have nothing to hide? Granted, it's inconvenient, I myself will mostly shy away from KYC if I can, but when I agreed to it when I enlist myself to something, and it's forced to me, I think I'll do it, given I have nothing to hide.

If I may reverse the situation though, do you disagree that it'll be risky for a platform and probably expose themselves in abetting money laundering [and thus jeopardizing their license] because they go lenient with user by removing the second layer of AML policy and allow user to withdraw their fund to a different wallet, with consideration to the point I raised in #37?

Would have to beg to differ on this. Self-moderated topics, in the right hand and with correct purpose, can be very useful. LV's threads [with this very one as a nice example, just like Jawhead999 pointed out] are proof that moderated topics are necessary.

Ok, I gave your entire posts here another thorough read.

I previously dismissed your claim of not knowing why they asked for KYC because you initially sure it was for AML, and I thought you came to that conclusion from the document you submitted to them [SoW]. Assume what you said is the whole story here, given they just asked for ID and asked you to verify the ownership through logging in, I think it's safe to say it was not due to AML prevention kicking in.

However... as it turns out, the reason why they send it to your initial address is simply because it's a "pending" transaction from a year ago, being held there by a KYC requirement, and once the KYC passed, that transaction got processed and went through. I  missed one details, though, I thought it's there on your posts, but [sorry to say, I mean no offense] I am not that interested to re-read the entire thread, so I'll just ask, you did not ask to cancel this pending transaction anytime, be it in writing with their live support, email, discord, and others, or during the interview?


By the way, the reason you're being banned this time is probably because you're accessing from prohibited jurisdiction. You're a current resident of Las Vegas, Nevada; USA is one of their restricted teritories.

Wouldn't that go a bit toward counterproductive in AML? Moving away from OP's case for a few seconds, let's assume a fund by an user was a tainted fund, with full intention to ML, but backed with good preparation to pass SoW verification. When he got his fund temporary held by Rollbit or other platforms and investigated [and passed it], all he need to do is wait for one year and claimed that he's no longer has access to the originating address, provide a new address, and the tainted fund are now clean.

Or, if we want to take other scenario [not saying that this is what happened to OP as I don't know what document OP submitted, this illustration is purely for the sake of discussion], when someone caught for ML activity, they can wait for a year, then do the SoW level KYC. The platform asked for bank statement for the last couple of months, they submitted the already prepared bank statement which they have 1+ year to tailor, and once verified, proceed to above step. They didn't do the verification right away when it was asked because if they submitted it at that time, the documents might give a different result.

---

I correctly summarize that the reason you delayed it is because you've been told that once you passed the KYC, the fund will automatically be processed and can not be reversed back to a balance in your account? And you changed your mind, the fund you were initially ready to withdraw are now planned to be emergency cash?

[I fixed your quote]

I didn't mean to be rude, but you do aware that this entire inconvenience can be avoided if you perform the KYC right when asked? Instead of one year and three months later? That way, when they send the fund to the originating address, the whole FTX fiasco are yet to affect anyone. May I know the reason behind this delay? It's very counterproductive, IMO, especially with "not your key not your coin" tagline.

In regards to point number 4, to further clarify, during the time they asked for KYC, your withdrawal request was stuck in "pending", got them reversed and returned to your account balance after you cleared KYC, and then...? Were you requesting a new withdrawal or were they initiating the fund transfer without you asking for it?


If you're referring to the post under the horizontal break, it's not a question for you. I replied to both you and BenCodie in single post, marked it with hr break to give more clarity.

OP, this post is to reply your posts above, universally.

First, you can "bypass" that 5 minutes per post restriction by replying everybody in single post instead of multiple consecutive posts. I'll give you an example of replying to multiple user in one post, with this post. In fact, I encourage you to do so. Consecutive posts are... frowned by moderators.

Second, to be sure we're on the same page. By "company", you're meaning to say you're working as a staff in a crypto platform, and you send your fund to rollbit from their wallet? Were you sending it yourself, or were you meaning to say you asked their financial department to send your salary to your rollbit address?

Third, I understand correctly that you got restricted since last year, were requested to do KYC since July 2022, and submitted it just around this time of the year because you think you can do it later when you needed it and you want that fund to be stored there as an emergency cash? On a gambling platform that restrict access to those fund and requested KYC?

Fourth, you were not asked or at the very least shown the withdrawal form where you can see the withdrawal address? There's no form where you're asked how much you want to withdraw etc, everything went straightforwardly: you deposited, tried to withdraw right after, got locked, one year later you perform KYC, and that withdrawal request you submitted since last year got processed, with the same amount and address?

---

Considering the fact that it's probably their SOP for enhanced security [and probably govt. compliance] for suspected fund of ML, that the same practice also performed by other casino, and thus the fund was already sent out of their "pocket", how do you propose rollbit knows it's a "dead" address? That it's no longer accessible purely because OP waited more than one year to perform KYC?

I believe you're meaning to wrote this below?


simple answer to become not newbie is to rank up to Jr Member, for that, you'll need 1 merit. To be able to get merit, you have to make posts that people [who'll give you merit] deemed a good post.

I wonder... were you're meaning to say that you've been in process of KYC for 15 months, and that's because you're yet to submit the documents they requested for KYC?

Because... Rollbit suspected that the fund was part of AML, and after proven that it's not [it'll be held if it is], the fund will be withdrawable to the depositing address? That's part of their procedure, and Rollbit is not the only platform that apply this policy. How is it irresponsible? And I don't think they have to rectify it, they've done their part by sending the money they owed to OP.

---

OP, one thing that has been bugging my mind since yesterday, I guess this is the first time I heard about an account got KYC-locked, for 15 months. What is it and why?

I'm actually giving him a room to air his laundry and/or to say something to explain the reason behind his decision, I believe you know that's how I operates. I can't help but wonder why he isn't yet, he posted on several other boards, but seemingly ignoring this thread.

---

Umm... IIRC, Gazeta reported a lot, a lot of posts. And by a lot, I mean tens of thousands.

You don't need to delete the thread. If you deemed things is solved [and I personally think it should be], just mark this thread as solved, you can do that by editing the first post and add "solved" to the title, then lock this thread to avoid spam by meaningless discussion. The button to lock a thread is on the bottom left of the page.

This translates correctly? And you've wrote to them and currently waiting for their response? In that case, we better wait for their response to learn what they found. Meanwhile, are you sure you didn't breach any of the ToS you agreed? Multi-acc? Late bet?

Their live chat is not... accessible. Since my PM was ineffective because they're not online for a while, I tried to send them an email. I know it's a long shot, given your email was not responded, but I guess it's better than nothing. Let's see if we can manage to reach them.

I've sent him a PM yesterday notifying him about this case, kindly wait until he goes online and noticed my PM and hopefully will address this issue. But, I can't say they have to "reimburse" your fund. In one perspective, they've done their duty, both to you and to the govt. policy of AML. Your fund was not in their control anymore, they've paid it out. If they issued you another payment [and that's a big IF], IMO, it'll be from a good will, not because they're obligated to do it.

---

Umm... what?

I've give your explanation a thorough reading, the above part I snipped from the rest probably explains how and why this thing happened to you. In fact, I was going to ask about it in case you didn't explain it first.

IIRC, many casinos established a rule when someone was suspected to do an AML and prove their source of income [which are not from ML activities], they can only withdraw to their deposit address, let's call it a second layer of prevention against AML.

I'm not sure if Razer will do anything about it, given the fund already went through and it's a rule of AML, but I'll send Razer a PM, see if there's anything he can do.