Your excellent pinned warning in the Scam Accusations board was probably only found by victims after they got scammed by 1xbit and then tried to search online for support later, which is sad because had they applied due-diligence beforehand they probably would not have become victims.

I have been trying to post the following at least once per page in 1xbit related threads but some have also missed those warnings too or only found them after becoming victims.

I beg to differ, had he wanted to add my name he could have but I am not part of any drama 

You are part correct and part incorrect.

No, I am not part of any drama just because I asked questions and refuse to accept most of what Royse777 is stating but can the same be said about you? Since you uploaded images of alleged chats which you claim as proof that the elusive Bitlucy CEO and Royse777 are different people, all that by using an alt-account instead of your regular forum account, you have made yourself part of the drama.

Yes you are absolutely correct I am not satisfied with the answers.

No, I do not want special treatment from Royse777 on the contrary I just want the part owner of a scam casino who held the official title of "Co-Partner and Marketing Director" to stop being economical with the truth and if possible for her to stop using her bouts of aggression and tantrums as misdirection tactics because questions related to a scam should be answered.

I believe I read another member quoted 10% but did Royse777 ever state the percentage voluntarily? I tried searching but that part remains elusive.

Let us say for example it is 10%, did Royse777 ever she state what Bitlucy as a company would receive in lieu of giving Royse777 that 10%? After all, if it was the CEO who held 100% of the company but he surrendered 10% of his holdings, what was Bitlucy going to gain from it?

If there was a registered company called Bitlucy or a parent holding company that owned Bitlucy, then in order to be given 10% of that company some form of paperwork had to be exchanged. If there was no paperwork exchanged between Bitlucy and Royse777 and no contract was signed, exactly how did Royse777 gain 10% of the company?

Agreed.

With no Terms of Service, no Terms and Conditions and no Privacy Policy it will impossible to know what the company stood for before it scammed and shut down. Without those details it will be impossible to know if any clauses were inserted that allowed victims and others who wanted to start litigation (and in which jurisdiction).

I asked some questions almost a couple of days ago, there is another added now. Maybe you can reply:

- what percentage of the Bitlucy company given to Royse777?
- was there any paperwork signed between Royse777 and the Bitkucy CEO transferring that percentage over?
- what was the full name of the Bitlucy company with LLC, LTD etc?
- what is the current legal status of the company and the legal jurisdiction the company falls under?
- does anybody have a copy of the ToS/ToC and Privacy Policy of the Bitlucy website?


Link? I quoted examplens, where did you quote examplens and answer his question within 5-10 minutes of him asking?

You have raised a valid concern but as usual Royse777 has not answered questions she finds difficult to explain. Bitlucy does not exist. Under which rules and under which jurisdiction is Royse777 asking for KYC?

It seems KYC or not, Royse777 stated she will not send the victim money that was scammed by Bitlucy even after Royse777 promised to return to all victims.

There are posts in this thread pointing out Royse777 showing anger and frustration, I would liken those outbursts akin to throwing tantrums. Creating that locked thread Red tag reference for yahoo seems to be yet another manifestation of that tantrum and anger on part of Royse777.

Royse777 is playing a game trying with some of the most desperate attempts at creating misdirection in that locked thread along with trying to cause further fragmentation between members on the subject of the Royse777/Bitlucy scam.

Creating that thread trying to tarnish the reputation of yahoo62278 with nonsensical drama in an attempt to have that negative trust removed, really is a new low for Royse777. And that neutral trust Royse777 left for yahoo62278 (saying he cannot be trusted) is ludicrous to say the least because of the two: one of them announced herself as "Co-Partner & Marketing Director" of the Bitlucy scam casino and the other quite clearly said nothing of the sort.

Still the wait goes on. Instead of trying to drum up more diversions it would have been a good move on part of Royse777 to have commented on this herself without anybody having to ask about it because that is where the priority should be: refunds

I would not be surprised if what you say turns out true because when the impact of not having Mane in the squad hits home, Klopp will have to improvise. Nunez has potential to be a great player in his own right but he plays a completely different brand of football to Mane and is the wrong choice to buy in order to replace Mane.

