Finally gave a read and peek a little here and there. Orpichukwu gave a very nice brief summary of what happened. Their telegram bounty channel is a ghost town. They have no representative here, other than the BM who no longer active, no ANN, so there's no way to flag the project.


OP, there is no possible way to tag them, they don't have a representative here, unless I am mistaken? How much did they owe the bounty participants for 2nd round of distribution?

They're trading on P2B [formerly p2pb2b], with 24h trading volume $886,000+, I won't be surprised if it's a trading bot activity and not an organic volume.

How about now? Someone else on other thread [the one I mentioned above] got an update from BC's representative [05 October] and didn't get any development until yesterday [07 October] and everything is solved today. His case is closed. If you haven't, as you've been in PM with them, I think me sending them another PM will a bit redundant, but if you would like me to, I don't mind doing it, to push them about this matter.

A tad bit late [or very much late] to give my comment here, as I've been wanting to wrote something about my experience working together with this BM for a long time, and I personally think Royse is one of a bounty manager [or management] that goes to a length to promote projects.

Not only he reviewed and criticize each of the participants weekly to ensure the participants maintain certain quality and thus benefitting the projects that hires his campaign management, he also tailored everything to ensure maximum exposure of the project he promoted. He does a lot, but I'll emphasize on the criticising each participant, because I think there's not much campaign manager who do this and I'm still in awe up to these days. He literally read each post, measured their quality and what to improve, give a fair warning for those low-quality posters to improve their posts, and when they keep failing, replacing them with better posters.

Below is just a sample of how he analyze posts. I picked this simply because this one have his username on it, to prove that it is not another manager's spreadsheet. If anyone wanted to look, there are more pages like this on his spreadsheets, with even more comments and inputs to each of his participants, usually on the earlier part of a campaign when he has to tailor the group, hand-picking, accepting enrollment, selecting, and eliminating participants to better fit the campaign they promoted, and then everything will sail smoothly.



tl;dr: you're in a good hand if you have Royse777 as your manager. And I am saying this to both project owner and campaign participants.

This whole scam accusation thread, and the condition you're in, will not exist if you didn't sign up with them on the first place, realizing that you shouldn't be able to play on them legally due to your own self-exclusion. You said that you have no bad intention when you sign up, then can you tell everybody here why did you still signed up although you know there's a restriction against you playing that you set yourself? And, as you stated yourself, you won't complain if you win.

How is that not a bad faith? You read an advertisement, you know you can't play, still play anyway. If you won and managed to withdraw your winning, you won't complain, if you experienced an issue, you'll... well, here we are.

So yeah, this whole scam accusation is flawed, you raise it simply because you lose on the "game" you tried to play them.

Sounds like HYIP or ponzi to me, making six times of initial investment in few days. I agree that you got lucky with your withdrawal, leave when you still can and don't suggest any of your friends to invest on that platform. I took a peek through their website and I can't see if they're a registered company on both website, and these statements on profxonlinetrading is definitely worrying



Or how they implied they've been around since 2016, but their website was just from around last year.

Haven't read and look too deep for this project, but one thing caught my eyes, their burn address... is not ERC burn address, if the developers have the private key to that wallet, the 4.5B token "burnt" there were rather meaningless, as they can retrieve it at anytime.

I think we're talking about way too many tokens at the same post here. Which one is it that doesn't gain enough demands? The adonx v.2? And to be clear with the previous projects, you bought adon from a developer, then deemed it failed, then raised your own new project called adonx?

As my last post stated, as annoying as it is, Punt did not scam you. You breached their ToS and it's within their right to take the action they took against your account. What you offered here is borderline coercing them, I'll advise you to refrain from it.

Nope, read the thread again. The link OP gave on his opening post was obsolete, but I preserved it through talkimg, it's OP's chat with their live support, complaining that his transaction didn't go through, a proof that the withdrawal request was made by OP

Let's stay focused on your project here, shall we? So, to summarize, your project is a ponzi scheme, modelled after a notorious platform that scammed 340 million USD, and it offers no other purpose than that? Of course, not mentioning [hopefully] brings you some bags of fortune on its process through the sign-up fee.

Oh LOL no, not turning down the new payrate at all, hence I said "not that I'm not happy with they new payrate", I simply concerned if it'll drain their budget sooner than the initial plan, but I guess examplen's explanation made sense, with better marketing [our way to "payback" the high payrate] through better posts, they'll gather more users and could allocate more to the campaign budget.

