It seems that you are annoyed with your reaction. I think it is good to give feedback on sites, it was not negative.
It was objective. And I think it is right that my statement was that it is not the same as normal Casino's. Why do you think it is negative?

I briefly looked at the site. A downside in my opinion is that you have to log in to be able to perceive something.
The layout also looks a bit old-fashioned. Maybe change so that users can also view the platform without having to log in?
I also am not sure what the exact purpose of the game is? most users are not familiar with these idea's, so you have to clarify it a little bit more.

If you want to reach something with Curaçao eGaming, then I have to disappoint you. They will not take proper action, because they are also responsible as Master license holder. They are not interested in these kind of situations of course. There are Trust (not trusted) companies who help to set up the best construction. It is in their best interest that everything goes smooth. They are not waiting for people who complain. Even starting cases in court is not going to work. I know people who tried this, make claims against bookmakers and the courts case was extended more than 10 times, and as we speak no result after all.

The site looks nice. I am only not sure what the purpose is of these kind of games. Not typically casino games. It makes it unique, but on the other hand also some confusing to users like me who do not understand anything about the rules/target in the game.

I am trying to check your site for a review, but I got the message that the request is blocked? Maybe to high level in the firewall?

I am objective in this situation. I try to look at the facts. If there are problems in the past related to the owner of the site, it can of course cause the problems / suspicion.
It is therefore important to clarify such matters clearly.
Maybe you can explain what exactly was the problem with the previous link of the product you offered, because now it seems that there is a direct connection between the owner of your site and the previous project.
Trust is very important to online gamblers.
 In any case, it is good that you respond to the forum here, people will certainly appreciate that.
That is also the best way to gain trust from people. Information does not say everything, of course, but the story must be well-founded with arguments.

You should do a lot of research before you start with something like this. It is more complicated than people think. I switched business a while ago.
Do you want to go for White Label or Turnkey solution? Or only the API?

That is of course just because, there are different variants of Captcha. Not all of them are as persistent and tedious to get through. The latest version, version 3, is a lot more user-friendly and less annoying. But that depends on the choice of the owner.

You really have to be very careful with this. I have read several articles that trading money through the Skrill platform is prohibited. They may even decide to close your account.

I've seen sites like this before. If you want us to provide this site with the necessary feedback and give it a fair chance, I think it is also necessary to provide transparency about the current structure.
If we do an investigation into the company Radeon B.V. then we see that this company owns multiple sites. This can indicate a large organization, but can also indicate a White Label construction.
Betnomi: Can you clarify this?
I think customers also want to build in a certain security before they decide to deposit and play with their funds.

This is indeed a good example. It is not without reason that Bookmakers always offer 50-50% matches with odds of around 1.85
If two teams or players are equally matched, these odds will be around this course.
If you looked at the situation hypothetically, and the same amount was invested in both markets, keep the bookmaker an advantage of like 5-10%, even before the game has started.

Example:
100 @ 1.85 on Player A
100 @ 1.85 on Player B

So the return is always 185, while 200 comes in. (Revenue 15) In the long run, it should be profitable for a bookmaker, because of these kind of benefits.

I think it also makes a big difference in the number of transactions you do, the volume and where the bitcoins' source of income comes from. I know that Coinbase can use struct policies with acceptance from the bitcoin source. For example, you have a risk area when it comes to bitcoins that are related to gambling. Today, companies are increasingly strict in reducing the number of money laundering practices. They are forced to do this because of law. Companies may be more reluctant to use the help desk if they don't trust it.

похоже на скачки волатильности - между разными биржами курс очень разный, когда скачки большие.
в крайнем релизе выделили блокчейн фии отдельно

1. Пока без новостей. Новость только по снижению лимитов для неверифицированных аккаунтов, в соц.сетях уже вышли, емэйл неверифицированным пользователям тоже ушел сегодня.
2. Изменение, которое было, было (и есть) связано с нерезонным размером комиссии блокчейн, при этом чем меньше сумма трансфера или загрузки на карту, тем более нерезонный % комиссии (иначе транзакции могут "висеть" бесконечно). Как временная мера был реализован плавающий размер этой комиссии, и чем больше сумма, тем более выгодный курс. Ничего не менялось, может быть дни, может вы просто пробовали разные порядки сумм?
Сейчас идет работа по смене архитектуры кошельков, в результате которой рассчитываем нормализовать ситуацию.

к большому нашему сожалению, банк-эмитент уведомляет нас о подобных изменениях в последний момент. Жалуемся и возмущаемся, но эффект пока небольшой. С другой стороны, их тоже можно понять - держат максимально возможные лимиты и другие плюшки (неверифицированные аккаунты и пр.) до последнего, когда совсем прижимают регуляторы, сдаются.
По неверифицированным аккаунтам грядет очередное затягивание гаек, как это ни грустно, в ближайшее время объявим официально.

read the response in a different thread (or avoid posting the same comments over multiple threads)

unfortunately, not

thank you!

normally when a chargeback form is filled (which is the case in your situation as I can see), the refund goes to the same card. It could very well be that yours cannot be processed because you had blocked your card yourself.
Getting the money back could be much more complicated in such case, not to mention transferring it to another card - what you should have done really, is wait for the official 14 days for the issue to sort itself out via the standard MasterCard processing rules..

too many people talk too much. thanks for pointing this out, will look into it