If I have to spell it out for you, the fact that you can "manually" search your betting history by inputting their ID one by one prove that Betnomi did not delete your history like you initially suspected, your problem is simply like what happened to the user I quoted anonymously above, as well as requoted below:

---

betnomi, if we have to go to the literal way, would you please take the higher ground and look into this bug in his account? I believe you have his username already. Can you fix it so he can see all of his betting history shown in pages like every other user of your platform, thus invalidate this minor claim of unfairness with your platform?

I believe with the hours I pour just to wrote a chronological order of your posts and complaints and screenshots scattered across two threads would be enough to prove that I am not what you think and said I am, the whole ""I am not biased, but..." shtick dropped pretty fast". At least for me, if someone did much effort just to be sure he understood or at the very least get a better picture of a situation, I wouldn't think he's biased. So, if you're agreed with me and I've "proven myself" to you that I am neutral and would say someone is wrong when they are --not that I cared what your opinion about me, TBH-- I think I am entitled to say Betnomi has a point here.

The very least you can do to the community is to clarify what actually happens. Did you --after logging into your account through VPN-- finds your bet history and it's all just a misunderstanding? If it is, it would be in everybody's interest that you acknowledged this and clarifies. Otherwise, the negative feedback given to you by icopress has its ground, that you created FUD against betnomi.

And second, I think it would be best and in everybody's interest --kinda sure about it-- that you both part ways.

Third, still connected with my point two paragraph above, it'll be very nice if you lock this thread and edit your title to "SOLVED", given... it is. solved.

Fourth and last, I think by this issue closed, there were no currently active accusation against Betnomi. Is there? All three were cleared. I appreciate Betnomi's representative, ehm... whoever "the guy behind this post" on betnomi's account, that would see all of the cases to their ends.

Once again, OP, lock it and mark it as solved.

TIL: the emoji is made from simple characters, I just realized it today

---

Thank you for bringing us back on track, I've been curious as well. Last we know was that Saxydev entrusted all the payment proofs to someone he trust via PM to preserve his identity, despite FatFork explained several times that there will be no way to trace his ID throught the said proofs


Unfortunately, this "someone" left us on a quite gargantuan range. IMO, it could be anyone, literally anyone, from someone that he found by opening "search members" page on this forum, closed his eyes and type randomly, and deemed the result shown as that "someone" he trust, to someone whose last activity was before covid and has long left the forum, to a legit trusted members on this forum who still active. It would really helpful if Saxydev at least told us the username, so we can check if they're still an active user or not --with the decision on the interest of getting involved on this case by verifying it is still on the hand of the user, which we shall respect-- unfortunately he didn't hand us that info.

Given that Saxydev online activity on this forum getting less and less by time, the best way we can get an update for this case is by asking OP if he has recently refreshed or looked at his wallet and happen to see the said payment.

OP, c0ldbrewz, can you update us on something from your side?

If I have to guess, I think the scenario was that by "accepted" --or "approved" according to the screenshot" was that the third party verification team hired by Betnomi --Veriff, if I am not mistaken-- accepted the documents and verified its legitimacy, thus approved. They later informed Betnomi that the account is verified with some minimal detail mentioning your nationality, and/or got notified by their very own system when you select your country on their KYC process. That is why you got banned although you passed Veriff KYC, because their ToS under "account" tab stated UK is one of their restricted regions.

All thing considered, I think further discussing this matter is quite futile, given you can access the account through VPN to give us the evidences.

For this matter, though, I'll recommend you to do what BitcoinGirl.Club said,


I would like to think that they're not deliberately did this, given another user also experienced this issue on the earlier days. I'll deliberately remove the entire link to the said quote so that we won't disturb the poster's peace by getting "invited" through notification that their name was being mentioned here


I'd also like to appreciate betnomi's willingness to get lenient for this case by accepting OP's SOW that's previously rejected.

I think it will be more fitting to be posted here or here, please move them to the more suitable board. The button to move the topic will be on the lowest left side of this page. And then, I'll just put it here, quietly and nicely,

As a commitment to be stay on topic and focus the discussion in one thread, I'll move your reply to me here and replied,


First, I'd like to address the "in general" case that you provided in response to my request, you do aware that it's an... unfortunate first choice of link, right? The case you provide to give a better ground to your statement that Betnomi in general lied about KYC did not work in your favor, the case was deemed by the forum as a retaliatory from someone with 9 accounts who got caught. The request for KYC is clearly justified for this case, as Betnomi had explained, I've quoted their stance on their ANN, but allow me to quote another one they explained from older day,


Second, I think I'll need a little bit more context here as I am quite confused.