OP did ask for withdrawal, the problem was his transaction got stuck and didn't go through. But judging from his silence and inactivity [nearly a month], I can assume it finally arrived into his wallet.

They are not adding codes by themselves, if I have to guess [because I am not Stake's staff], Stake has two log system, the short and the long version. Each betID were recorded with either of the version randomly. May I remind and point it out to you, again, that the log --be it long or short-- doesn't change the outcome, the field are still on the same one determined on the beginning of the bet session.

And the casino didn't delete betID, they archieved them.

Not... the point I failed to grasp.

Here's what I have in mind, your platform offers exchange, escrow, payment service, and others, correct? And you said it's gaining demand. Wouldn't that imply with profit earned from offering your services, you'll be able to get the funds for whatever plan you have? And do I understand that it is not the first time it got rebranded? First we have adon, then adonx, and then adonx v.2?

So, this is the rough chronological narrative: your friend created rollbit account last year, got limited from months ago, never played on rollbit again because of it, and ultimately deleted his account last month, in September. On July this year, you created an account and start betting, and earlier this month, your account somehow got banned? Do we know exactly when did your friend's account got limited and why?

Not that I'm not happy with the new payrate, but... will it hurts the campaign budget in terms of duration? I think it'll be very much preferrable as well as showing good reputation for Sinbad across the forum if they can have longer campaign weeks rather than higher [or highest, I think we are the highest right now, no?] weekly payment. i.e., suppose if we reserve to the old payment scheme we can hold it to 100 weeks, and this new scheme made us can only go for 75 weeks, I think, reputation wise, ceteris paribus, the 100 weeks is better.

---

I typed this message around the time I got the mention notification, didn't realize I never hit the post button and just come to my awareness now when I scrolled through the pages and didn't find my post above. Draft kinda nicely preserve this draft for me, LOL.

I... got even more confused. You launched a demo, you didn't raise much fund on the last token sale, and then, later on, your demands raise, so you decide to "upgrade" the token to do another sale? Wouldn't the statement that your demand is growing implies you'll begin to generate profit with that current state? And do I understand correctly that by "upgrade", you mean you just add more total supply [aside from the new contract address, of course]?

Depends on the detail of the case, either they do or they don't. When people are strictly fooled by the promotion, then I believe they deserve their money back. Your case, though, IMHO and sadly, no, because your case is not an innocent who got tricked by a promotion. As I --and Pmalek-- said before, Cloudbet's marketing and your situation should be treated as two different case.

Your case is about someone who realized he got himself a loophole and tried to manipulate it. Can you tell me in all honesty that you were compelled to play without fully realizing you shouldn't be able play there due to your own self-exclusion? As someone who take a length to be ID-based self-excluded, I believe you were not that naive that you didn't realize the implication of those marketing. And, if you do realize the implication and still played anyway, who's the victim now?


And... who lied to who here, again?

Has it been solved? BC's representative came back online today to address a situation on the other thread. I can send them another PM [if you haven't already] to remind them to give a follow up about this case if it hadn't cleared

That makes you dealing in bad faith.

There's a chance if a casino outside Australia's jurisdiction accept you and you lost significant bet, you'll quite likely complained that you lost hefty sum of fund on that casino despite you've made yourself self-excluded by Australian govt. and that casino should never be allowed to accept your registration as you've been ID-blacklisted by your govt. Thus, suing them just like this case.

For this case, though, the possibility of dealing in bad faith is even worse. You know you're forbidden by your govt., you've made sure you're self-excluded from any gambling casino with Australian jurisdiction, so Cloudbet's false advertisement "shouldn't be" matter as you should have know you'll ended up never being able to play with them. Suppose you didn't lose your bet, you win, and then on withdrawal phase you're forbidden from playing because they identified your self-exclusion after KYC, you'll still come here with the same complaint, this time the thread will titled "cloudbet refused my 1 BTC withdrawal". If you play, win, and managed to successfully WD, though, it'll be just like you admitted,


Was it not dealing in a bad faith? If you won and managed to WD, you won't be complaining. If you won and couldn't WD due to the KYC, you'll say they cheated you because you can't get your hand on it. If you lose, even without the false advertisement, you'll say they shouldn't allow you to play due to the nation-wide self-exclusion. The compulsion of the mislading advertisement is not necessary element here, you should have known that you can't play on that casino, no matter what, due to your ID-based self-exclusion. So, why did you?

I won't say Cloudbet didn't do wrong with the advertisement and jurisdiction, but I agree with what Pmalek said earlier on this thread, that Cloudbet's advertisement and your case should be separate case.