That's because TrustPilot is not exactly a pilot of trust --yeah, lame pun, I know-- in a sense that you need to take them with a teaspoon of salt. They have a paid membership where the paying companies can utilize several "marketing tools" to "tweak" their ratings and revoke reviews, not to mention --as you said-- incentivizing user to leave fake reviews.

Read more:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Scams/comments/6p82me/is_trustpilot_trustworthy/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Scams/comments/s340rf/can_trustpilot_be_trusted/
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-7549909/Can-trust-Trustpilots-reviews-firms-dont-pay-it.html

Going back to your case that's being discussed --and that I've been following-- on AG, though, I think you forgot to attach a screenshot or something that you intended to give to show that you've submitted your KYC.

Hello, thank you for coming here.

By "original protocol" you mean it's yours? Or is it an already established protocol? Forgive me, this is quite embarrassing that I had to ask, but apparently, my memory failed to serve me right. I've been trying to rake it the entire night and this morning, but still can't grasp even the name I tried to recall. I know that I vaguely remember I attended to a thread who propose a similar project as yours, where each action will only drives the price up through buyback, burn, etc. hence I wanted to know if the said protocol is what I stumbled upon in the past or you're simply having the same idea.

Second, wouldn't it fair to think that your project basically adapt similar fashion with those projects back in early 2022: applying tax to add LP and remove supplies?

I think some clarification is needed here, some aspect needed to be straigthened out.

First of all, Coinbox1allow me to edit-slash-quote the post you quoted with the unsnipped version that will give a broader and almost different meaning than what your cleverly snipped version conveyed, marked in italic with key notes marked in red.


If I may stressed the point you tried to prove on those posts were that OP bet at a very late of the game, because the game started at 02.00 of OP's local time, with an assumption that average NBA game lasts 2h13m, so at 03.54, OP's bet --according to you, at that moment--  is near the end of the game where the result is predictable --I'd leave the "fact" that according to your own data and assumption at that point, there's still 19 mins left on the game, that's 1 quarter of a basketball match itself-- and can be considered as a late betting, which later Pmalek argued that your calculation should include the delay that happen on the opening of the game, thus OP's timing to place his bet is even further from the end of the game.


Yes, he did include NBA, but he wasn't exclusively talking about NBA, he's referring to --as per your own word, edited to be gramatically correct with the rest of my sentence-- them, namely the sports he's familiar with.


No, his sentence means a broader scope, not exclusively NBA, an educated-based-on-experience answer where most sport in US --that he's familiar with-- begins with delay, disregarding the length of the delay, a delay is a delay. Sports almost never played right on the time stated on their schedule.

And, returning us back to the point being discussed, what he said is basically fall along the line: you should add time of delay to your calculation.

This entire discussion became entirely useless though, because OP came with an extremely specific and official timeline published by NBA themselves --where the delay did happen for 10 minutes.

What I tried to say for these part of my post is: painting Pmalek as someone bad is really frown inducing, because he asked you multiple times to give another example, he gave you an un-sided request that perhaps there is another case that can show and prove your claim that OP did a late bet. He gave you what was due to you: a benefit of doubts. Which you never use.

And to be fair, it is you who attacked Pmalek --sneakily if I may add, by editing your first post on this thread where it can be easily missed by anyone who jumped straight to the last post they read-- by saying he distorted your words and the conversation became non constructive and unproductive. He asked you for another case to be dissected, how's this unproductive? How's this inconsistent with how you do business? Simply put, we almost can say he tried to say, "This case you gave is unproven to be true, please give another example that better show the point you tried to say about OP." Isn't that you do your business? Profesionally and always seeking for proven truth?


OP had the details, all of the points you wanted to know and wrote above, for your perusal and you still ignored them. How's this trying to resolve the issue with OP?

