For OP, Poika5, can you provide the email you mentioned on your opening post as oart of your evidence in screenshot instead of just quoted text? It'll be more reliable that way.

---

For Coinbox1, I don't think I understand the situation correctly, so please enlighten us. First, was OP's account banned because of the reason he mentioned on the quoted email --the unfair advantage-- or because they're yet to fulfill the KYC TnC?

Second, I'll assume for now that the quoted text from OP is legit and originated from your email to them, as below,


Were you saying that an educated guess in your sportsbetting is not allowed? Suppose I'm a retired professional soccer player who spent his time compiling data and player's statistics, then analyze them and guessed the strategy their coach will utilize based on my prior experience as a professional player, and I won. This is illegal?

---

edit: tidying up the quoted post

Not trying to give you false and empty hope here, but Stunna probably didn't deliberately not-answering --yes, I've heard myself saying it, and it gave me brainfreeze too-- you, they probably set their PM to ignore message from newbie. If that's the case, hopefully my PM could reach their inbox. They haven't been online since few days ago though, so maybe just wait a little bit.

Regarding any other way to pursue this, sadly, I think this is the only path we can take right now. And regarding how visiting this thread feels like reopening a fresh wound for you, if you'd like to start --just in case Stunna never appeared here-- moving on from this case by stop checking this thread regularly, if you want to, drop me your TG username through PM. I'll notify you through TG when --or if-- Stunna replied. If you never heard from me, well... you know what it means.

What are you talking about? Last reply from askgambler was 5 days ago? OP, genji87, did said that they reached and submitted a complaint to askgambler, but they never gave further update about this, no link or anything. I've comb through all of the cases against Stake on that platform and couldn't find any case submitted by OP there. Can you --or OP-- provide link to this case?

The closest I get to your quoted text is from the case of Stake v. stakecomisscam, which a completely different case with the one in this thread.

And "Casinoguru gave their verdict somehow in the favour of the player"? Have you read the entire case carefully or at least the summary written by the staff handling this case? I'm not defending Stake or OP right now, not leaning towards any side with the lack of insight and evidences, but I do hate misinformation. Your post just made it even more confusing for anyone who doesn't read the flows on casinoguru.

As I've wrote above, casinoguru close the case as rejected, because the case fell on sports betting that's not their expertise, but both sides provide equally strong evidence. The verdict is inconclusive, casinoguru did not favoring OP or Stake.

I've PMed Stunna, let's just hope they would appear here and give their side and evidences that's we currently can't see because all of them were sent privately through email to askgamblers and casinoguru.

You mean as in morally obligated? As in you're not actually required by Sechyelles, but you want to be a law abiding citizen and friendly neighborhood err... exchange, so you choose to be nosy and ask for the sources? Or is it legally obligated by some international law? I can understand that maybe there's a global law that applied against AML-ATF that we are somehow didn't aware of its existence. But rest assured, you can just state the article number and we're back on track. The question, simplified, is: are you just being nosy or can you point us to the regulation that made you authorized to ask people to provide proof of source of fund.

It'll be quite a different story if by asking to provide, you were meaning to say that your clients just needed to state where it came from without actually providing the proof of transaction, written contract, etc. just like my illustration with the bank staff and my goldfish. For this, though, you'll then intersect with and have to answer LoyceV's question above. And if I may jump in and broaden the hypothetical scenario, the fund is actually came from harmful source and will actually be used for terrorism funding. Is simply saying someone got it from p2p board enough?


Why not? You contradict your own statement. You're not cooperating with scammers and thieves, not recommending to make exchanges with stolen fund and dark market, but you refuse to share the list? How is this being non-cooperative to the thieves? I can only think the benefits if you provide it than the disadvantages. For instance, everybody is just one ninjastic away to know whether they're dealing with a scammer or not and should they continue the transaction or terminate it before it waste their time any further, or get their fund blocked by you. Which also means, fewer things in your plate to do, since the transaction --thanks to your list-- didn't happen.

