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?

I still find the whole situation strange because though it was about time a world cup took place in the Middle East (providing they had the infrastructure), the tournament will take place during the main seasons around the world.

Imagine what it will be like for players that have to give 100% for their clubs in their domestic league, then have to travel for the biggest footballing spectacle in the world, to acclimatise there in a country most players have never visited and then to actually participate in the tournament knowing there will be no rest after because they will return to their domestic leagues to carry on where they left off.

This will be one of the strangest football seasons on record....

How effective was Joshua really when he was going in with a scrap/brawl mindset? His win rate was excellent of course with only Ruiz and Usyk being his only defeats but in both he was outboxed. He won those so-called scraps and brawls, a prime example being parts of his fight against Parker which Joshua won on a points decision but they did nit endear him as a great fighter.

Joshua seemed to be in a scrap or brawl type of fight against Ruiz in the earlier rounds before he was knocked out therefore I doubt he will be able to bully Usyk in the ring simply because Usyk will not let him. I cannot see Joshua winning this rematch.

In a news report it shows Qatar having made stunning base camps for the participating teams and for the match officials which would otherwise cost approximately £5000-£6000 per room per night.

The players and officials will be pampered and their every need taken care of but will this reflect with on field performances? 

Yes I merely asked about a link to read for myself if a dinner with the CEO took place since that was quoted by members earlier.

First of all thank you for the link (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60055562#msg60055562) because I was not really interested in that thread and probably never visited it until I clicked your provided link.

Secondly, the words written by the user in question with those overzealous and over-protective remarks towards Bitlucy and then including the comment that gave Bitlucy far more of a seal of approval than it deserved by mentioning (words to effect of) Royse777 would not manage a scam campaign. That part is hugely problematic because it in essence means three important things:

i) asking users to put their trust in a certain newly created website by sending funds to them on the basis a particular forum member is promoting them

ii) shutting down any form of dissent, concern or claim in earlier manifestations before they became widespread - again, on the basis a particular forum member is promoting a certain newly created website

iii) it allows the particular forum member to either buy time to try to fix any issues by liaising with the website (since their reputation is on the line if a scam takes place) or it allows that particular forum member to refuse to accept the red flags and with that ignorance fall deeper in to a bigger hole.

The unfortunate side-effect of both is that by not pulling the plug earlier and by not completely disassociating with the website at the first opportunity, that particular forum member has facilitated a mechanism where the number of victims could increase. This was one of the reasons why I stated in my feedback there was negligence on part of Royse777.

As I will mention below again, I have not read in full the 11 day conversation between the user in question with the Bitlucy CEO, I will try to read it to get an understanding.

Maybe Royse777 was gullible. Maybe a combination of being gullible and greedy led to Royse777 getting in to this situation. Maybe something else.

I hope to read it in full within 48 hours, the text in the lines I have read shows a very informal chat from a CEO who is conducting himself as a typical salesman rather than a professional individual but I need to read through it to understand what chat took place over the days they communicated.

The flag was removed by the user that created it therefore regardless of support or opposition, it does not mean much now.

I never knew about this post, I read what Royse777 wrote and once again thank you for the link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg59956927#msg59956927

It was utter stupidity on part of Royse777 to post using words which were probably deliberately used in order to have dual meaning, such as Royse777 stating being "good friends with the CEO for over a year" as well as "hanging out regularly".

What does that mean to a layman when someone says they are "hanging out regularly" with each other and have "build up trust of each other over a year"?

Exactly who could be blamed for putting their trust in a trusted forum member after reading him or her vouching for a business they are part owner of without actually stating "trust me and take my word for it, this is no scam" but never uttering the words?

By simply using the reputation attached as to be taken as a seal of approval to those unfortunate to believe it, Royse777 is in this situation today. I would not surprised at all if using her own reputation was part of the leverage Royse777 employed in negotiations with the Bitlucy CEO to become part owner maybe with a promise of adding her name to the casino for the sake of showing it as legitimate and it being not-a-scam... but then again until or unless a full transcript of their chats is made public we do not know what prompted the Bitlucy CEO to not only employ Royse777 as a campaign manager but also to give a percentage of the company in lieu of being awarded the title of Co-Partner & Marketing Director

Who would not believe a campaign manager with green trust when they state they are part owner of a casino or when that same member effectively says "Hey, trust this website because I am staking my reputation on it after all I am part-owner and because the CEO and I have built up a massive amount of trust over a period of a year. For your information we are very close and we are hanging out regularly. On top that, between us we both understand the gambling industry inside out because we have phenomenal experience in this field and we shared a common interest in starting a casino therefore we simply decided because we are the best people who can create a new casino which will become the largest crypto casino/sportsbook ever, we will do it"

To answer the question: Me. I would not believe it.

As a continuation of the answer: Many people and many forum members will not believe it either.

As a further continuation of the answer, it is safe to say: some people and some forum members will believe it and the reason for that misguided belief would not be because a newbie account created 30 minutes ago was vouching for a newly created casino... on the contrary the reason why some people including forum members would believe it is because someone highly trusted and in a position of trust and in good standing with peers (operating an account with several years history) has basically stated they own part of the very same business they are vouching for.

Previous good character or previous good conduct or previous good standing along previous contributions cannot negate the utterly appalling decision making process taken by Royse777 related to Bitlucy, nor should the facts about the Royse777/Bitlucy relationship be watered down because there is no evidence Royse777 intended to scam from the beginning but there those that expressed opposing views and that is their right.

We have had or almost had zero contact before corresponding in this thread. I cannot recall interacting with you but I enjoyed reading your posts for the quality and time taken to write them presenting them with links providing background information with evidence. You have also shown the correct attitude when standing up and taking a stand in what you believe in such as the high quality posts in this thread even in the face of opposing views.