---

Now, seeing how Coinbox1 reacted to Pmalek's post, I think it is necessary to add this note before I said what i'll say next: the sentence below is purely describing my personal opinion and judgement, and it should not be used to build your --and by "you" I mean anyone reading this thread-- opinion of OP, Trustdice, Trustdice's representative Coinbox1, or anyone else in this thread.

"OP, seeing Coinbox1's choice of action and how they reacted and behaved to the development of this case reminds me of what I initially thought when I read their post here, that they're trying to grasp at the straws. If their action is the reflection of how the platform operates and how they handled future issues, I'm afraid this is a detrimental behavior. I've been aware that Poika5 had raised a flag here against Coinbox1 on behalf of this thread, that I've been reluctant to support until further development and shows of good will or cooperation from them. But, seeing how they reacted, answered, and keeps refusing to give a strong evidence for their counter-accusation against you, I am inclined to believe they are not about to show any good will. Thus, I am supporting Poika5's flag. Their flag is a type-1, you are free to create another flag of type-2 or 3 if you want to and I'll probably support that too if they still refuse to show another case to support their counter-accusation against you and prove that you're cheating them."

---

Edit: fixing the flag link

Wow... I'm not even sure where to begin, your past or your present project, which part do I want to look at? Hmm... let's start with the earliest part of your website, can you provide backup and legal documentation of these "120+ partners" with FIFA, LaLiga, and SerieA as three amongst them?



Next, how does a project with such prestigious partners didn't have any whitepaper for us to read? And what's wrong with this roadmap? Can it be more unclear?



Archiving website for future reference

julerz12, will there be a representative for this token attending this thread at the capacity of their CM or will you assume the role alongside their BM?

I have an opening question, this surge protocol, I assume it's their unique point of different and selling power? Had to admit, it's getting harder and harder to follow every development from every single side of crypto, so I'm not sure if they're simply adapting an existing protocol or it's theirs.

Can you please explain further about the conditions of the protocol and their taxes? I'm not sure I can wrap my mind correctly on it. It'll be nice and very helpful if we use an illustration with assumed numbers and currency applied to an exact numbers in taxes for the said transactions.

Ahh, sorry, I am not intentionally ghosting you, I was just... read your reply and then attended to other thread. Having this thread opened and thus marked as read, it disappeared from my "new replies" page and I completely forgot about you. The lack of your update on this thread for the entire week, though, I find it quite disturbing for a project with a huge ambition.

As for the truth behind the article, I can not read Cyrillic, but judging from other sites written in English, I would say the accusation itself is not baseless? The image where the article attached a proof of, it can be traced down to other articles and videos. Like this one in Cyrillic? Was it baseless and your strategic cooperation with them is still good? Or was it your security and marketing team failed to take a deep DD that you saw your cooperation with them is/was a good idea? Or was it simply because the claim of the article is true, that you're actually related to Evorich, thus employing Ms. Serdjukova?

Hi, we met here. So I followed Pmalek's advise on the other thread about four eyes... Let's hope my brain can catch up with these piling and crossing-each-other cases. I'd like to begin with me coming clean that I have little to no knowledge in basketball, let alone NBA betting, so this is quite an uncharted territory for me.

With that in the air, let's make sure we are all in the same page. You accused OP of late bet cheating, that much I know for sure, but am I right to assume that the following scenario is what you tried to convey:

That during 1 Dec, OP place a bet between Nuggets and Rockets game, which start at 02.00 their local time, add the assumption that NBA never plays on time, and although you'd like to say that based on what you know a delay is rare, it's still there, they still have to introduce team, sing anthem, etc. --yes, I quora-ed this one-- so let's combine what a stranger on Quora said with Pmalek's suggestion about the delay, let's agree on the shortest span possible to warm up, sing and to introduce people, etc., a 10 minutes, which place us in a situation where the actual game play at 02.10.