Not sure if OP, genji87, get notified about this as their last activity on this forum is one day before this post below is made, but casinoguru has closed the problem and rejected,


So, if OP is being honest with his claim of only having one acc and submitting legit kyc --and proven by casinoguru-- and if we may conclude from closing statement by casinoguru's representative that Stake's claim is also somewhat correct --well, not proven to be wrong, to be exact, and there's a bit difference between the two-- I think it is even more likely now that my proposed situation is what actually happened.

My question to OP is, what do you want to do now that your issue is rejected by casinoguru? Given stake's representative is yet to be present here, I think I can invite Stunna through PM to see if they can possibly look into this matter.

---

Edit: PM sent

While others are curious about how do you know and decide that a fund coming into your platform acquired illegally or not --which, an interesting topic for me too, but since other members has asked about this, I won't repeat the question-- I am more interested on this topic.

Were you required by the govt. where you're basing your office on to ask about this? On my previous post about AML compliance, I do say that financial institutions on several countries are required to conduct KYC, but I have no awareness that the AML --or even ATF-- extend to such length for financial institutions.

Speaking for my own country --which will remain unspecified-- even centralized financial institutions are not allowed to ask for their customers to provide proof of funds origin. Asking where from and what for? Sure, they asked that, but their customer may just said whatever crossed their mind. "My goldfish died yesterday and inherited me 1 trillion dollars, which currently you're seeing right now. For what does the funds for? Well, I'd like to build shelters for homeless koi fish" and the bank would accepted that answer without asking their customer to provide the proof of... will... by the goldfish. The authority to ask for proof of fund's origin fall into the hand of the govt. themselves, specifically their tax and financial dept. upon investigation.

Recently I even learned that during a preliminary investigation of tax evasion and/or money laundering, the tax dept. --similar to IRS, I think-- staffs are not allowed to ask for the source of money too, let alone to ask the "suspect" to provide proof of source. They only allowed to ask for confirmation if the said person owned certain value and assets that they flagged and where from. It's until further investigation of AML and tax evasion that the person are obligated to provide the proof of sources and other articles asked. And I'm talking about the govt. themselves here, the one who held kinda "absolute" power. So how does a decentralized org. in your country required and given an authority to ask for the same is... beyond me.

But, I'm also aware and understand that different country applies different rules. Maybe IRS staff may asked what the tax staff in my country aren't allowed to. So, since you're stating that you're based in Sechyelles, could you point us to the regulation article specifically mentioning this matter? I'm sure we're one google away to verify that if you can help with the article number.

Not trying to defending them or anything, especially since I'm not benefited from anything or related by any degree to them or even tried their platform once, which --I think-- is why my opinion leads leans to a more neutral side, but isn't saying them a scammer just because they failed to mention that an exchange required KYC is a tad bit overstatement?

I mean, sure, yeah, they get some money from users using their platform, and for that they ought to do at least certain degree of DD toward the exchanges they list on their platform, but ultimately it is also the users duty to perform their own DD. And it's not that difficult to get info if this exchange requires KYC or that exchange don't. Their FAQs usually covered this, or a simple reading of reviews from several sites

Don't get me wrong, I do love my anonymity. That's why the first thing I look for before signing up into a new exchange --not that I use a lot-- is their KYC and limitations for non verified users.

You might also want to edit this sentence and add a word "some",


In many countries that tries to regulate crypto --more to control them, actually, but they choose a good political term-- an exchange needs to comply to their fintech regulations, where one of them mostly includes a compliance to KYC/AML. So yeah, they do have an "authority", they're kinda required by the country's rule. And again, let's say an exchange in R country called EB --these names is obscured by intention-- requested you for  KYC although that's not required by their country and, thus, they're not authorized to ask for it. How's that bestexchange's fault? You're kinda the one agreeing to it, EB is the one that asked you for it, but Bestexchange didn't force you to.

