One hilarious thing that I found out upon digging further... well, "further" doesn't justify what I said because I looked at one image of their "customer" and the rest of it was spent laughing my ass off --I mean, that's Danny Ocean sitting next to another stolen image-- is that they fabricated their customer review with fake profile, so yes, definitely another red flag.



About the company, though, I agreed with what Gladiatorcomeback said. I think it's legit and real company that they borrowed without the company's consent. Crypto Mining Service, Ltd. is a real company, given they were striken off and threatened to be dissolved on 6th of June and fought the action to be discontinued by fulfilling the required document one month later.

They actually did mentioned an incorporation, on their about page, registered under #07568979, Crypto Mining Service, Ltd., registered on 17 March 2011. But I am somewhat sure that name and license was borrowed without the real company's knowledge, and that the company itself has never declared their official website, at least according to this database

How does royse get paid to defend them, again? Far as I know, he doesn't even have any business with them, not even as a campaign or competition manager?

You are not asking to either bring supervisor or to pay you. As I previously mentioned on your other thread [amongst many other], you still ask the 1M USD even after they granted your demand and let the supervisor talk to you. In fact, the first thing you tell the supervisor is to pay him because you "want to bury this" and it'll be better to "wrap this", pretty much sounds like an extortion for money




Nope, he's leaning more toward grasping at straws and throwing muds rather than venting, if I may give my opinion. So far, he accuses Stake to be a scam family business due to the owner's father's past history, changing betID during live betting, using motion sensors to cheat their user, manipulating betting [mine games] history, and paid anyone who question his story as people on their payroll.

But yes, I think he's in denial, he lost his inheritance money to gamble at stake.

Then, I'll suggest you to write email to their security and perhaps marketing team about how they should behave and what criteria should they look for instead of writing it here because, as I am sure you can guess, it's rather pointless.

Though I sympathize for the current situation you're currently in, that red banner above this thread is not for nothing, it serve as a warning that the platform should be taken with some degree of precaution. May I suggest you to do more DD of the platform you're about to play prior to depositing and playing? This forum has a very good... track record of platforms, it could serve as a good reference point.

Hmm... at this point, it will feel like I am trying to antagonize you, but I can assure you that I have no hidden agenda here other than to straigthen facts, so... to be fair, the impression I get from OP's own screenshot and dexsports.io's statement [both were presented below for easier access of the context] was that the fund being returned instantly, and that the claim of "a lot of hassle" came from OP himself without supporting evidence. The only image he provide as evidence is a chat with their support team that literally snipped to the part where they refunded his bet, there were no part of the chat where OP has to pursue their support to withdraw, or any effort done that made him managed to get his fund back.




IF we peek into their ANN thread, though, there's a recent claim of withdrawal being blocked [quoted below], and regardless it came from a newbie whose first and only post is about the complain, it might still be wise to be very cautious when betting on this platform for the time being.


Focusing back to OP and this case, as previously mentioned, OP had a case with other platform for an almost similar situation, violating a TnC of sportsbook that's yet to be straigthened out by OP. So, while the platform itself, dexsport.io, should be taken with caution, IMO, until OP can give explanation of that case and this statement [hopefully with evidence] of hassle, his statement also need to be taken with grains of salt.

I generally agree with the point about KYC, the point of web3 gambling [or the decentralized gambling] is the enhanced anonimity and less control from specific individuals, thus the suggestion to provide KYC is somewhat... counterproductive. But it's worth stating that dexsport didn't ask this.

Moving up, I beg to differ for the part, "crypto users encouraging this kind of dishonest practices in the scam accusation section". Most of the users overseeing scam accusations section and accustomed to the scam accusation resolution will give every side chances to defend themselves by asking both parties for evidences. We even go to a length to notify and invite the involved parties to attend to the case and give their side of the story.

And last, it is true that decentralized betting platform usually just need the users to connect their wallet, no "registration" or username needed, but some still asked for the user to create a "profile", and apparently dexsport is one of them,


And even though the profile creation is basically like what you said, connecting our wallet through metamask, walletconnect, and the likes, it seems the deposit and the winning are not directly tied to the wallet as it seems need to be manually withdrawn; at least that's what I can conclude by creating a new wallet just to get better understanding of this platform, as I don't go as far as depositing, betting, and withdrawing.



While for how they detect multi-acc abuse with what supposed to be pseudo-anonymous setup, it's an entirely different topic

Hmm... I'm afraid this is true. Their live support is very... useless. It was quite unfortunate that I did not make a screenshot of the time when I initiate the contact, but this chat has been left like this since my last post, so roughly 12.00 P.M. and seven hours later, there still no response




With the current situation, where their support is very poor, I think it will be a good idea to leave the tag as it is for now. After all, the message on the feedback is correct, only the reference link isn't, so it still serve something... I guess.

For this matter, I am not sure if Philippine applies the same rule, but my country as well as several other countries have a law that prohibit government officials to have their own business while working for the country. Thus, providing the business permit [or other SoW] kinda ensure them that you're not govt. officials. Though I am not sure why a govt. staff are not allowed to play in their platform, unless gambling is prohibited in Philippine?

To be fair, negative tag from yahoo was to invite them to look into the case and would be removed once solved, and it's been solved, so probably yahoo just forgot to remove/change the tag. I'll use this opportunity to inform him and made him aware of the situation through mention. yahoo62278, you might want to revise the tag?