Now, as I've warned you all, this is an uncharted territory for me. So a funny but long story that could be very short if I want to --but I don't--, I've spent three four five hours digging the internet for things, realized I provided wrong data during my final proof read, re-searching the net, and finally got the right video... only to realize that the thing I'd like to prove is already served here. Anyway, as I don't want these three five hours thrown into trash, I think it still can contribute as a supporting evidence for the timestamp.

Now, I don't know if there's an easier way to actually know how long does the game lasted --oh dear, how naive I was two hours ago, certainly there is, as evidenced far below. I took what I can to get this info, which ultimately lead me to this video¹ where someone gave kinda live comments on the said game --why???--

To save you all from having to watch the entire video --if you don't want to-- allow me to put some important points based on the video timeline, which a rough estimation in a sense that it is not down to a precise second, give or take five to ten seconds because the time displayed by the "scoreboard" is not a live countdown, they updated the MM:SS based on the event happened on the field. Let's go ahead.

The video is 03:06:25 long, with the game itself started --roughly-- at 00:00:38 with 1 min and 26 seconds already on its way and ended at 01:59:00. At 00:23:07 the first quarter ended, at 00:25:49 the second quarter started; the thing I wanted to point out here, the video did happen in real time because according to this page, rest time between Q1 and Q2 is 1 minutes and 30 seconds --or two minutes, not sure which one is which. With that in our hand, lets skip waaaaayyyyyy forward to the end of the video, 01:59:00 where the video owner ended his live commentation for the game --I didn't watch what heppened for the next 1h6m-- with 1 minutes and 24 seconds left on the game.

Based on the video, because it already begun one and a half minutes before the video started and it ended one and a half minutes after the video creator closed his scoreboard, and because if anyone watched the video they would learn that 30 secs left on their timer could stretch to a very very long minutes, it won't be wrong to say that the entire game lasted more than 2 hours, let's say 2 hours and 3 minutes just for convenience.

Taking these numbers into our clock, as the final result, the game would start at 02.10 and ended at 04.13. As you said that OP placed their bet on 03.54, that'll be around 19 minutes before the game ended. And if we take this number back to our video, 19 minutes before 01:59:00 would be 01.40.00ish on the video, which....



If the image is not clear enough, it shows 09:07 --this is where, when I typed this number, I realized that the same information acquired at an easier way was already provided by Poika5-- of quarter 4, definitely a very very long time before the end of the game. May I remind us all again, how 30s can stretch very long, as proven how 9 mins on the scoreboard translates to roughly 19 minutes before the game actually ended. So, the accusation of late betting where OP placed their bet at the end of the game is not true, at least not for this bet. You can submit another to be reviewed, though.


Here, the "statistics", I added a few extra seconds to search for it --literally above my Quora result--, enjoy.


As for the reliability, I don't think we really need a reliable source to prove that NBA didn't start on time, almost every sport event never played on time. When did the last time you turned on your TV at 16.00 and boom, suddenly you see 22 people chasing one little round boy on a huge grass field? Or at 21.00 and you see a man punched someone else with a killer hook while hundreds of people cheering them up? With no commentation or any other opening at all? Yeah.

---

¹No, I am not related at any degree with the owner of that video, give him a like or subscribe or whatever if you want to.

I'll quote myself for reference of my insight on OP's offer for KYC at the very beginning of the issue --i.e. during live chat with your agent--,


by it, I mean as in OP actually didn't want to do KYC, so they did a reverse psychology where they offered it in hope that your team will said it isn't necessary, or if your team agreed on the offer, they already had a fake KYC prepared.

But for that very same reason I can't agree on the rest of your post about they're trying to buy time by procuring reasons to refuse KYC. I'd like to point out that they offered to perform KYC again, which you failed to address and lead to the situation where it further strengthen OP's doubt of your platform's trustworthiness and ultimately reluctant to perform KYC.