Basically the proof of bet history that OP claimed that betnomi deleted was these ones? At least some of them, as I understand a screenshot that size won't be able to fit OP's entire betting history.

And Betnomi's claim that OP manipulated his betting history, saying that he deliberately shows an empty page by utilizing a date filter is because on this screen recording, dated 9 October as shown on his screen shows no history.

To better understand this case, I dared a mini aneurysm by re-reading the pages on their ANN thread again, this time equipped with my notebook to write important timeline in dates, the event, and the post ID number --don't anyone dare asked me how long it took me to finish it this time-- and I have to say Poika5 brought one interesting point that I initially missed but now became clear as I have a mapped timeline.

I'd like to say that the possibility is there, that OP did not manipulate the data and that blank history is due to the system maintenance. OP had stated long before this thread was made that he hadn't had any access to his page for seven weeks, dated 14 November forum time. Seven weeks prior to the date would match the time on the screen recording provided by OP that they have no access, and since OP was blocked two days later, on the 16th, he can't provide a better screen recording or know whether his betting history has restored or not.



So, IMO, there could be a huge chance of misunderstanding here, both sides are wrong and right at the same time. No one erased betting history or manipulating through a date filter as it simply was under maintenance during the time the evidence was made.

If we still insist on who's right and who's wrong, may I suggest the easiest way to tackle this matter --which... wasn't OP's main point of accusation and counter-accusation, actually-- by allowing OP access to his account for a brief moment, so he can do another screen record to show that --whether-- his entire betting history is there or not.

Since Betnomi can restrict OP's attempt to withdraw his fund --let's suppose he tried to-- by rejecting it or even temporarily freezing it by voiding all his balance, OP basically can't do anything other than proving the betting history. I can't see any harm in that, unless someone else can show me one or two flaws in my logic?

It's the easiest way to tackle this minor issue so we can move on to the main topic of the accusation, as well as answered BitcoinGirl.Club's concern of manipulation as I think a video recording of screen would be harder to manipulate.

It came to my awareness that OP acessed the site through his phone, he can activate this "show taps" feature [OP has to enabled developer mode to access this feature, though] so we can see clearly that he select dates and any other taps made during the screen recording.

Question is, would both party meet in the middle and agree to this, i.e. Betnomi to grant a temporary access to OP so he can clear Betnomi's name --or prove his accusation to be correct-- of deleting bets, and OP agreed to record his attempt to retrieve the betting history.

I can't find the accusation you're talking about, unless you're referring to this case, OWL Coin - Malware in the wallet [DO NOT DOWNLOAD]!!! which was kinda solved with someone with malicious intent deliberately re-create an ANN with a different wallet link containing a virus, and not the same project --far as I know-- as that accusation was open and shut in 2019 while owl.games thread just started by late 2021.

However, I am interested to know more so I can hopefully better understand whether their decision to stop pause their response here is justified or not

This, IMO, is leaning towards one of the point on your case instead of "in general". Perhaps you can show us a case other than yours so the statement "in general" will have a better ground?

As for your account, was flagged and they initially asked for a simple KYC, which you failed to successfully pass, which worsen their suspicion towards you and escalated the KYC to the advance level. This also already explained on the post I quoted from Betnomi above,


If you'd like to continue discussing about this matter, I encourage you to please consider moving the discussion to the designated thread; your scam accusation. It'll help a lot of people overseeing your case to understand the developments of it, as I've said numerous times on different occasions, it's quite hard to follow a case if the updates and exchanges of information are made through several different threads --plus, I am not in the mood of anyone reporting my posts which only aimed to address people's questions here as something OOT and got deleted, again.

I hope this could be the last time I have to reply you here for the issue you currently have. As an additional note, I'll add something I've been wanting to say on your thread tomorrow in regards to the last posts made on the said thread, but itll have to wait as its been way past my bed time.