Above thing said, I am not recommending anyone to play on their platform for the time being. And, as the representative of the platform has been away for a while, I am currently trying to reach them through live support [or email if they required me to] to let them aware of this thread. Though it probably will take a while, given I've been hanging for about half a hour without any response or anyone addressing my chat.

I'll reach Razer about this, see if he can take this matter into his hand and take another look at your case. Meanwhile, I am re-uploading your screenshots through imgtalk for visibility. Just to be sure we cover every ground from your side, namely every proof you can provide, can you perhaps share the rest of the conversation with their support? I can see it's only partial.

If I may offer perspective from my own [personal] professional career, such cases where shareholders or the higher-ups are disagreeing about the direction of their company are not uncommon. And usually, it's solved through finding a middle way, taking majority votes if necessary, and on severe case, offering a buy out for the partners. One or two even publicly announced [it's a small business close to where I live] that they have internal issues and will come back with solution in an undetermined time, but assure that they will give their best, clear all of their duties and responsibilities, and then pull the brake while they internally solving their issue. None of the companies with these issues in the past from my experience took the houdini act.

LMAO, at this point, it might be more efficient if they write the eligible countries instead of the one forbidden. I am quite confused with their demographic. I thought they're focusing on SEA countries, but I can see Singapore on their no-go list. And interestingly, I actually tried a VPN through Indonesia [or was it Malaysia?] when they blocked me from accessing through Europe and US regions, and so I thought they're focusing on the countries close to them. Thus I tried Singapore first [which was blocked, obviously], and then Indonesia, and still hit the same wall, but I can't see Indonesia and Malaysia on their no-go list.

Anyway, the point I tried to reach from my efforts, do they have social media where they can be reached more publicly?

That'll be a very nice turn of event if it happens; Betnomi returned and regained third chance. But sometimes, the bridge is burnt too bad [with several civilians still in the middle on the bridge, burnt alive, and some fall to death to the gaping abyss below] that even when they rebuild the bridge and put "it's safe" sign, no one dare crossing.

OP wasn't online for nearly half a month after being inquired on the other thread about the same counter-accusation, a violation against TnC. On the other thread though, the sportsbook provider is the one who flagged him. Unless OP come back and provide more evidences here, I think I am starting to considering to take OP's statement with grains of salt.

I am assuming it'll be around what Mixero looks like, with merit rank being introduced and used; basically the normal rate per rank will be lower than it is right now, but once someone reached certain merit treshold [3000+ for mixero] they'll earn special rate, that'll allow them to reach 200-250$ per week].

---

I don't think I can describe what I have in my mind better than this. As someone who never, not even once, touched or peeked the WO board [hell, I don't even know what that board is about and what's being discussed there, but its nefarious reputation for merit farming resonates to the board I usually roamed around], I hope that merit factors won't... affect the rate way too much. Or if it has to, perhaps we see which board the merits come from to see if the merit counts are really due to the quality of the posts produced or is it due to the user usually posts on board that notoriously generous on distributing merit for little to no effort.

As cryptofrka said, different boards entitle users to different merit generosity, thus the distribution is a bit... skewed.

---

If I may be honest, 40 or 50 seems impossible for me as I barely even managed 25 weekly, so the number doesn't mean much to me as I don't think I am interested to reach 40, let alone 50.

Basically, the logical principle applied here will be, "the more posts people made, the more immersive Sinbad's brand awareness is." But it'll also encourage a bad impression if many were merely chasing weekly maximum quota and lowered their standard. So if I may propose, perhaps we go with 40 per week for several weeks, see how this new structure works and if it encourages spam or not, and if it doesn't, then we go with 50?

And thus, naturally, we first go with 200$ for 40 posts, and if we can control the spam possibility, we raise the bar to 50 posts and the limit will raise to 250$? [this is assuming that I assume correctly the new payment structure you'll use]

He does seriously thinking that all of us are Stake employees. Or, to be precise, everyone that's not agreeing with him, taking his side, running to support his accusation, or even remains neutral, are on Stake's payroll. Basically, if anyone question his evidences, boomm, they must be receiving paycheck from stake.

But yes, he does not provide evidences to support any of his claim. Rather, he throw muds to the wall and when it doesn't stick, he'll take another basket of mud [namely, creating another thread] and give another round of free throws.

To be fair, he suggested you to raise to their licensor, he said he know it's not ideal as it'll adds more time and energy to the involved parties, but that's the best alternative he can suggest as he can't overturn the decision but would like to give another try to your case. The exact word he said is "to lodge a complaint with e-gaming Curacao"

Without trying to be condesending, perhaps it's a language barrier, so I'd put the definition of "lodge" as a verb at the bottom of this page.

As for your argument that they can't provide something that doesn't exist, then you can rest assured and be confident in your case that the licensor will rule it in favor to you, because they will demand and investigates every proof with a fine toothed comb. If the licensor rule it against you, that'll be because the evidences are incriminating you.

May I remind you that both parties will have to honor and adhere to the ruling made by e-gaming Curacao?

Two questions. One, if this forum is shitty, why do you bother asking for a fund raising here? And two, let's talk about the project itself. The forum already have and facilitate small crypto projects to be heard... as long as they're legit. How do you plan to be sure you're promoting the correct ones and not a scam projects?