You can start by editing your opening post with the format given by goldkingcoiner, it'll make things easier to understand and verifiable than wall of text. This board runs on evidences, and I'm afraid mere words will not help enough. I'll invite Tokash [FJ's representative] myself when you have make things easier to understand and you've provide enough proof.

You can always raise a flag anytime you wish, but it will need some support [or opposition] from DT [that's kinda a group of selected people whose judgement are considered to have weight]. If your case is convincing and provable enough, DTs will support your flag. Otherwise, they'll just ignore or even opposes it.

So, let's try to sort this situation first, see if we can get a solution for this, before we jump into sticking flag on FJ's head, shall we?

They will not respond here.

They've made a public statement that they will not attend to any thread on scam accusation board. I believe [and by that, I mean I am sure] that was rooted from when they had those stack-of-cases that happens to many casinos at certain point with, at least, IIRC, one false accusation [this one I remember, though; it was a late bet that was not late at all].

I forgot which one was which that became the trigger of things went south, but things got heated, spiralled down, and instead of de-escalating the situation, "the marketing guy behind this post" [that's how the representative referred to himself] choose to took the low blow and taking drastic steps by manipulating posts, twisting the reality of what I said to paint me black by snipping my post to an entirely different narrative, and ultimately trying to dox me and Pmalek [we both were the ones overseeing those cases], and later edited and removed the incriminating sentence that doxxed me... wrongly [there has been numerous attempt to dox me as a retaliation of what I did, but none seems to be correct so far]. Bottomline: acting very unprofessional.

But I am not here to reopen old wounds and/or having a bad blood with TrustDice, even if they still have the same representative as the one attended to those old cases. Those things are in the past, completely forgiven though not forgotten. So, if they want to return to this board, I can give my words that I'll oversee their cases like I oversee any other that arrives on this board: from neutral ground.

Otherwise, I think they asked people to redirect any open scam accusation against them to CG or AG.

So, OP, abdo91, that's your call if you want to escalate them to CG or AG. And, Coinbox1, this is an invitation with a wide arm to return to this board, leave all those stupid things that happened in the past stays in the past, and start everything clean.

But you lost those bets? Hence the balance is zero? Because when, or even before you can meet the wagering requirement, you lose them all? And after that, after the balance reached zero, they re-block your account?

Not trying to defend SB [though I can see and hear myself that it awfully sounds like it] but, aren't these points extremely biased? I mean, if we break them down:


This is a common practice shared by any centralized crypto casino, not exclusively SportBet's. People are allowed to create an account and deposit without any prior requirement, and only later on, when the necessity arise, they're required to perform certain level KYC, as per what they've agreed on the ToS during sign up.

That's why it's actually [regardless how "anti-privacy" and counterintuitive it is] always advised to clear your KYC prior to play and/or deposit on any casino, to prevent inconvenient situation in the future.

There's no win for this argument. If the casino make it a requirement for their customer to perform KYC during sign up, prior to any game play or even a deposit, I can hear them screaming "this casino steals identity through enforced KYC!". If they don't require you to perform it upon your first, second, third, or twentieth play, and only requested that when they deemed it so, situation as quoted above occured.

Can you name me one or two casinos that does not require their customer to perform KYC at one point? Even a web3 casinos [decentralized casinos] will require KYC upon certain triggers.

If you don't want to perform any KYC, then go to a casino that doesn't require KYC. Here, there's a thread listing casinos who require KYC and those who are not.


Can you please be more clear on what you mean by them lacking a transparency in regulatory standing? It's there, at the bottom of their page, like where most casinos have it: the information and the seal of validation of their licensor.



And, "their gaming license is not recognized in major markets such as the UK", is this a fact? That UK major market does not recognize Curacao gaming license? Where can I validate this statement? If it's true, then many casinos out there are in a serious identity crisis, many of them are licensed by Curacao authorities. Anyway, how does it related [UK recognizing a license or not] to what a company sponsored?

Further, in order for me to get a better understanding of who you referred to and I can compare them myself with many casinos I know, can you please mention the names of those reputable platforms that list their executives and corporate structures transparently?


