|
When you said they're acknowledged by a gambling regulator in Philippine, you're saying they're licensed? If so, shouldn't be there an option to report them to the regulator?
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the warning, but as I am sure you're aware, we can't regulate what facebook's ads show their users. All we can do is to warn people about possible scams, which you nicely did. I think there is a very strong basis that afexeu[dot]com is a scam. Their website only claimed that they're regulated, but there were no further info of who issue their license.  And "bethebank" rang a bell on my mind, but I can't find any record of them on this forum for previous scam attempt. I can't shrug away the sense of eerie familiarity with their name, though. Anyone have a better luck on this matter, perhaps? |
|
|
|
I'm accessing through my tablet, so I might be wrong, but I think it does get a bit bigger. The tablet version still show them in small-ish elements, but when I toggle the switch to desktop version, it's noticably bigger. I took a screenshot from the archived page [thus, it should automatically displayed what desktop version show us] and compared it side-to-side with one that's taken by yudi09 long agoYes, I confirm that the most important texts have bigger fonts now compared to last week I think this is a much better version, it is clearer now. When it comes to what's appealing to the eyes it's always been a combination of white and blue, either white background and blue text or blue background and white text. TBH, I think it's a bit too... crowded. The "smaller" version looks more tidy and simple. Arguably "empty" perhaps, but I think it's giving a vibe of simplicity, which kinda send a message "that's what we offered you, a simple but efficient things" |
|
|
|
the trust reference feedback was inaccurate.  It says 0.003+ (a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse) I searched in the comments of the trust and found that I was the only one who used the wording of 0.003+. the + sign after the number indicates that there is an additional task that was supposed to be done for that amount. In general, I reviewed the response before editing, and this line was not present, so I think that you are trying to find a moral justification for your scam. I just hope you remember that money doesn't grow on trees and give back money, trust can be earned and it will generate more money instead of quick 0.003 BTC. Umm... a bit correction, if I may? No, you're not alone. Royse also leave a feedback with 0.003+ |
|
|
|
Hey there,
For this one we simply need OP to list the other accounts that they have on Rollbit.
On our side, we see very obviously linked accounts to the one they listed here, accounts that have been previously limited on our sportsbook.
For whatever reason, OP has failed to list them so far.
Thanks,
Razer
i thought i had sent a reply here but i guess it timed out and never sent. i do not know how to show proof that this is my account. i have already filled out all kyc. i did nothing wrong and only placed bets. if my account was linked, why not tell me right away when i deposit or even when i make my second deposit? or even when place my first bet? i know if i lose all my money they will not say a word and not make these accusations. i do not know what to do at this point. do i get a lawyer or what? I've been waiting for your reply to determine my next step, I sent Razer a PM few minutes ago to ask for Rollbit's readiness to escalate this situation to an "arbitrator", where they can confide evidences of their counter-accusation. Please wait for Razer to reply to my PM, if you don't mind. |
|
|
|
I dont even oppose the flag except the trust reference feedback was inaccurate. It says 0.003+ (a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)
Thanks for the Judgement I wish you guys were this engaged or enthusiastic back when I was ... well that.
Bye for now. Technically, the "+" is kinda justified. Other than the extra fees he mentioned above [time, tx fee, workload, etc.] there's the obvious conversion rate. If we suppose you "loaned" from Royse, with the term to return it on the exact USD value, where at that time, the rate is around 30,000ish USD, you earned 90 USD, and as per the current rate is 26,000ish, you kinda "owed" 0.0034... btc, thus, 0.003+ Even if we lock the rate at when Royse asked for refund, 6th of August, BTC rate at that time was roughly 29,000, so it'll still be 0.0031..., still a 0.003+ |
|
|
|
Casino often delete game history that happened few days ago if you are active on betting. You can request it to their support if they have backup but I experience same thing on other casino that I’m playing. It’s not a good proof that they are cheating by hiding your bets
If their intention is to scam the user in the first place giving the user the record they are finding for "backup" is impossible. But since there is no enough proof to back this up by OP i wonder how he will succeed to this. OP claimed that he meticulously documented data. Bets, outcomes, hashes. He should be able to provide and verify some of those bets himself to build a back-up evidences for his claim |
|
|
|
Can someone confirm the current design of the Sinbad.io site, Has there been any update change in recent days?
