I don't understand how exactly the bug works. According to OP, at least from what I get it, if he bet $2.00 and lose the bet, he'll lose $1.98, but according to HousebetsIo, he played risk free, which I perceived as if he bet $2.00 and lose the bet, his balance will still be exacatly the same? Which one is it?

I think this should be clarified as it brought quite a magnitude to the case.

You got it backward, OP was from their ANN and moved their complaint here to make it more focused --and I assume they also want to move it a bit more toward the spotlight-- Razer had been notified and replied on their ANN prior to this thread being published.

I wouldn't conclude that fast. Yes, ChangeHero made a questionable decision when they ask for 48H verification process while they agreed it will take 24H or less on their own ToS, and thus contributing to OP's clouded judgment and added more fuel to his burning bright FOMO. But, OP is not completely not at fault here, they shared some degree of blame.

As stated, they've agreed and gave their permission --ChangeHero asked prior to executing it-- to cancel the buy order with the penalty. The rule was explained on their ToS and suppose OP did not read the ToS, it was once again made clear by the customer service during their exchange of communication.

It might be worth to mention that OP also didn't bother to wait for ChangeHero's response. Their last online time was few hours before ChangeHero's reply. If I may pull out an assumption here --other than a possibility that they wrote this thread with alt and monitored the development of their case through their main-- they might finally got out from their frustration and acknowledged that they shared a blame, thus didn't pursue this case any longer.

It might be a bit redundant given the warning of the list of impersonating sites is already made on the opening post, but I think it's better be safe redundant than sorry, I noticed that the impersonating site also have their own tor page.

Adding to Pandu Geddon's statement, what happened is the other way round, it's not that they can't join other campaign because they got tagged due to participating on 1xbit, they joined 1xbit because they're already tagged. Mostly, 1xbit participants are those who can't join other campaigns due to their violation and negative feedbacks, so they resort only to the last campaign who's... well, at the bottom of the barrel.

Oh, dear. Contacting their license provider should be taken as the last measure when other means of resolution had been exhausted, this was emphasized on their form, if I am not mistaken. It was stated --and you acknowledged by submitting it-- because once it escalated to the license provider, all hands are tied. I am not sure if any of stakes's representative will still reply here, given their duty is now shifted to answer the inquiries by their licensor. I'll try to PM stunna about this, see if he'll spare some time to put this on his plate though he's now not quite obligated to, so don't hold your breath.

Reuploading OP's image [with link to original image intact] for image visibility. OP, for your next post containing image, can you please use imgbb or talkimg? It'll greatly reduce senior members's workload who try to help quoting you for image visibility. Also, for future reference, it'll be better and much preferred to edit a post to add new informations than to make consecutive posts.

As for this case, I think this is the first time I am watching over for case against stake, so I am not sure who should I notify about this, but I think Stunna is the best bet. Before I go PMing them and potentially wasting their time, though, I understand correctly that you've escalate this to their licensor?

---

Ah yes, mea culpa, I have no awareness for that thread. The best possibility that crossed my mind yesterday was that you're trying to reach someone who affiliated --at any degree-- with betnomi to come and address the issue on their behalf, which as far as I know, Pmalek wasn't. Thus, you're addressing the wrong person. My apology for the misunderstanding, as stated, it's a pure curiosity; and if I may add, also with a slight concern that it'll lead people to think Pmalek was invited for that reason [to address the issue in position as someone affiliated with them]. Thus, the exact wording of the post.

Because moderators don't handle scam accusations, they trust the members --especially DTs-- to help and warn each others. Theymos strive to create a decentralized ecosystem for the forum, which is also why the new ever-changing DT system is introduced. I think it'll be a tad bit counterproductive from theymos' goal if moderators intervening on accusations and reputations by taking down members or platforms themselves.

With no intention to put salt into your wound, but rather to clarify the situation which you currently stand right now, I have yet to access the complain form and the terms of dispute resolution provided by Isle of Man, but if it works like other licensor, the complaint raised to them was submitted under an agreement and acknowledgement that you've exhaust every possible ways of dispute resolution, and that their decision is final.

I think that clause put on their form serves for this very purpose, to let you know that they have their own way to make a ruling, and thus give you a chance to look for alternative dispute resolution parties that work in ways you preferred more.

Much that anyone wanted to do something, there were nothing they [well, we] can do because of that very same agreement you've put yourself into. You both agreed to respect the verdict placed by Isle of Man, so there's no more thing anyone can do. Even Maverick themselves. If the table was turned and they're the one ruled as guilty, they'll also have to respect that too.

You have my sympathy, though I know it's meaningless to you. And this is the end of this case, sadly.

1. I actually gave them a thorough read, quite thorough that the inconsistencies in your explanation throughout this discussion baffled me. The very post I quoted for example, "Gold price is very stable and anytime for purchase is a good time, unless the price has risen significantly" which one is it? Stable that you can buy at anytime, that any fund accumulated should be transformed into gold, or that it has a possibility of significant appreciation [and with it, a depreciation too] which means we'll need an educated guess --where one of the means is through macro economics-- and buy them at a correct time?