Edit: realizing I used a wrong word that I'm trying to say

You sent the email on December 3rd? Are they replying you through email? As I can see that they're online again yesterday, so the chance is almost zero that any of their staff didn't notice your offer. It's bound to happen by --at least-- now that either they saw the email or their representative read your post here. Seems they choose to ignore you if you're yet to get any, any, reply.

I don't think I understand the situation correctly. You crowdfund your project, this one, SPORE, back in mid 2020, and then two and a half years later, with sporadic updates in between, and a telegram channel that looks abandoned --can't understand how and why your own admin asking for details of your project, which should be something they've know about-- rebranding the project into CONDOR and doing another sale?

Ahh, it might be wise to mention that the perspective I offered is more intended for Stake as they're hell bent on being sure you abuses multi-alt. Being having to stay neutral and giving benefits of doubts to every party involved, it's a way to say, "Hey, Stake, here's a possibility, have you considered it before being persistently sure that you're banning for a legit reason?"


It is conclusive, actually. The accusation of fake KYC is false as casinoguru team was able to verify thr legitimacy of the documents,



which prompt Stake to submit another evidence for the focus of multi-acc accusation; and, since I think OP has built quite a solid counter-evidence against it, yet Stake still insist on it, and since we have to remain neutral here, I tried to suggest a new perspective for Stake to consider, that they made a wrong conclusion of OP because he's simply dragged into the mud.

They attending to the disccusion on casinoguru and currently they submitted a new evidence, dated two days ago, so... Around 2nd of Dec? The casinoguru's representative is currently investigating the new evidences. Maybe they choose to discuss them there and only return here once everything is cleared --regardless if the outcome is they're wrongfully accuse OP or the other way round-- so, all we can do here is wait and followed the updates through casinoguru.

---

Reading from the first post to the last, this idea kept bugging my mind: how possible is it that the whole mess is because of the referrer code you use? Do you know the referrer in person or were you just being generous and randomly pick a referral code someone put on the internet and let them earn passively? What I'm trying to say --or to find a different perspective-- is if Stake think they're not wrong about you abusing multi-acc, and you insist you only have one account, add that to this statement:


They traced accounts --as how other platforms understandably also do-- I think it is still in the realm of possibility that someone that also use the referral code of the one you use, or maybe the original referrer themselves, had multiaccount and your account "simply" dragged along the mud because Stake group them all into one massive self-referral.

I am also curious about how would the abuser stole our token or anything else through this procedure. Ages ago I fell into the similar situation --namely, accidentally connecting a dApp to our TW or MM-- and I'm actually curious what'll the scammer do. Far as I know, TW --can't say for MM, hadn't use them for a while-- still needs us to approve transactions, so I don't think they can do anything even when they're connected to our wallet through walletconnect.

Best I can think of is the user who fell into this situation --just like I did-- immediately realized their mistake and reached their TG for support. And we all know how many way-too-helpful hand will reach us back through PM once we asked for help there. So, maybe a little tip for anyone fell --or currently falling-- into this kind of scam, their "official" representative --because there's no official staff there, all who helped you there are the honest and kind community-- will not reach through PM. Even if you reached them first, they'll urge you to write on the channel so everyone can read and help and give insight. So, the basic rule of thumb applies: if anyone reached you through PM claiming they'll help with your issue, just ignore them.

Another thing, just to be safe, is to revoke the connection, instruction here

Ahh, I see. So it's just a misunderstanding of an outdated info and you have relationship at any degree with Evorich. Was the outdated info also covers the relationship with Ms. Serdjukova? I see that she's your CMO, as well as a very well-accomplished marketer on Evorich.



If I may get ahead of myself, the specific curiosity of evorich and you is due to me being stumbled upon these articles during the preliminary DD

Evorich scam: https://behindmlm.com/mlm-reviews/evorich-review-skyway-capital-ponzi-spinoff-bumbles-along/
The exit scam: https://behindmlm.com/companies/skyway/evorich-investors-being-funneled-into-fnt-exit-scam/

If you read the previous posts carefully, GekkeBelg had referred anyone curious to the detailed and more focused discussion about the accusation --and their evidences. It is actually a wise decision for GekkeBelg to just refer people to the thread and not re-creating the whole topic here as it'll make a lot of things gets mixed up because the conversation will then happen simultaneously in two threads.


