To be honest and laid it out in the open, that's what I tried to pursue when I said "considering another means of resolution," to allow you to retain your deposit with some terms. However, they are firm on their decision and they're very sure with their findings. Best options you have right now is either escalate it to their licensor or to just drop the case, as currently there is not any other visible resolution possible.

As for licensing, you can rest assured that they're licensed. Like acroman08 said, you can check this by clicking the seal of validation on their website. It's a mandatory element of a licensed casino under Curacao Licensing to provide this means of verification on their website. Image as below. If you click them, you'll be redirected to GC's page as shown on the image next to it, verifying Rollbit as their sub-licensor.



While for holding your winnings and deposit, though there are times in the past that platforms go lenient by allowing the other side to withdraw their balance and agreed to part ways, I think Rollbit has the right to seize your winnings and deposit upon breach, it's one of the clause on their Terms of Service that you agreed,


If you're not satisfied with this, please follow my advise to raise it to their licensor, Gaming-Curacao. We are not sure what'll happen there, but you'll have another shot there rather than here as your means of resolution on this case kinda met its... dead end here.


Looks aesthetic or not, that platform is one of the only four master license holder for gambling ever issued by Curacao Gambling Authority. And though Antillephone is basically the most... exquisite --or so I heard-- there will be no more master license issued again, so they're as legal as it can get.

Call me sceptic, but may I know what's in it for you? I assume this will be a free app? I ask because your past... offer was rather unethical and very much frowned upon in professional industry, selling a fake reference for CV, let alone the fact that you leave questions on that thread unanswered as it'll only add more question mark to your... credibility.

I'd like to add that the second user was already explained that they utilize [and by utilize, I mean questionably taking huge advantage of] a feature to 1,000x leverage of one of their "trading" game, already made a huge profit of it from very small deposit [$99.55 v. 67,009.05], and when asked further about why he delibetely abusing their trading feature, he went defensive and start calling anyone questioning him as staff or Rollbit.

Hi, I replied you on your accusation thread for this matter. This one is on me. Razer replied me soonest after I hit him a PM and was ready to take it to GamingCuracao, but I was looking for other means to resolve the dispute and then forgot to update you.


Hold on a moment while I shoot a PM informing Razer about this, lest your post got drowned by discussion on this thread and went unnoticed.

I appreciate the good words, and not trying to defend Razer here, but we don't know what happens when a complaint raised to GC. Granted, we've never hear back from the other two that's being redirected to GC, but maybe it's because they're still in the middle of mediation or that they never bothered to update us with the verdict reached.

I can see one previous complainant went online on 13 August, around two weeks after he supposedly wrote to GC, and the other one also went online exactly two weeks after he sent a complaint email, none gave an update of the verdict given by the licensor.

I guess, if OP would be so kind, he can try to raise his dispute to GC and constantly update us with the progress so we can learn what actually happened with the complaints.

Oh! My apology, I drafted a reply to you to update you with this issue but waited for a reply from Razer as I tried to talk him into considering other means of resolution. I must have forgetfully closed the tab for that draft when cleaning my opened tabs, fully oblivious that I haven't posted the update when Razer did not replied me further regarding this topic.

As with other two cases, Razer [and through him, Rollbit] would welcome you to take this issue to their licensor. I think the procedure to raise a dispute to their licensor is by writing and give the details of your situation to complaints@gaming-curacao.com.

I know this is not ideal as it is time consuming, and most likely frustrates you quite a lot, but it's currently the only method to close this case as Rollbit has given their agreement to fully cooperate on resolution through GC and both parties can provide evidences in confidence.

Next time, may I suggest to read at least one or two last page? Or if that's quite difficult to do, several of the latest post to get ahold of the situation instead of just posting for --what I can only assume as-- meeting a weekly quota?

Here's some highlight: They left, not a maintenance.

Ahh... I see, thank you for this added context.

So, OP, the TXID "generated" from the link you clicked changed everytime you tried to access them? But just to be sure, the withdrawal history is there and [still] marked as "pending" or its equal meaning?

Wait. What? So when you provide this TXID, you copy and paste it from... where, exactly? All things considered, it'll be the more reason you provide us with a screenshot of your withdrawal page, if you don't mind it, to avoid further confusion and mix up.

Edit: Tidying up the quote

We just want to make sure everything is covered and on the right place and not just a simple misunderstanding, and the fact that this board runs on evidences, so a supporting evidence of your withdrawal page that shows the txid will be nice.

For example, the txid you provided is


But according to the image of your conversation with their live customer support, the txid should be 0x89e88bbc01f5bbe347739b797b960b1b5df4922c86ccb09bcb212322eaf22ac3, while the txid from your screenshot of polygonscan is 0xa14bb...

None of the three matched, so it's perhaps will be better and much more clear if you show us the info provided by your withdrawal page

Wrong. There are instances where tag and support for a flag were retracted when the person or platform being tagged or flagged make their defense and deemed reasonable.

And, we've tried to facilitate such action. We openly invite any user who's become the victim of betnomi to open their case [with evidence], but none so far would want to do that.