Uhh... no, the post got deleted because someone reported it as an out of topic post, I asked the mods. If you want to ask who reported it, you're more than welcome to ask it yourself to the mods. I was contempt with the explanation as I can quite agree, my previous post did a little bit OOT, given this thread is about a gambling announcement and discussion and I was talking about a scam accusation and your old thread, which... is why, I urged you to create your own thread, complete with your evidences, so everyone can see and discuss it in a more on-topic manner. I wonder, why haven't you?

---

"The auld" was explained above.

"The question to betnomi", I believe you asked this for the sake that it's being related to your own case? I am not really sure I get why you misunderstood their meaning, eventhough the posts you quoted above had explained quite well, they will not ask KYC as long as you gamble fairly. KYC would be required upon the findings of fraudulent activity. I urged you to re-read your thread, they've explained their KYC process, or just read below,

Hmm... I think their relationship didn't work out. "It's not you baby, it's me. I just can't see you suffer like this anymore. We have to end it."

[dramatic pause]

Did anyone realize Rizzrack finally withdrew his opposition towards dkbit98's flag? I wonder why and what changed his mind.

---

I LOLed so much at this that it worth to be quoted.

Just so we are clear here, you are "just an enthusiast" and not part of the team? You're here just to hyped this project, which... is not related to Musk at all and hebprobably wasn't even aware about this at all? The project simply borrowing his name and riding his Optimus project to reach a hype-and-dead, which also known as pump-and-dump?

I have other question about the details of the project that crossed my mind when I read the WP, but first let's clarify your position here.

Hi, it came to my awareness that you've been enthusiastically posting against betnomi for the past three months, and I tracked your initial complaint against them was on 25 August. However, I can't find your formal complaint. Have you raised any accusation with evidences against them? I'd be more than happy to follow the development of the thread and the case if you make one.

Hmm... My previous post was deleted by mod. Been a while since I unintentionally posted something that's not on forum standard. Or maybe the content is a bit... controversial. My apology, mods. Please allow me to rephrase them.

You do aware that your post above directly contradict each other, right? Leaving the forum will not damage overall reputation of their platform would indicate, all things considered, no one would mind with this decision and everything would work just like how it was. And the very next sentence said...

This invites more questions than answers, like: what problem? What solutions? How do you decide which project worthy of fundings? Which NGO? How are they chosen? Why? And many others. As I said... a whitepaper might helps us greatly.

I can see that your website is still not working. It's been two months? Three?

Interesting insight, I could agree and see a reason when someone new to a field and tried to build their portfolio, there could be a tendency of being myopic, where they only focused on "the now". After all, expertise is something that comes with experience. Although, I have to rebut that there is a line --be it fine or thin-- between being careless and couldn't-care-less on reputation building.

Nonetheless, I've messaged ahmim about this thread, hopefully they would engage on this discussion once they're online.

They --and by "they" I'm referring to one person with two different account-- have four, not only two projects with similar red flags. I think it is quite agreeable that they don't care, like you said.

Regarding their reaction towards a warning, that's a bit complicated, aibon as the OP of Lamina accusation thread had warned them on the 28th and they locked the thread after. But if we inspect closely, the campaign has ended on 26th, so it doesn't really matter whether the BM locked it or not.

Thank you for the input, though, I'll leave a negative feedback with regards to their campaign quality.

---

Edit:

Jay-suss, I think I really need my sleep, my brain started to working slower and slower, I forgot that I want to add one interesting thing I found upon slipping into their tg channel.



I've never joined a TG campaign --at least not that I can remember-- so I'm not sure if this is normal or not. Is it? Wouldn't it mean the participant spamming and unethically talking and promoting their projects on other projects?

---

Edit 2: for aibon's reply below mine.

Upon leaving negative feedback on Crypto_Dotar I just realized that someone has raised a type-1 flag against them, and it's currently active. I wonder if it's necessary to raise similar flag for ahmim. I have to say that your argument has its merit, and a part of my logic agreed with it, but the very last part of my opening post prevail on the battle with myself for the ethic on raising flag; which is why I also still abstained from Crypto_Dotar's flag.

I think I'll take it to sleep and think about it more thoroughly tomorrow with a clearer head whether it's appropriate to raise a type-1 flag against ahmim with consideration of the long term sake of newbie investors... if no one had raised it already during my beauty sleep.

