I am trying hard to understand [I guess my brain is in slow mode today] so please guide me down the road slowly. I understand correctly that you deposited 50 USD, and won 110 from a free roll bonus given from that deposit, and then you played another game, Kraken's Sky Bounty, and won 112.28 USD with free roll from it, as referred on your game replayable here?

I can see that OP is online earlier today and didn't comment further about the issue. I think OP now understand what's the promotion about and the misunderstanding that happened. OP, as this situation is clarified and cleared, can you please lock this topic and mark them as solved?

If I am not mistaken, the crisis in that episode ended in less than one day, if not mere hours, and definitely not weeks. And if we take a second to suppose that's what happened, Sorsis took a month-off, it still doesn't explain the other situation where the entire website slowly dissipates into void, admins of tg goes frenzy, social medias followed the website into the void, etc.

I think you still understand it wrongly. First of all, I am sure you understand now that Stake's promo is to reward the oldest account which enrolling to the competition, not to point out the oldest account known. For example, if bitcointalk provided the same competition, I should enrolled mine, registered on 3rd of February 2016 instead of pointing and "enrolling" theymos [registered 9th February 2010], I can not and may not enrolled theymos'.

OP's case, he misunderstood the instruction, he pointed out "theymos" instead of enrollling his own account.

I am seconding this, reading the details in the opening post --and before reading khaled0111's comment-- gave me an impression that OP hit a language barrier. The promo was about rewarding oldest user by asking them to provide their account's name and age, not Stake's own account. Thus, in a way, OP is not even eligible to enter the contest as his answer is wrong, he didn't enroll his own account, he enrolled Stake's.

I see that jamyr's last online activity was on 5th of August, though you've been very lenient to him by extending the deadline several times, shouldn't we consider a possibility that he's not aware of your latest request to refund the up-front payment, given your post requesting the refund is on 6th of August [as also listed as reference link on the opening post], one day after his last online date?

He still failed to met his end of bargain, and thus his future deal and enrollment should still be taken with grains of salt, but maybe --just to be sure we ventured all possible scenario-- he has no intention to not refunding the payment, he simply did not noticed the final request and warning.

If you have issue with their platform, raise your own thread and explain things in details backed with evidences there, it'll help to solve your case better as well as people overseeing the case to follow what's going on.

For this thread, given OP reached to their representative nearly two weeeks ago and was online about last week but didn't give any update, I think they managed to get a way out of this case that both parties agreed to. OP, mumu68, it'll really be helpful for us if you can confirm this and tell us the outcome of your case.

If you follow the threads, no one is discouraging them, the forum is encouraging them to return, urging them to solve the issues, where their [in]action itself has spoken for them and their reputation.

I am sure eternad simply has the best interest at his heart to understand more about the situation and see things from different angles, to find out if this is a simple misunderstanding or flip.gg indeed cheated you, and if possible, to see the length of things they'll do to solve/ignore things. Flip.gg is not here on the forum, so they can't defend themselves or give their side of story. But, as you're very sure on this matter, and as you're the expert on referral system due to your very long reputation here, and your purpose here is not to accuse them and get settled with a solution but rather to,


then let's take your word for it. Let it be noted that flip.gg might cheated their referral partners by deleting refereed users from their list. Thus, not a good platform for referral earners.

But what about gamblers? Are they safe? Do you have other thought about their other features? The fairness of their gambling game, the deposit and withdrawal procedure, any other thing that might help us, from your long standing reputation here?

Though your input is much appreciated, the case is now in the hand of Gaming-Curacao, their licensor, so no body should do anything until their investigation is over. Welcome back from the long inactivity, by the way.

This is what I wanted to know more before weighting things, OP's background story is still very shallow in context and has little to no basis of supporting evidences. Screenshots of those emails will help us understand better what they actually demanded and what's probably happened.

Though I am not familiar with NFIB, I am somewhat sure they'll still take a look at a case if the victim [namely, you] provide enough and clear evidences. With lack of evidences, no law enforcement can do any investigation, even judges will not issue a warrant under that circumstances.