That said, I'm coming here just to say that I saw wintomato was online yesterday, and there are a lot of questions left unanswered by them on the said thread. I'd advise anyone to tread carefully on this casino for a moment, at least until they could give clarification or clear their situation. OP, wintomato, please consider this as a re-invitation and reminder that you have an active scam accusation against you.

Before I go into any details about those security and circle and loyalty things, a quick glance on your website shows me this



Does this means anyone interested in your project will need to wait for two more years to get the full launch? And you've been preparing this, building the website and the ecosystem around it for three years? Since 2020?

Before I dive any further and go into details, one quick question: are you related --more specifically, the child company-- of Evorich? I did a preliminary DD and see that their facebook account posted an FAQ article about you.

Current number of post (Including this one): 2566
Rank: Hero
bech32 address: bc1qcmwf7ckusenz7vjsvp8pwhjqn9gyulrtejeq74
Merit earned in the last 120 days: 49

Not trying to get out of topic but... you're necromancing a dead thread anyway, so... I assume this is the new owner of the account talking?

Let's see if I get this straight, the previous "got a win" is more or less a signed agreement that OwlGames will pay certain amount of compensation to you to close this case, although all of the previous discussion and input and warning and opinion or whatever else thrown by other forum members on the previous pages urged that this case wouldn't --well, shouldn't-- just stopped by paying a sum of money and we need to see the real problem here --whether a game really being cheated, where's that 97% came from, etc--, which at that time you think is more than adequate, so you're happily signed the contract --namely to close this case-- and declared that everything is solved, you reached an agreement, told us that they have a huge cash, and so on, and so on.

The next day, you reached to your lawyer and think the sum of compensation is very small, OwlGames should paid you more, thus the problem is not solved at all?

I'm not familiar at all with gambling and their terms, so I have to rely on the internet to look for the definition of the terms wintomato accused OP did here that put him on this position, but unless the definition I read are wrong --all five of them, actually, so the odd is nearly nonexistent-- there are inconsistencies on your counter-accusations against OP.

As per your reply on this thread, quoted above, you ban OP because they violate your TnC of value betting, which you neatly also explained on the lower part of the post. While the screenshot of email on 17 September, and whatever emails that you're yet to show us to backup the "multiple times" claim, is a warning is about the arbitrage betting.

These two, according to five different sites I read, are a different thing. On arbit betting, you bet on several outcome simultaneously, while value betting is simply --which can also be summed from your own post-- is the act of placing one bet where you're kinda sure --still a gamble, though-- that the outcome would be against the odds that the bookie placed. A nice comparison is here:


So, if you ban OP, stating that the reason is because you've warned them several times about arbit betting which they kept ignoring and forced you to lock their account, it can be summarized that either (1) you're as clueless as me about betting terms because the two counter-accusation you gave are two different things and yet somehow you understand them as one similar thing which leads you to ban them and ultimately leads us all to this position, and how on earth does a professional betting provider didn't know that they're different thing? Or... (2) you ban every user the instance they tried a betting method, no first warning or whatev. Bear in mind --in case you missed my point-- that the two is a different thing, so your email on 17th September --arbit betting-- is completely unrelated to the explanation of the "cheating" the OP did as per your explanation on 25th of November --value betting. And please note that from the way I understand them, these methods are actually quite legal as they're counted as "strategies".

Of course, the two possible summary above is under the assumption that OP is indeed utilize one of the two methods, you should explain how does OP arbit betting if they loses a lot of times. Or, if they're value betting, why does the invalid ones --thus revoked-- are only the winning terms while the other bets aren't. I think, the first thing you should do right now is make up your mind whether you ban OP for value betting or arbit betting... it'll be nice if we can have a side dish of explanation about how you mixed up both terms too.