Suppose that the scenario is true where OP tried a fake KYC, if they didn't have fake KYC ready for disposal and tried to buy time, they won't try offering it right away the second time. It is quite logical to assume that they offered because they had it ready. By this basis, the idea that they tried to buy time to look for fake KYC can somewhat be eliminated.

And since we're considering a scenario where OP faked a KYC or tried to buy time, it'll only be fair if we also consider a scenario where you tried to grasping at straws by asking for KYC and will later on claimed it's fake¹, thus OP account would be frozen for that reason. I'd like to point out from the neighboring thread a very nice example where you seems to try to... jump at slightest possible "straw" when the chance offered itself,


let's admit, it is not that difficult to conclude that the OP of that thread had a language barrier and tried to say something that had a different meaning, especially as they've mentioned their mothertongue is not English on their opening post --by the way, Laki21000, this is one of what I wanted to comment that I referred on my previous post-- and to have an official professional representative of a professional platform easily misunderstood the real meaning of this very simple statement, it'll be quite legit for OP to further questioning your trustworthiness... IMO.

---

OP, how long has it been since you contacted and submitted your situation to AskGambler? 5 days? 6? Have you got any reply from them? I can't see your case has been escalated and displayed on their page, I thought on previous email they said it's about 48-96 hours?

Did your case got dismissed or something like with CasinoGuru? Can you please update if you had any further communication with their representative?

---

Edit: to respond OP's reply below and add context to my paragraph above, I can see them now, it's recently posted and wasn't there a couple hours ago when I checked their page.

¹Note that it is not an unlikely scenario, in a recent case I am attending --that I wont mention which-- a platform counter-accused a fake KYC amongst other things although the originality and legitimacy of the documents can be verified by CasinoGuru.

Could you name a few, please? Out of curiosity if any of my balance would be tagged and lost once put them in your platform or other platform with similar policy. And by the way, I think you mistyped "opinion". You're saying, "so, in our opinion," right? We got you.



So the two cases pointed out by OP on the opening post, they're happen to be proven as a stolen funds? As you've state that you have nothing to hide --quoted below-- certainly it means you don't mind sharing your foundings and evidences that became the basis for both cases?

As you've assured so many times that you never asked for personal data, and the anonymity of your customer is --also quoted below-- preserved, we can infer that there are no sensitive information involved and so there will be none leaked if you share us your evidence here. Or can't you share it as well because it'll "empower" the scammer by letting them know that their act have been known, just like you can't provide your blocklist to "dis-empower" the terrorist?


If you think you've answered all the questions here, I'd like to invite you to re-read the entire thread, there are a lot of interesting points that you conveniently missed. Like my part of FATF, or how could exactly, in your opinion that publishing your blocklist is really disadvantageous to prevent further ML or unnecessary account freezing.

You see, you keep repeating that you didn't require KYC, like that's the point we're pressing to you. It is NOT. Nor do we inquire about the why you froze an account. The answers are simple, everybody can easily whip a "he scammed someone" out of thin air. What we wanted to know is how do you prove the cases?

A casino can say they held their user's fund because the user cheated. A user can say certain platform scammed them some money by freezing without reason. A DT member --or anyone else, really-- can say a project is scam because they stole an idea somewhere, or whatnot. Eventually, everything breaks down to the how do the accusations or the statements is proven to be true, what basis, what evidence to back up the claim.

And so far, all you gave are vague answers and the ultimate weapon "we won't empower terrorist, we refuse to cooperate with scammers" or anything that fall along the line whenever you're cornered. Either that or you conveniently missed some key point in someone's question, or the entire post(s) themselves. You never presented a backup that your findings of someone's account is based on solid proof. Meanwhile, that thing is a very important here. How would you feel if in an overnight your account is marked as a scammer, flagged, there are hundreds of negative reviews about you, and when you asked why you got into that situation, people simply replied, "ohh, we have evidences that you commit a fraudulent activity, but we won't share it here because it'll help other exchange by making their action known"?