As what can be inferred on both points above, this is not exclusively applied to SportsBet. In relevance to that part of post I quoted above, any platform poses this risk. Literally any platform. Your brick and mortar bank even poses this risk. Why does SB being specifically and exclusively mentioned here?


I don't think I still need to cover this part, do I? I am more than willing, if people asked me to. Meanwhile, it'll be very very nice of you if you can address all of those points I raised above in reply to your own.

I don't think I understand. Earlier, you said that you can't place bets or withdraw, those activities are blocked for you from the moment you deposited. And now you said that those balance are zero because you placed bets?

Or do I actually understand it correctly? They give you a temporary access to your account, you placed bets to fulfill the wager requirement, you lost those bets, and ultimately your balance is zero?

There's no need for that, tipping me, I'm here to help the forum be a better place for each of their user [that said, the casinos's representative are also their user], I never seek for any financial benefits on any cases. Simply getting them resolved is enough.

There are consequences for reverting it, though. Disregarding the truth behind the story, if they granted your plea to void those bets, many will come and use the same reason as their safety net. They risk a big gamble, they lost, and they claimed that they've been hacked.

You understand that Rollbit is under no obligation to void the bets, that they bear no responsibility at all on this situation, and that if they refuse to grant your wish, they have full right to do so?

I reached Razer to see if he'll probably be able to overturn the decision, and this thread can be marked as resolved instead of invalid [nonetheless, it's still invalid as they did not scam you], and whatever his decision is, it'll be the end of your case. He grants or denies it, this thread will be marked as resolved and locked.

Then it's not a loophole, more like a bug on a severe level. And if OP tell the whole truth, that he didn't intentionally do so, then I think it's quite unfair to call him an abuser. I imagine, if we assume his story is the whole situation here, it'll be kinda hard to intentionally put himself in this situation, given all he can do is entering the amount he wanted to deposit and the rest is completely dependent on the payment provider.

That'll because google does not monitor the ads they caters. Anyone can create a phishing site and paid those fee to be listed on the first entry of a search result [marked as sponsored]. It can happen to anyone, even those who exercise caution, as some are even very hard to spot due to the very clever similarity [like using the name "rolIbit' [the second "L" was a capital I] or "rollbIt"] that can be quite missable on a quick glance.

As a precaution, it is always advised to access casinos from a bookmarked legit site.

I've send a PM to Razer, let's wait and give some time for him to notice my PM.

First of all, I understand you've regained and secured access to your account?

I'll try to invite Razer to come here and let him know about your situation, see if he will make a consideration and can overturn the team's decision, voiding those previous bets and returned the fund. However, to be fair and without any intention to rub it in, given the situation happened by your own "fault" [you got phished by your own mistake], this is actually not a scam attempt by Rollbit.

This "payment system" made sense and could probably be what their representative tried to convey, though I don't understand how is this "cheating", if the refund of the value difference was done immediately and OP did not do it intentionally. According to OP, the next screen shown after he inputted USDT 15 as the amount he intended to deposit, was the sending confirmation, where he can't [the way I understand it] "manipulate" the amount being deposited.

I've send the email, let's hope their representative come back here with a proper explanation and txID. If they did the refund, there is still a hope for OP to recover his fund by asking Binance to process the credit to his account with the said txID.

I think it's time to get joyacasino to give a better explanation that could probably clears a lot of confusion. I saw that they went offline again, so I attempted to replicate previous attempt, by reaching through their live support to convey a message to their colleague to return to the forum.

Unfortunately, I got one that seemingly has tendency to overcomplicate things.






I'll send them an email tomorrow morning. I have a feeling that I'll need to write a short summary of what happens

Emm...? Correct me if I'm wrong, the new payment method, they require you to input the amount twice? The amount you intended to deposit and the amount you're willing to pay to get that deposited? And you paid USDT 1,098.8?

What prompts you to typed in 1,098.8 instead of 15? Or is that set automatically? You only typed in 15, and the next screen shows that you'll be deducted 1,098.8 in total, that includes the intended withdrawal and the tx fee [in other words, 1,083.8 is the tx fee]?