It seems to me that all the elements are a bit bigger, the text too. Or maybe it's just something with my browser
[...]
I'm accessing through my tablet, so I might be wrong, but I think it does get a bit bigger. The tablet version still show them in small-ish elements, but when I toggle the switch to desktop version, it's noticably bigger. I took a screenshot from the archived page [thus, it should automatically displayed what desktop version show us] and compared it side-to-side with one that's taken by yudi09 long ago  And as another reference, this below is from my tablet with "desktop version" toggled up  |
|
|
|
[...]
Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks
As in people on the signature campaign of the platform that's about to be reviewed to be given top priority, e.g. suppose platform "A" have a signature campaign and happen to held a review campaign too, participants of "A" should be given priority against other users who doesn't wear their signature and/or people who wear signature "B"? Though it has its own merit in form of that the participants will have [if they didn't already] a good grasp of the platform, I actually against this idea for numerous reasons. A sense of exclusivity for one. Two, a bias. Three, it hindered a chance of reviews from broader spectrum of people. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the OP shouldn't have paid in advance, but I'm guessing that he wasn't expecting an Sr. Member to scam him for such a minor amount.
~
What do you mean by OP should not have paid in advance? Those were the campaign's terms, and they were in place to attract higher quality participants. There were a 100 participants in this campaign! And, just because of one bad apple...? No, I do not agree with that. The OP went above and beyond to accommodate everyone, even allowing extensions for late reviews. And even after all that, jamyr had plenty of chances to return the money. Yet here we are, and he still has not. Even if he spent the money, he could have simply asked for a loan, which shouldn't have been a problem given the amount. I'm not saying that the OP is at fault. Certainly, there's a reason that the other 99 applicants went along and stuck with the original plan, to deliver a constructive review, in which the accused failed even after receiving an extension; these are the terms he agreed to. Royse is a well-known campaign manager; I understand the reason he did it, but it's how each individual has a different point of view. Personally, in the only review in which I participated a while ago, I completed the review and then got paid for it. The worst of all is that he hasn't returned the money as he should have already. I understand that something unexpected might have happened, but in that case, if he's unable to deliver, it's mandatory to refund the manager immediately and have someone else fill the vacancy in the review campaign. The reason why payment paid in advance was because the review will require reviewers to deposit some funds into the platform. I am strongly assuming Royse arranged the advance payment so that the participants didn't have to use their own reserved capital to complete the task. |
|
|
|
Do you aware that CG list them as unlicensed with very poor rating? On the other side, I am quite curious, as you mentioned that you've recorded everything, can't you prove the accusation of the rigged fairness using their provably fairness?  |
|
|
|
[...] Also: Here's an excerpt of some campaign rules:CAMPAIGN RULES
▶️ Wear the appropriate signature, avatar and personal text during the campaign
▶️ Maximum of 20 posts on local boards will be considered however I can make exception if you can give me a good reason.
▶️ Posts should be minimum of 200 characters long and MUST BE constructive
▶️ Posts in the following boards/sections are not eligible: "Off-Topic", "Archival, Games & Rounds", "Investor-Based Games", "Wall Observers", "Serious Discussion", "Altcoin Discussion", "Lending", "Press", "Politics & Society", other signature campaign threads, including this one, any ANN threads (except Mixero ANN and ANN posted on the "Gambling" board are allowed), and areas where the signature is not visible
▶️ No valid negative from DT network unless per-approved by me
▶️ Multi-account (alts) can apply but will need to give up all except only one if accepted more than one.
▶️ You must have minimum 50 merits in the last 120 days
▶️ Join my Telegram group: snip No where does it say this:▶️ You must condone the industry that the service is in, and the service, in order to be eligible to participate [...] I am ready to bow down from this thread and take the spectators seat, but just two questions, where do you snip that rules from? And are you deliberately falsifying information? Because I got curios of it and take a look at it, here's the screenshot of the real rules [screenshot taken instead of a quote to prove it's an original text and not being tampered like what seems to happen with yours].  |
|
|
|
Hello after my KYC got approved. I have been Lucky enough to get the additional video call with rollbit next thursday for them to keep on verifying me i guess?.