The concern is not why you suddenly froze --for instance-- my account, it's how you prove that my account is involved in fraudulent activity that deserve banning, while there's a huge probability that I'm stuck in this case simply because of my cluelessness that the fund I had was part of a ML, or I bought an XRP from a scammer.

We don't want clueless people to have their assets frozen because of their cluelessness upon depositing into your platform, specifically because --from what we may conclude from your jumbled explanation-- you played your own judge. You gathered evidences and blocklist etc. which remains private to you and your customer can't defend themselves. It is what PrivacyG prepared answer nicely describe, which you also conveniently missed.

Here, let me re-quote that for you and give you a hand a little: since your answer is positive, the question you'd want to address is marked in blue


And please don't say "we have a system". Remember, we are all about evidences here, so the expected answer is how exactly do you determine a user is an innocent victim or they're a scammer --or terrorist-- pretending to be innocent.

Yes, I have, and although I wanted to comment on one or two things that I found on their replies, I saw that Pmalek is already present there. They're more than capable to help us see the outcome of your case, which is why I refrained from commenting there. Me being there seems... redundant. But maybe if your case is not solved when OP's cleared, I'll participate. Rest assured that I'm still keeping myself updated on your topic.

Coinbox1, a simple curiosity. So I was looking at other accusation threads addressed to you that you managed to solve on this forum, where most are proven to be a false accusation made by multi-acc abuser. On every single one of those cases though, you asked them their username so you can consult it to your database and informed them --and the forum-- of the basis for their account freezing, like this one


Or this,


Or every other threads, they're handled in similar fashion where --as said above-- you asked for their account details and then informing us why'd they got banned. So why is this case different? Instead of informing us about the suspicious behavior they're being suspected for, you instead directly asking for KYC before you'll share any further info and insist on it that I practically had to "beg" for you to meet in the middle


True, that you finally and ultimately gave in and sticked to your old procedure by informing us the reason behind OP's case, I just can't help but being curious why OP's case is treated differently.

---

Didn't mean to be rude, but maybe you both want to dial it down a little on commenting on each others thread? Although your way-too-frequent exchange of comments is the reason that pushed me into curiosity and to look into Laki21000's thread and ultimately brings me to look for each cases against Trustdice, it's still... too much and borderline spamming the accusation board, IMO. Just try to dial it down a little if you two don't mind, ok?

If you could update your opening post with this alongside with a screenshot as an evidence of their counter-offer, it'll be nice. I find it quite questionable for their side, if they're sure your account is cheating but then decided upon a "good will" by paying you one-fifth of amount due, isn't it a bit strange? If they're very sure you're an abuser, they won't do anything and keep on pressing with their defense.


Last time, it worked nicely. They were "too busy" with updating their staff that they missed the accusation for months. Given this one is not even clear what's the real reason why they canceled OP's WD, let's see if a nice orange number on their profile helps motivate them enough to handle this case more seriously.

I'd like to firstly congratulate you, your jumbled explanation on this page only actually managed to make me stare at my screen for I'm not sure how long, it' a long minutes, re-read the entire page and found myself stared at my screen again because I'm not sure what's the best way to approach your situation. I even finally slept on it. So, I think this is the best way to address you and your sea of explanation, and trust me, I've wrote a very-very long post, but then decided to wrote a very simplified version. It's there in my draft, if you'd like to read.

So, simplified, if someone can't prove he's not related and didn't know the user he trade with, his account will be banned. If he can't provide proof of transaction, his account will be banned. If he bought a stolen money and can't prove his innocence, his account will be banned. In short, anyone using your platform, although they're free from KYC, they have to know a full details of the people they're about to transact with prior to using ypur platform or they'll be banned? Not sure if that's convenient, or if the info you inquire can be categorized as a legal questions, and not a harrasment, or extortion.