2. Just to be sure we're on the same page before stepping further, 1B GRC equals to 1,300 USD worth of gold is because you're currently possessing 1,300 USD worth of gold? This rate will change in reflect to the gold reservoir you have next month, like, it'll become 1B GRC equals to 1,300 USD worth of gold?

4. Oh, pardon me, please point me out to these numbers and I'll humbly apologize for the oversight. Certainly you're not referring to the mention of 2%? Because I am quite confident anyone reading these dialog of ours will easily understand that I asked for --and this has been made clear-- a use case, as in, suppose your price depreciated 50% from today's rate, how will the gold kick into action and how will it stabilize price? We're talking numbers here. If I may help you, here, we can use this data I pulled from your web,



so suppose tomorrow the price of GRC plummeted 50%, what used to be 100 USD equals to 150 million of GRC, it now equals to 225 million of GRC. How will the gold reservoir kick into action and stabilize the price back to 150 million? And let's not stop there, we should assume the worst too while we're at it. Afterall, you're proposing a sense of security, not the false one. Let's also assume an ATL and massive dump scenario, the price depreciated 99%, so 100 USD equals to almost 300 million of GRC.

5 and 6. These points might be connected through the same root of problem: that I am not watching your youtube. With no intention to be rude, I have no time to watch 1 hour [and that's just 1 video] of explanation while I have other things to do [I really am currently swamped, I am not trying to be a snide here]. It's not like reading where I can do in silence while waiting in line or wait for someone, or in between the quiet morning with my coffee, I don't bring my headset all the time, and as I respect public privacy, I certainly won't disturb them by playing your explanation video through my device's speaker, and I like my morning as quiet as possible.

So, an explanation in writing is very much welcomed. I am more than happy to "listen" to that explanation of yours if you can provide a transcription of it. Not sure why this should be asked on the first place, given lots of people shared my issue, an explanation this crucial should be easily accessible, preferably placed on whitepaper. Or... you can do something easier by just tell me in brief what's your explanation is about and how exactly can you issue credit card and erect a banking entity without legal body.

Repeating moving what I did... on their ann thread to this one, below are the evidences made by OP, quoting --from the other thread-- and adding the BBcode version for image visibility below.

I assume correctly that as the sreenshot for pinnacle's bets are showing "running" instead of the final result ["win" or "lose"], it was taken during the game up to before the match ended? Can you perhaps provide us the screenshot for those bet on pinnacle now?

Pure curiosity, what does betnomi have to do with you? I've been wondering about this since I read the mention made by Mahdirakib; far as I know you're not affiliated with them at any degree?

Oh, by the way, icopress has addressed the issue and the attempt he made to to contact them,

Edit: Just came to my awareness that you've made a scam accusation thread against Rollbit. As such, I recommend you to stop replying here and move all the discussion into the scam accusation thread so it can be more focused and help people track the development of your case easier. In reflect of this, I am also moving the original content and the query of this post to the accusation thread.

He just needed few weeks to reach member rank, actually. He has met the merit requirement for member [10] and posted enough to reach the member treshold, all he needed left to reach member is time for the forum's biweekly activity update to caught up with his post count to reach 60. End of this month will be the time, if I correctly consult my calculation with this ancient spreadsheet

No need indeed. The name rang a bell on my head that I came across it a while back. A quick ninjastic brought me to an even newer post than what I had in the back of my mind, about this... exchange,


And I found the one I tried to recall, a post made by YOSHIE,

If you could help us better understand, are you a US citizen moving to Germany or are you a Deutsche who moved to US for some reason and currently moving back to Germany?

Yeah, it's pretty widespread. Maybe TryNinja is tweaking something, adding another neat feature or the likes [one may hope, LOL]. Just use the counter reset command for now. Type /setMerit on the bot chatbox, followed by your actual merit count. Yours will be 152, so...

Only that goodboyshams has not raised any accusation on the scam section, which is why I continued to address their issue here and risking to derail the thread instead of asking them to keep the topic contained on their accusation thread.

---

Rollbit Razer was online today and managed to tackle an issue on the scam section. goodboyshams, Razer might mistook my message and thought I was referring to that thread instead of this one. I'll inform him once more

If you read Razer's explanation, it was their sportsbook provider, Betby, who flagged OP's account first. Reading between lines from this info provided and OP's chat with Lunr, I think this is when OP got disabled but can still log in, performed KYC, and got banned as the nature of their KYC itself breached terms agreed by OP. So, there were two offenses that OP probably did, sport betting abuse that's flagged by Betby, and geoblock circumvention flagged by Rollbit's internal security team.

I am sure I have no perfect knowledge how it works between a provider and bookie, but with the assumption above, it is not too far fetched to think that Betby did not inform Rollbit the reason they flagged OP, and/or, Rollbit did not chase this further as their own investigation bear result of another breach.

As for why Lunr did not tell OP on their chat that OP was caught circumventing georestriction, it is quite established that customer support and security team is not exactly on a speed dial. With the amount of complaints made by customers, both legit and cheaters, on daily basis, I think it's quite easy to imagine how one or two inquiries from a complaining customers did not arrive or escalated to the security team for them to provide the reason behind the issue. Not that I am saying it's is a right practice, I am just trying to say that this is one of the benefit that the forum provide, another way to raise complaints where community manager like Razer can try to revisit and get clearer assesment of the issue by getting in touch with both departments.