I barely active on referral earnings, but doesn't the list contain how much you earned from who? And for deleting data, yes, there's a big likelyhood that they have to keep data [at least for several months after request of removal] once requested, but the removal from referral earning list should reflect immediately. After all, the user can and will no longer play.

Providing the screenshots of the letters [I'll assume you're referring to an email chain] might help add more context and understanding here. With the current description you gave, is it possible that they're asking for Source of Wealth instead of the origins of the 100k USDT back to the very beginning? Like your employment slip, or some inheritances, whatever documents to prove the source of your wealth. Or, if they indeed asked for the origins of the funds in sense of the source of deposits, perhaps they're not requiring you to give a full detail of entire transaction back to a decade ago? Perhaps the last two or three transaction chains?

Their 24-H volume for spot trading according to CMC is USD 1,127,413,542.60, and though you've said that their futures trading volume is fake, thus that number is probably also fake, the small numbers of raised complaints here [I just did a quick keyword search and glanced at the numbers, haven't look at each of the threads to see what's they're about] and that they've been around for several years tends to give them --big or small-- benefits of doubt that it might be a case of miscommunication. Thus, repeating what I said earlier, giving more context will likely helps us understand the situation better.

How likely is it --or have you consider the possibility of-- one referral of yours requested data removal and to delete their account from their platform, and thus also removed them from your referral list?

I don't think they're the same company, given the "official" registration of their company is "cryptos-miner.co" and that one is Crypto Miner. The face of the company according to their site is Scott Greenwood, and the one above is Adrian Poocock. Even if we suppose that company is theirs, it's already dissolved last year.

[My apology for being OOT]

It'll help to consider the type as a degree of severity, like a cancer or a burn. Stage 1 cancer and first degree burn is the lightest. Likewise, type-1 flag is the weakest, a newbie and guest warning flag. Type-2 and 3 needs a violation of agreement, one side fulfill their deal, the other side did not. Though, IMO, type-2 is a bit tricky, it's rather ambiguous as there's not --again, IMO-- a fine line that can differentiate if it's should be a type-2 or type-3.

The easiest instance that obviously belong to a type-2 rather than a type-3 is if I wrote you here right now that I'll send you some btc if you say I am the hottest guy on earth, you did, but I didn't fulfill my part of sending you fund. Though it is technically "written", everyone knows the nature of the agreement itself is casual. Thus, it belongs more to the type-2 [violation of casual or implied agreement] than a violation of written contract. The obvious case of a type-3 flag is when an invoice is involved. It's definitely a written and formal agreement, or someone defaulted a loan.

A harder and more tricky situation to differentiate, though, is cases like where a platform cheats their campaign participants by not paying. Is it a casual agreement? Is it formal?

On to the more on-topic part, I am not supporting or opposing the old flags because I am not familiar with some of them [including [Csmiami's] and I have my plate quite full these days. I find a lack of interest to get acquainted with old cases and verifies the facts myself [to fulfill the clause that I voted the flag with the best of my knowledge] to support or oppose it.

I am not quite sure about this, but if the title itself may suggested, shouldn't it belong to Investigation sub-board? It houses... well, investigations and personal data

I know I came a bit late [I'm quite occupied with personal matter and my free time at crypto space was previously spent for one case that's rather... moot] but I would like to add some more to this matter,


the result if you search their so-called "very legit company" is:

Know what? I spent several minutes typing long sentences to OP, trying to explain the possible situation, re-explaining the bombs situation, addressing his complaint of JSON file on one of the video he uploaded [06:19], but in the end... I deleted all of those posts. I think you're right, I'll just waste my time again. I should have listened to my own advice to myself few posts ago, to give up on this case, take a back seat and grab some popcorn when he address anyone as a huge conspirator circle that tries to rob him.

Some cases shouldn't be touched with a ten meter pole simply because the accuser is not welcome to any form of input.