And what's the parameter of innocence? If A and B are friend and A tried to launder the money he stole from C through B who's about to sell it to D, which then put the money on FixedFloat, and they discussed it through a disposable chat platform, or even meeting face to face, or by paper airplane a-la high school students, or whatever, and since you found that D didn't know anything and somewhat can prove that B is not related and "didn't know" that the money is stolen, they'll get out of it? This means you're the ultimate judge of which fund is frozen and which one isn't?

Next, I still can't understand this statement,


How?

If any, it'll tighten their wiggle room. By having their address published, anyone is one or two steps away from tracking of the user and the true nature of the fund. No body would want to deal with the address owner and we can say good bye to the ML and TF.

But you choose to withheld this piece of very useful information. Clueless users who came to your platform wouldn't know what's about to hit them. All they know was they're dealing with someone --who probably dealt with someone else before them-- and boom, he went bankrupt in a day because all of his lifesaving is confiscated. The terrorist? Well, they sat calmly in their fortress, they've successfully launder their money, thanks to the cluelessness of the cryptocommunity because one of them didn't know the address they had a transaction with is belong to Gru.

Now, let's address your claim of emails from authorities accross the countries, what's the nature of this request? For you to stop harassing and extorting their citizen? Or to cease and desist?

Talking about FATF, were Seychelles fully FATF compliant? Last I check, Seychelles still arranging their regulations to meet thr standard, and from the evaluation taken in 2020, they're just meet 12 of the 40 guidelines FATF issued. Not sure which from those 12 speciefies what and if your actions were included and justified by those 12 compliantce, or if being nosy --and self appointed judge-- like this make you a progidy or a vigilante or an extortionist.

---

Beware of this point, it could backfire. We can only imagine what length a competitor would do to defame their fellow competition. For example, without having to submit a proof for bad review, a company called worstexchange could create hundreds of accounts to wrote bad review about his fellow competition, goodexchange. And without an admin who can moderate or decide the legitimacy of those fake reviews, your system would turn into a battlefield of reviews before ultimately collapsed.

I thought you're exchanging emails with them? Was this mean the resolution you're looking for is not reached? Or are they stopped replying again? If they're still looking and discussing for a solution with you by emails, I think it's quite unfair if you reached here and post something that made them looks bad ---fact and data or not-- although they're still in a good will. Unless they went MIA again?

Hmm... Stunna was online today and they're still not here. I'd hope my PM was just lost in the sea of PM they received. Is there anyone who happen to know their TG handler? I wouldn't mind trying to reach through them by it. I looked at Stake's website and found that they don't have an official TG channel, so I certainly couldn't reach them by that means, unless I'm wrong and they actually have one?

Yes, that's actually helpful, and I'm thanking you for your willingness to meet at the middle, it's a very good start and as you can see, starting from this post of yours forward, we can actually start looking for the truth instead going for a wild goose chase.

As for OP, here's your accusation, hope it's helpful for you to get through this. Interestingly though, I found one thing that's a bit incoherent from your side. I thought you said on the opening post that you are not playing esport?

And if you read my post carefully, you'll understand that I am not demanding you to give detailed info about why their account got banned, just the reason, mentioned in a direct and clear answer. If you read through this whole sub-boards, you'll see that there are a lot of users complaining about similar issues with other casino or exchange or other business entity. Some cases, the casino did a misjudgment and the situation solved through exchange of evidences. Some cases, the accusers actually tried to fool people and proven to be guilty after each side gave their side of story. While some other cases, the platform did dirty things, and exposed through series of questions where they can't give concrete evidences to back up their claim.

I'm not saying OP is right and you're scamming them, there's even a possibility that they're a multi-acc abuser and the KYC they offered is a bluff, or fake ones. But there's also possibilities where you misunderstood them, or cheated them.

This is why we all are here right now, to see and prove which story is actually a truth.