Judging from Razer's proposed solution to return the remaining funds and that OP's last activity was two months ago, not far from when Razer probably started to work internally to get the solution done, I think it's very safe to assume OP did.

Reuploading your album to talkimg together with the caption you gave below the original images for easy view:


promised rewards


My Stats - I am at level 14 | Stats of a level 12 user with less wagering's and more rewards, I am sure the deposits are low as well


Lie about un-subscriptions from offers


Deposits

---

That done, I'd like to know if you can perhaps give us more evidences to the email and the snipped chat. Same like Wapfika, I can't find anything from their team that promised a bonus. All they say was that they'll offer you a bonus when they have any available. There were no mention that they guaranteed a bonus if you keep playing.

Further, you said, "Duelbits reached out directly, offering sincere apologies and the prospect of a resolution." But I can't find it on any of the screenshots you uploaded, they apologizing and a prospect of resolution. And about subscription, is there any backing up evidence for this claim? All we can see for this matter is they acknowledged you unsubscribed, but no proof that you never unsubscribe, so we're at he-said-they-said situation here unless you can provide more context.

Perhaps you can provide us with those things I mentioned to make things more clear?

I have to say that's an interesting idea, though technically it'll be KYD, LOL.

Now, as for the changes in never to a mandatory, based on what I read on an explanation given by a platform sometime in the past, there's not much they can do about it. They're pressed into a tight spot between compliant to governments' AML/ATF regulation and preserving the anonymity nature of crypto.

This is one of the reason why some casinos made a tiered KYC and/or only ask for KYC when a problem occured in a user's account and not before, to give some wiggle room between compliant to govt. rules and to protect their customer's privacy.

I think you're mistakenly took the meaning of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not mean you're also entitled to freedom of consequences and neglecting the concept of a system. And the things you mentioned above are consequences of one's action. If they post something that's out of context, they're still allowed to, they're free to do it, but their post will get moved. Likewise, if they post something faulty, their credibility will be questioned, if they post a plagiarized content or other things that's against the rules of the forum, they'll be questioned and if found guilty, tagged. Again, consequences.

A freedom of speech neglecting a system or a rule [where a post should be posted, or what [oot] comment on what board, or what kind of post are not allowed] is an anarchy.

I'm pretty much sure that's BPIP rank at the time Royse handpicked us.


I think this one is a mistake and corrected. The recent update on the opening post [dated today, 7th of September] as well as the new spreadsheet wrote the usual date, Wednesday as the end of the week and Thursday as the starting day of the week.

Do this rule has been around since years ago? That could explain why my balance hit zero.

At one point in the past, I got a warning email from hitbtc that someone tried to access my account. Driven by curiosity rather than wanting to secure my account, I logged in and saw that my balance is zero --or if not zero, then it was negligible to be withdrawn-- I might be wrong [and this time, the chance is quite big that my memory served me wrong] but I think I used to had some balance there, not sure which currency was it, but I pretty much sure I left something there. At that time, I thought I must have moved the remaining balance and forgot about it. With this added info, though, I became quite sure I did left something there and got deducted by "inactive account fee". Ahh, well, what's done is done.

Well, the forum does not moderate scams, we help each other by warning about potential threads, so yeah, those accounts are not banned. But on those cases, I'll say the fault is entirely at the hand of those people. The warnings are there, those orange numbers are not just for aesthetic purpose. The forum has given their effort to warn about the scammers and the ponzi schemes through tagging them. If people are still lured by the promise of easy return, then their greed is the one to be blamed here.

---

tl;dr: nutildah probably most likely distrust you because you leave incorrect feedback and have an impaired judgement instead of simply disagreeing with you.

---

I won't pretend I know what's exactly on nutildah's mind, but I'm pretty much sure you're wrong about why he distrusted you; that he simply doesn't see eye to eye with your view. I think it's more to what you left on JG's trust feedback and said here on this thread, as evidenced on #2805, #2807 [and yes, I read every part of that essay], perhaps can also be glimpsed on #2809.

If I may divulge more, if you don't trust JG, as stated on #2805, then what you should do it put a tilde on JG's name on your trust list, or perhaps simply ignore him, instead of writing a negative feedback. When you leave a negative feedback based on what arguably a retaliation,


or that you've been placing incorrect feedback numerous times, or as stated on #2807, "however I am someone who looks at things as they are, excluding the politics and general consensus, and making my own judgements", others are allowed to consider a possibility that you didn't know how trust feedback intended to work, thus allows people to at the very least questions your ability to leave an accurate feedback.


I believe, this is also what Loyce implies when he said,


He politely asked you if you would like to get yourself acquainted with the trust system of the forum, or you'd like to perceive the trust system the way you want it, which, by the way, you're completely allowed to, as the forum are leaning toward decentralization, there's no strict and absolute mainframe established by one person. But, again, it'll imply that you doesn't know how the trust system intended to work, and though you're fully entitled that opinion, others are also entitled to perceive that you might leave inaccurate feedback later in the future because of that perspective you have. Thus, excluding you from the decentalized system of Default Trust, thus tilde.