Umm... I think you've just got bamboozled by them. Yes, they locked the bounty thread and it's no longer available for any post for proof of posting on TG or twitter, but I think that's more because the campaign has already ended, so the BM essentially has nothing to lose. His job is done, he locked the thread as "a show of remorse" while there's actually not much difference whether he left it open or closed.

Ahh yes, thanks for reminding me about this point, that part was left out forgotten and unmentioned. I actually did the investigation about Epnoc in "installment", little by little when I have free time and that address is one of the aspect I DDed on the earlier phase [ignore the other screenshots, they were materials for other investigation, LOL].

---

So, continuing what aibon reminded me, I did a stroll on "street view" on my earlier investigation on Maps and with a little effort finally meet their "neighbor", F324, Sector 63, Noida


So, their address, F325, would be one of the three in front of them, either the dead center, the one on the left, or the one on the right. Problem is... here's the three of them, which... doesn't evoke any confidence for the platform.

Ahh, I was just finished posting another thread on reputation board with a topic still related to this accusation. You might want to give it a read. This is not the first scam project they promoted.

Foreword: I think this is the first time I write on this board. I'm not really sure if my topic would suits better on Reputation or on Scam Accusation, but since one may argue that the person in question did not directly scamming the community and instead just facilitating the scam projects through a very careless DD --if they did any-- for the campaign they managed, I think Reputation fits better.

---

Flag type-1 against Crypto Bountyes: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3185

---

I've put this case on my plate for a few weeks since the first case against ahmim raised, took a glance at their post history, and frowned upon the findings of the bounty campaigns they managed. Couple that with a negative feedback given for bounty abuse [though at that time I didn't look at the reference link], I commited myself to give their projects a sweep when I have time at hand.

Today's the day.

So, first thing first, ahmim and Crypto_Dotar was found to be a connected bounty abuser by Stalker22 back in 4th of February 2023.

Now, these are the campaign started by each of them, where most of them are followed by red flags found by several users:

ahmim:
Bounty thread:

• [Bounty] 💥EPNOC The Next-Generation Hybrid Crypto Exchange 💱 10000$ Token, found to be plagiarizing whitepaper by yours truly, holydarkess, a.k.a. me
• 💥[Limited]💥 Pi Chain Bounty Campaign. Budget: 7000$ BNB | 4 Week., found to be plagiarizing whitepaper and fake team profile and several other red flags by, uhh... I think it'll be more to the community effort as everyone is pitching in
• [💥 Limited Open💥] Lamina Trade Bounty | 100k$ worth of LAMT Token | 4 Weeks.💥, found to be plagiarizing whitepaper and fake team profile, first unearthed by albon
• [💥Bounty Open 💥]Fratun Coin Bounty | 5k$ Busd + 5k$ Fratun Coin | 4 week 💥, well, haven't thoroughly check this one, but a quick scan informed me the project is an MLM with no team and a very vague roadmap, which I wouldn't be surprised if it ended an exit-scam as well

Crypto_Dotar:
Bounty thread: [Open] Millennia Token Community Bounty | 350$ Usdt | 1 Week, found to be plagiarizing whitepaper and fake team profile, by albon

The interesting thing about those projects is that all of them didn't have a representative here, didn't create an account or ANN, simply doing bounty --which I think will not be paid at the end of the period-- which I believe was done deliberately  in order to make their exit-scam easier, with the bounty's purpose is like what examplens said,


a.k.a., more exposure to the clueless to invest on those hit-and-run projects. I wouldn't even be surprised if all of them were ran by the same team --if not one person-- who deliberately choose these this bounty-manager-wanna-be with poor reputation, knowing they won't bother doing any background check.

---

Edit: ahh, almost forgot, the purpose of this thread is to ask whether it's fair to leave both of the account --owned by the same person-- negative feedback for this issue, or would that be seen as unfair, given some more reputable BM also has one or two questionable projects which passed their screening and leave a dent on cryptocommunity, and they didn't tagged. So, does a negative feedback deemed appropriate or should it be just a slap on their hand with a ruler?

---

Edit 2 [13 June 2023]:
Another of their alt, Crypto Bountyes come with another questionable project, Plagiarized Whitepaper - MetaSystem Token

---

Edit 3 [15 June 2023]:
Adding a flag against Crypto Bountyes on the top part of this post