I have a hard time speaking english, so i am very worried about this call since I dont trust any betting / casino site when i know how they can operate.
What can i expect from this call? Asking you people who have gone through this before. What do they ask you to do etc or what questions may they have for me? Thank you for any respond!
This won't take longer than 5 minutes. They just want to verify whether the person you have submitted on the KYC documents is real and alive, and not some random guy's information being submitted to their site in order to get their accounts verified. This never happened to me, though it happened once on an exchange platform when I wanted to withdraw a few thousand dollars from the platform albeit only completing the basic verification process (this is a local exchange). Far as I know, yes, this is true. Video KYC is an "additional" KYC to verify that the data being submitted is indeed matched the person on the other side of the KYC and not a bought documents. And far as I know too, there's not necessarily much need of english proficiency, they mostly just wanted to see the user on the screen and probably asked simple questions if necessary that's basically around simple english. If all of the documents you submitted is legit and truly yours, there's no need to be worried. |
|
|
|
I wonder if it's necessarily true that the amount of scam accusations raised against a gambling platform is directly related to the likelihood they're scamming the users and/or doing rugpull? Especially if we consider that the amount of cases raised is attended to and solved v. ignored. But let's amuse this idea for a while, that rollbit is questionable because they have lines of unsolved cases, or if I may borrow your words, "almost none of these complaints have been resolved", I asked, again, which case with concrete evidences and strong basis against rollbit is not solved or currently redirected to a mediator [in this case, their licensor]? Point me out and I will gladly PMing Razer and notify him to attend to the case.
Ok then, then I would also ask YOU how a player can show evidence that he doesn't have multiple accounts. Players show the FACT that they are blocked from withdrawing. They also show the accusation/reply from rollbit. These are facts, I guess we would agree. The site, in this case rollbit, claims "they have multiple accounts", yet they don't show any proof of that or are willing to show it to a mediator. Always referring to "security concerns". Multi account ACCUSATION are no facts. Players show facts, rollbit doesn't, I guess we can agree. In real life, if you want to accuse somebody of something, you have to show proof as well, why not in these scenarios" What we need in those cases are more transparency. Not being willing to settle this through an official mediator always means there is something off. Also what I wrote doesn't mean that rollbit is so untrustworthy. It just shows that their reputaion is not as good as it gets painted here, you can also see that in their trust summary. A reputable site would have more than 1 positive feedback, and this positive one is only from the person that manages their signature campaign. As I checked other complains I saw you also commented there, so you you know this is always the same scenario. They are hiding behind their "security concerns" and players have to deal with it basically. I myself could have opened a scam accusation against this site actually, I chose not to because it's not worth my time. I mentioned this before but I got the "new player invitation bonus"email they sent to stake players (they bought the stolen data from the stake hack). Those bonuses was supposed to be "no strings attached", as mentioned in the email . When I claimed it all and played it 1x , around 100$, I wanted to withdraw it. They suddenly wanted a deposit and full KYC, and I mean full. That's not "no strings attached". As I don't trust this site I chose not to do those 2 things and continued living my life, leaving these around 100$ in my account.  It is my opinion and I will not stop from calling out rollbit for what they are to me. I never said they are doing a rugpull, just I don't like their tactics. They know about "multiple accounts" from the beginning, when someone registers. But they let these people deposit and the accusation only comes to light when they want to withdraw. If you think this is ok then we don't have to talk about this any longer. Anyway, wish you a nice rest of your weekend!  If you ask ME, I'll suggest Razer to point it out to their licensor to take the mediation, where they can freely provide evidences and where the ruling are binding to both parties. As evidences shall be asked and provided in private there, both parties are more likely to provide the facts than here. You'll find it yourself, me suggesting to escalate it to Gaming-Curacao, once OP replied to the allegation made by Razer, or once things point out to a stalemate [of course after I get a word from Razer that they'll give full cooperation on GC, I will not advise it to OP unless I get the words that both parties agreed to move their case to that platform]. As to why they have to resort to this platform instead of publicly here, I think it's been mentioned way too often, revealing such methods will just tell the abusers how to avoid their system on later time. Now, I am thanking the fact that you're aware of my presence on other complaints against Rollbit, because now I don't have to explain to you my stance on Rollbit and their cases, as well as how I know most of their cases "like the back of my hand" and to why I inquire you to point us out to the claim of, "none of these complaints have been resolved", which, I still can't find you point that out. |