It is slightly off-topic but to be fair my time for clamping down on scam after scam, almost day after day of doing it are behind me now though I do try to take an interest and post intermittently in the Reputation and Scam Accusation boards. Thankfully there are many forum members contributing positively in the Scam Accusations board on a regular basis and I am grateful to them.

Anyway, moving onwards and back to the issue on hand regarding this particular thread:

- 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?

Well if you are correct then what do you think drove Royse777 to get in to a partnership in what was a doomed relationship from the very beginning? I do agree with you, megalomania seems the correct word because the way Royse777 was posting about her relationship with the Bitlucy CEO and the part-ownership of Bitlucy shows telltale signs of it.

I agree, the alleged proof does not bring closure in this situation at all.

What somewhat compounds the issue of the alleged conversations is what motives Royse777 had for releasing them to a select few as well as why that particular select few were chosen. The latter (if I recall correctly) was recently addressed by Royse777 in a semi-rant of a mostly incoherent post but the motives for wanting to share in the first place were never addressed. It remains unknown what Royse777 wanted to gain from it.

I agree.

I broadly agree because you have summed it up in an apt manner. I think greed played a huge part in the mindset of Royse777 in that period and I think the degree to which she leveraged her reputation as a campaign manager and trusted forum member in order to deepen the relationship with Bitlucy to become an unknown percentage owner of the company remains unknown.

Can you elaborate on what is coming?

As for you not having regrets about your posting style and chosen words, I hoped you would have a different view retrospectively but I am not in your position and therefore cannot fully understand what you are going through. I do think posting with some control of frustration and anger will be better when engaging with members.

I made no such assumption but I do think engaging a general courteous manner with all parties including a reputable gambling/gaming website even if you make a scam allegation against them. I would say that the correct protocol would be to keep calm when engaging with members across the spectrum with differing views while presenting facts and evidence to back up your claim and standing your ground.

And though it would probably mean nothing in the context of this thread, as far my opinion is concerned I am 100% certain (on the basis of what I have read thus far) what is clear is that FortuneJack have not accepted any wrong doing on their part and they claim they operate within their Terms and Conditions.

You seem to have failed, you did not succeed when you attempted to get the community to pressure FortuneJack. The majority of forum members that are aware of the situation have not backed you, your claim or your flag. Does that mean you should change something in your approach or does that mean you are still going to remain on the same track.

It is clear they will never pay you what you are claiming because they deny scamming you and they claim they are operating within their Terms of Service that you signed up to when you decided to play there.

The only option you have is a legal one and that route will mean you having to find a lawyer either on a no-win-no-fee basis or basically you will have to pay their fees from your own pocket. And if you ever got to that stage there is no guarantee you will win.

Yes I noticed some of your posts in other threads, it is good to see you trying to become a more active member of the community by posting in other threads.

Regarding you wanting to ensure even if one person was to avoid FortuneJack or the other organisations that did not help you then it might be considered as some form of success, I think you have made the point. If you want to regularly bump this thread in order to sustain your aims then it means it might bring you some sort of closure while holding hopes of receiving a payment from FortuneJack.

Other forum members have stated their opinions on how they saw your case and they are entitled to their views. As far as my position is concerned, I still have not read all the information related to the scam allegation but FortuneJack deny wrongdoing as per their Terms and Condition and those were what you signed up on their website. It is clear they will not pay you because they claim they did nothing wrong.

Without a doubt they (FortuneJack) and all other gaming/gambling websites should not allow bets to be placed in the first place if they will be voided later. This is because of the obvious conflict of interest in a scenario:

- there is a win which they could refuse to pay and instead refund the wagered amount and inform the user of a breach of the ToS
- there is a losing bet placed but they will not inform the user about the breach of ToS therefore will not refund that particular bet and the user remains none the wiser

I would advise you to move on from this episode with a view that you wagered around €4700 and won around €92,000. As for the other €5700 you wagered which could have brought you around €100,000, just take it as you receiving your wagered amounts back but the winnings were disputed by the website operator.

If you decide to continue your claim: Can you point out in this link to their Terms and Conditions exactly which parts of the contract you claim were broken by FortuneJack?

And after that, can you point out in the same Terms and Conditions which parts of the contract FortuneJack claim were broken by you?

https://fortunejack.com/faq/terms_and_conditions

I did not know Mane asked for £250,00 per week to stay and I am not sure they wanted him gone. My understanding was that after six years at the club he wanted a new challenge and Klopp seems to confirm this: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/liverpool-transfers-klopp-mane-tour-27450686

Liverpool and Klopp would have been happy for him to stay, they could have replaced him two years down the line but Mane refused to sign a ne contract or discuss a pay rise. Rather than keep a player that wanted to move, they accepted an offer from Bayern Munich that could rise to £35 million if certain conditions were to be met, they decided to cash-in.





Real Madrid unveiled Hazard with great fanfare but he could not live up to the reputation because of those injuries. Sadly for him he will not be remembered at his time in Madrid for anything other than being a monumental failure and disappointment. I knew he had to leave that particular season because he was playing fantastic football for Chelsea and he could not refuse when Real Madrid chased him. The transfer fee was good for Chelsea too.

As for Ronaldo, he may end up staying at Manchester United which would mean after 19 consecutive seasons playing in the Champions League he will have to settle for the Europa League.

I have no idea how close he was to joining either Bayern Munich or Chelsea but right now it looks likely he will be staying at Manchester United as even though his financial demands will probably be met, no manager will risk upsetting his existing team and exisitng star players when a showman famous footballing legend signs bringing with him a massive media and social media following his every move which in itself brings a new spotlight on the club.

He already rejected a £105 million per year salary at a Middle Eastern club in order to play at the highest level in Europe if possible.