Nunez seems to be an out-and-out goal scorer whereas Mane is a play maker and less prolific goal scorer.

It would be an interesting statistic to read about Liverpool results against the other big 5 teams under Klopp but they are improving and tis will make it an interesting season.

I understand your views but in order for any scam allegation to be taken seriously there has to be some form of evidence presented, otherwise there is no way of knowing what took place the parties and no way of knowing if one scammed the other.

As for an account that has been registered since 2020, yes one would expect him to have seen all the warnings and flags but he still ended up claiming he was scammed by the 1xbit scammers. It can happen, people can sometimes lower their guard and in the process make errors leading to financial loss.

That is your prerogative and to be honest I can somewhat understand your stance because you are the victim and if it is as simple as you depositing money then wagering some of it and then not being allowed to withdraw your own remaining deposited funds, then surely you have aright to be aggrieved.

I find it strange that in one of the screenshots they stated your account was open and deposits restored. To me that means they are allowing you deposit (ie send as much funds as you want) but they will not let you withdraw any winnings or your own deposits.

I would like to know what happens in the coming days regarding this, hopefully you can make public their communications when you receive it.

Going by what you said, if playing in demo-mode in any casino or gaming website and playing with fake money are similar then in your opinion how do you address the question asked by the OP? Regardless of using slots or not and achieving maximum entertainment or not, what would your opinion be?

If you would like your post to be taken seriously by those that are trying to limit the damage created by the 1xbit scammers, would you be kind enough to post evidence?

Can you post screenshots of your account page or any blockchain transactions to prove you sent funds to them or anything to show you even have an account with them?

I have just read this thread and your profile. Since you now have negative trust from multiple users the question arises: will you edit the title thread for accuracy sake to add the names of all members that left negative feedback for you?

$18,000 or $8000 or $800...

It is difficult to state what will happen and which circumstances will lead to someone hold or sell but what can be said is that there was and will always be panic buying and selling because of FUD. Whether stocks and shares, crypto or anything else in a free market, FUD does play a part.

Those that sell now to buy later do not always get what they want as it really works only when the selling price is high enough to entice a sale at a time when a price drop is expected. I would advise to not play that game as it can backfire spectacularly.

Since you are posting from a newbie account I have to welcome you to the forum but I suspect this is not your only account 

Regarding the bottom is nowhere near comment, what are you referring to? What was the motive for creating this thread when it literally has no meaning at all. Can you elaborate?

I think I tagged their account earlier today after reading a request for flag against them. These types of scams show no sign of abating because there will always be gullible users that fall in to their traps.

Even if they catch a few victims a year they will be making some sort of income at the expense of others, that is why they keep on doing what they do.

I could be wrong but to me it seems their justifications are pure nonsense which are designed to try to fool the user in to conceding 10% of their funds with a fear they could end up losing the other 90% if they contest what is going on.

I wonder what the "successful exchange" vs "we will return 90% to you but keep 10% for ourselves" ratio is for Open Change.

Welcome to the forum, I hope you enjoy your time here and when this issue is resolved you stay and continue to be a part of the community.

Thank you for posting about this issue.

I am wearing a Duelbits signature therefore I have a moral obligation and ethical duty to take an interest in it, to understand what you claim has happened and to understand from their side what they claim has happened. There are several things that can be said...

The Duelbits forum representative has not been online since 1sy July 2022 therefore under usual circumstances one would have to wait for the representatives to post about it to hear both sides of the story, however, in this case your screenshots are sufficient enough to come to understand their side.

According to your screenshots, Duelbits are stating their compliance team is looking in to this. Granted, they might have some technical or administrative issues which they have not (or do not want to) elaborate on but is this an actual scam allegation at this stage?

I think you should have waited a little longer before claiming their delay in dealing with your particular case was a scam. Calling it a scam allegation at this stage seems premature to me.