|
|
|
If you check the recent pages of the scam accusations there are several complaints about this site. So basically of all sportsbooks/casino site complaints rollbit has the most in recent history. Even betnomi, that pulled an exit scam, doesn't have so many complaints. And almost none of these complaints have been resolved. And so will this one for sure.  Especially this thread and the behaviour of rollbit is alarming: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5449402.40Very sad that this behaviour even gets defended here, honestly. People can't relate because they never had a situation like this. If they had it would be different, I'm sure. I wonder if it's necessarily true that the amount of scam accusations raised against a gambling platform is directly related to the likelihood they're scamming the users and/or doing rugpull? Especially if we consider that the amount of cases raised is attended to and solved v. ignored. But let's amuse this idea for a while, that rollbit is questionable because they have lines of unsolved cases, or if I may borrow your words, "almost none of these complaints have been resolved", I asked, again, which case with concrete evidences and strong basis against rollbit is not solved or currently redirected to a mediator [in this case, their licensor]? Point me out and I will gladly PMing Razer and notify him to attend to the case. |
|
|
|
My only comment
I called one or two members low IQ because of the logic they used. I do not think that the whole forum has high IQ nor do I think that my IQ is superior to the majority of the forum
Erm... what? This is what happens when you speak out ladies and gentlemen.
I also do not care at all about this thread and I will continue to share my opinion freely, as I have a right to.
If we're going to skew and misconstrue words or make threads about people when they have a controversial opinion, then we're up for a lot of threads just like this one if people exercise their freedom of speech and right to an opinion.
Grow up OP.
Just to be clear of your moral principles, you're against gambling due to its capitalist nature, and you'll speak out when matters being involved is about you and your opinion [which, I have to say, kinda natural], but you'll keep things to yourself when you know a platform is a scam because it's not your responsibility to keep the forum safe, and as long as the said platform paid you good money to post, you'll do that? I think I'm confused, isn't that a branch of capitalism? |
|
|
|
[...]
Discussion about gambling is not worthy of needing a merit source. My post stands.
[...]
If you bother to read the whole proposal made by OP, you'll come to see that the reason for being merit source request is that OP acknowledged the board can be a horrible place, and for that exact reason they asked to be a merit source, to improve the situation there so more good quality posts can be better appreciated and, from it, urged people posting on that board to write better. [...]
Final thoughts
Gambling boards are both a horrible place and a great one at the same time - depending on which threads you read.
I'd like to tip the scale in favor of the great ones a bit.
But, as on the earlier part of that quoted post you said this, Good job picking one thing out of all of the valid parts of what I said and using it to invalidate my post. Great job, actually. Very effective. Dumbass.
allow me to return back to your initial argument, Disagree.
No one should be a merit source for one of the most unethical boards/sections of this forum. There is no shortage of merit for the amount of quality/merit worthy posts in the gambling section; which is very little in comparison to other, more important and non capitalistic boards of the forum.
I also think merits should not be focused on posts in this section. It does not positively contribute to the Bitcoin economy. It only concentrates wealth to unethical network participants who are exploring other users with unfair odds, ridiculous terms of service, extensive and intrusive kyc checks to ban accounts, questionable provably fair claims, and more.
My 2 cents
Ironically, that board actually have some positive contribution to the bitcoin economy. There are a lot of gambling platforms that utilize crypto, thus a positive towards crypto economy. The gambling platforms on this forum also held raffles, competitions, and [as I am sure you're fully aware] signature campaigns, which kinda "distributes" helps keep the wheel of crypto economy roling by distributing some wealth to the cryptocommunity. |
|
|
|
The problem here, as in all cases of multi-accounting, is that the casino (rollbit in this case) will not and can not share the evidence they have against the accuse (OP) publicly. This is understandable.
At the same time, OP will never admit having alt acoounts (if he has any) and there is nothing he can do to refute the casino's allegations and prove he has no alt accounts.
This is a dead end.
The only way to solve this dilemma is to use a mediator.
Or, in case OP is afraid of proving himself guilty (with all the consequences), Razer has to promise they will let OP withdraw his funds if he lists all his alt accounts.