Can you please copy that txID here? Perhaps it'll help people understand things easier.

They won't care. At least most of them. Those bounty hunters are mostly also there for a quick money, applying for spot without conducting any DD, posting on the forum or other media [Twitter, telegram, and whichever bounty available for application] with low quality post that's borderline spam, and later on, when they didn't get paid, they'll complained.

It's there on OP's CG's complain thread, available for public to read




And you understand this wrongly. It's the exact opposite. CG ruled the case in favor of the casino, with findings that the OP breached Joya's TnC and acted in fraudulent behavior, and that the casino had fulfilled their responsibility to the player.

---

joyacasino, combining your explanation here and what's available for public to read in CG, do I understand the situation [according to your side] correctly as below:

1. Your system require players to manually input the value they deposited
2. OP deposited 15 USDT
3. OP manually wrote 1,098 USDT, resulting a value difference of 1,083 USDT
4. OP used this difference [1,083 USDT] to play
5. Your payment provider and you detected this fraudulent behavior and refunded the 15 USDT

Am I warm?

I'd like to think that it was what sets seasoned campaign or bounty manager with those "wanna-be". They did not conduct a thorough research, blindly accepting projects, incentivized by mere dollars, some even got promised that the fund will be escrowed, so they started the bounty without conducting their own DD or insist that the escrow fund are present.

I catched several of these BM-wannabe in the past... well, actually only one, they just have multiple accounts, created another bounty management once the previous one got flagged by me. They tried to put a counter-measure --after several fiasco-- by only accepting project that will escrow the fund.

One said they will, so the BM happily started the project, and then the project developers did not fill the wallet. Surprised? Well, I am more surprised that the BM-wannabe actually cried to the forum that he got scammed by a project.

My memory is a bit rusty about this one, but I think there was a case where the BM actually stole funds from the participants. The participant list are fake [most likely his own], some that real are banned [after the campaign finished] for complaining on the project TG discussion channel for the long delay in payment, and only few of those participants got paid. Blockchain shows that the BM kept a good portion of the token on his wallet. I can't recall which case was it, though, as I was just an overseer on that case and not the one creating it.

I believe what Rating Place brushed was the cases with Stake where two users needed to undergo a very intensive [and invasive] KYC for pre-investigation purpose [you know, the one they do before they conduct a possible violation or two]. I believe it was not a common occurance and those two [hopefully] were isolated cases. I'd like to think that way because otherwise, this board will be flooded by people complaining that they're required to perform SoW level KYC that gets dragged for months.

This case was solved rather peacefully, let's not derail this thread by discussing other matters.

OP, bachezy, I'd really appreciate if you can do what Mahdirakib suggested, edit the title and add the word "resolved" [or equivalence of it] and lock this thread so there won't be any further meaningless discussion. If there is a chance that you won't be coming back [i'll be closely monitoring your online status for the next one week], I'll ask mods to lock it for us.

That's because he's not a new fresh account, he's been on Stake for three years and on platinum 6, and he did not get his betting limited, he get a bet withheld [and the whole amount confiscated, not just the winning], he placed a bet in Jontay Porter's bet.

---

To avoid confusion as happened to above poster, I'd invite you to address that concern on jeffyeps's thread and not here, focus things related to his case on his thread. Though I won't be able to comment much and/or help pushing things to Stake or even nudged them about it, given I've withdrawn myself from that thread.

Additionally, those projects hire these questionable bounty managers for the cheap price they offered because those dev know the project won't be long, or that seasoned campaign manager will not accept to manage their project due to the questionable nature of it. All they need is a small boost of marketing to trap as many people as they can before they left. The project itself is a hit and run projects, thus they're looking for the cheapest marketing available.

I mean... really? 15% daily?

Oh sorry for being unclear, I was not talking about the OP of this thread and his case. I was talking about your open proposal to Sportsbet's representatives.

As previously mentioned, SB's representative have tendency to not revisiting a thread when they consider it closed. But I think I can invite either one of them, or perhaps both, to answer your question below... if you still want to proceed?