I have a golden rule, I will never send KYC to any website regardless of their reputation therefore I can understand your reluctance.

Highly unlikely they will not complete verification within 6 months. Stay positive, hopefully they will have this sorted out within a couple of days.

To me these are facts thus far as I have interpreted them:

You signed up to their website and won $1275 on your first bet then wanted to withdraw the winnings but were unable to. All this happened on 10th July 2022. For reasons not yet known they asked you to verify your account and you reluctantly sent KYC within 15 minutes of them asking. After that, you are on to nearly day 8 of you waiting for them to allow you to withdraw your $1275 winnings.

In your chat with Duelbits, they advised you to not contact them (as it was not going to expedite the process of you being contacted by their compliance team) and they stated there was no time-frame on how long the process could take and mentioned their verifications process was in line with legal requirements.

Did you ask Duelbits which legal requirements they were referring to?

Did you ask Duelbits what was it that triggered their request for the KYC?

We simply do know why they wanted extra verification for such a tiny amount as $1275 but since you have no previous history with them and you won on your first bet and maybe only bet, maybe they want to receive confirmation from their security team that:

- a vulnerability did not exist which may have been exploited in the game you won
- maybe your IP address what it triggered their security alert
- maybe the address you sent your crypto from alerted their security team

In my opinion, $1275 is such a tiny amount for a reputable gaming/gambling website they would never even dream of scamming anybody for such a miniscule amount therefore there is something else probably going on behind the scenes related to you and your win.

Others can express their views, some already have and I would like to too. For me, they have covered themselves for a maximum of 28 days (from 10th July 2022 onwards) by simply stating their compliance team will contact you regarding to completing their addition verification checks. If within 28 days if they do not get in contact with you either to state the verification is complete allowing you to withdraw $1275 or on the contrary state you failed the verification and you will not be allowed to withdraw the funds due to such and such issues, then by all means chase this by contacting their support team again and post full details here so forum members can see what is going on.

In my opinion if 8 days after sending KYC the verification process is not complete, it does not constitute a scam allegation regardless of the amount being discussed and regardless of the casino/gaming website brand being discussed.

I hope this gets resolved within the next couple of days for you and in your favour.

Thank you. I was not aware of it, I will also look at that thread and post there when I have time.

Yes you are pretty much spot on but there is confusion as to how they selected 10% as a figure they would confiscate in the event they believed they were dealing with stolen crypto.

Furthermore, there was no real meaningful justification given why they would return 90% of alleged stolen crypto however retain 10% for themselves. I mean, what could they say to justify it?

If Manchester United are to surpass Manchester City or compete with them on equal terms there need to be specific sets of circumstances in place and in my opinion they have to include a general decline in Manchester City because of an ageing team not being replenished with a combination of new signings and youth players being introduced to the first team and Manchester United doing the exact opposite.

Guardiola and ten Hag both share a philosophy of playing non-long-ball football. The Ajax team ten Hag managed played some stunning football and fell marginally short of getting to a Champions League final but they dominated Dutch domestic football. If he can bring that style to Manchester United this season and the players buy in to the philosophy of their manager, they will be fighting for a runners-up spot with Liverpool.

I still think Manchester City will win the Premier League again this season but Liverpool will suffer massively without Mane. What would be the odds on Liverpool not making the top 4 and finishing in a Europa League spot?

If something so trivial such as the length of a post or something so unnecessary such as quoting a post already visible for full visibility made you LOL, then I am very happy for you.

Most of the post was related to replying to mv1986 who has made excellent contributions to this thread and I look forward to his replies to my comments.

Back on the issue at hand, especially this part:

- Does anybody know what the percentage of the Bitlucy company given to Royse777 was?
- Does anybody know if there was any paperwork signed between Royse777 and the Bitkucy CEO transferring that percentage over?
- Does anybody know the full name of the Bitlucy company with LLC, LTD etc?
- Does anybody know the current legal status of the company and the legal jurisdiction the company falls under?