There's a slight complication on that, Rollbit is not on any mediator that mediate sportsbet problem, where OP's case is sportsbet-related. And, given that Razer accuses OP of multi-acc abuse to bypass limitations, if rollbit agreed to this term, it will open to a situation where future abusers [if we're assuming OP did multi-accing] plead to the same resolution. Though, to be fair and to laid it out on the table, Razer already suggested a... "middle way".  |
|
|
|
Hey there,
For this one we simply need OP to list the other accounts that they have on Rollbit.
On our side, we see very obviously linked accounts to the one they listed here, accounts that have been previously limited on our sportsbook.
For whatever reason, OP has failed to list them so far.
Thanks,
Razer
Nonsense. So then, IF you are right, and he lists those accounts, then what? Then you would pay him, yeah right. If he says there are any, you would say "violated our terms" and still don't pay, 100%. Rollbit has a solid reputation now for doing this, not only in our forum there are reports about these tactics. Still a reminder, rollbit bought the stolen data from the stake.com hack last year to promote their own site, this has been mentioned and proved before. A site doing shady things like this also comes up with excuses to not pay honest customers. From what I have read seen on different forums and the alike...when it comes to multi accounting, 75% of the time these casino's are never wrong to flag accounts based on multi accounting as they have the flagging techniques in place to find such users because this is their business to stop any possible promo abuse and the alike...just hope your docs haven't been stolen and used for KYC here..
Btw, use of a VPN can get your account flagged as IPs show up on other accounts hence this hurdle..but if nothing in these lines was committed then I trust Rollbit will sort this out asap! Good luck.
Have we ever seen any proof of those claims? I have actually never seen them. They always say there are multi accounts "but we can't tell you how we found out, for security reasons" . Sites like rollbit are happy to take deposits, but when it comes to pay there are suddenly problems. If there are multiple accounts you knew when he opened it, you should close it immediately, not after depositing over 10000$. Umm... aren't most, if not all, of the accusation topics raised against rollbit currently solved, and those that can't be solved here for security reason, e.g.: sportsbook abuse or invalid bet, were redirected to their licensor where they're fully cooperating and participating on the investigation? |
|
|
|
Instead, I'm talking about a valid suspicion (to the best of my knowledge) that someone might scam, even before the actual act of scam occurs. I suspect that anyone can scam at some point, just like anyone can commit a murder. But we shouldn't tag everyone, just like we don't jail everyone "to prevent crimes". We can warn people, but that's where it stops. Negative feedback loses it's "power" if everyone has it. I agree with that. We shouldn't tag everyone, that's why I said "with valid suspicion." I think it's important to strike a balance between warning others about potential scams and avoiding hasty judgments. Negative feedback indeed loses its impact if it becomes too widespread and indiscriminate. But, things are hardly ever just black and white, and there are a whole range of shades of gray in between. Let me break it down with an example: Just the other day, me and some other DT members gave a negative tag to the account OldCat over this topic. As far as I know, the scam hasn't actually happened. But based on what we can see, there's a legit reason to be suspicious about a possible scam. So, in this case, is my judgment flawed, and is the negative tag unwarranted? I don't believe so. Waiting for an actual scam would basically make the whole reputation system useless as an early warning signal. If I may give my two cents, I personally think the trust system of this forum is not preventive in sense of a posteriori. Some things and some users are indeed tagged after an incident happens, but it's not necessarily means every case are handled and the DTs taking action only after something occured. As repetitively pointed out by many members, this forum [or if I may narrow it down, this board] runs on evidences, i.e.: give strong evidences to back up your claim and/or accusation, and DTs will take action. We don't need to wait for the incident to occur as long as someone has substantial proof about it, or as stated by PP [so he's partially correct about this], evidences to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. But DT will not works on hearsay. Just because someone said [for example] I scammed them, should DT run and tag me? Instances that action are taken before the scam happens are plenty. You raised a nice one. The others are projects with questionable traits; plagiarized whitepaper, fake team members, fake testimonials, phising platforms. Do DTs wait for these projects to scam people before tagging them? No. DTs took action and paint them red the instance evidences are brought that they indeed are very likely to scam. Thus, a priori. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