And about being much better than what a lot of other casinos do by providing the clauses being triggered, I'll invite you to read several threads of issues with casinos on this sub-board, there are several casinos that go to a length to solve the issues and clear their name by cooperating. Not only they specify the reason so it can be discussed and reviewed, they also gave counter-evidence to back up their claim and get to the bottom of the issue, so err... yeah, you're actually not that much better than you imagined. This one for good example and comparison.

I'm not threatening you here, just giving a simple words from my observation, but by refusing to specify the reason like this, you actually cast an impression that you're the one being wrong here. Anyone reading this case would probably think like me, that if you have nothing to hide and sure that OP is an abuser, you'll be more than happy to provide --at the very least-- the reason why they're being banned. They offered you to complete KYC and you --unless you have an evidence that OP's claim and screenshot is not true-- banned them instead, and then just after the situation escalated to this forum you asked for KYC. If you ask me, it's kinda looks fishy. Lest it be too late and a flag raised and stir a lot of unnecessary inconvenience like the other case OP had in the past.

Ahh, I see. Yes, I'll openly admit that there is a major misunderstanding from my side. The way your team explained to OP on email suggested that their account is banned due to insider info --why else would you mention this point on email if that is not the reason or related at any degree to their account freezing-- and I take that it's far from it, then? OP's account is not suspected of insider info?

Would you elaborate more on the reason? You can't give evidences due to the backlash you received on previous case, okay, arguably understandable, but certainly a casino --or any business entity-- should inform their user the reason of the banning so their user could defend themselves with proper evidence?

From what we can take from the email, the possible reasons are (1) misconduct, (2) insider info, (3) multi-alt abuse, or (4) a breach in TnC.

I think we can safely cross reason number (2) based on your own statement, and (3) because if OP is multiacc-ing, they'll quite reluctant to do KYC instead of offering them. So, point number (1) which would need you to to explain which misconduct is it because the term is very wide, or point (4) that's even more vague and widely open for misinterpretation.

I'd like to say OP raised a good point, they've offered to willingly perform KYC and you cut their way by freezing their account instead, for no clear reason if I may add. So certainly we can agree that they reserve a good degree of caution upon who they submit their info to. So, maybe all we need right now is for you to give a good gesture and tell us why you banned them in the first place. After all, as you said yourself, you have your reputation to maintain. So I think explaining why they're banned is not only a cheap price to pay for OP to do KYC and you to maintain your reputation, but also your duty on the first place.

LOL, couldn't agree more about this. I've been thinking since yesterday that we're kinda scared them off by bombarding them with questions that'll expose them and their tendency towards unilateral decision and judge-playing; they've been online several times since their last post and stopped replying here. And as you said, the silence actually speaks louder than what they've been trying to say here with their posts.

I was considering about giving them couple of days, see if they'll go online and still intentionally ignoring the unanswered questions here --giving benefit of the doubt here, maybe the silence is because they're gathering data and proper answer-- and start a thread to warn people about their service. If anyone using their service are subjected to a russian roulette of fund freezing for stupid reason, they have the right to know what they're going into before they put their money on it.

To be fair, actually, you are kinda agreed to submit documents for KYC purpose if they ask you for it, written on their TnC.


But, as your screenshot of chat suggested that you've suggested this --and still getting blocked-- so... let's move our focus to Coinbox1


Thank you for the link, I've actually read and familiarize myself with them before writing my post. And although it is true that by the TnC your user are agreeing on a clause where they have to submit KYC if needed, your explanation did not exactly answered my question. But if I may infer from your seemingly deliberate vague answer, you banned their account because they had suspicious behavior --i.e. insider info-- and thus you feel you need to check their ID? Then why did your team still froze OP's account although they already offered to complete KYC?

And let's take one step backward here on the reason itself, can you provide evidences that became the basis of this suspicion? Have you studied OP's account closely and have solid proof before freezing it or were you just ban-first-ask-later? How do we know that it is not a foul play by your platform, that you didn't just invent the situation and you won't use the same reason for other user(s) in the future?