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.

The famous and well known reference he use to describe being offended is this post, but if you never encountered his approach on debate and attack on personal traits on numerous threads, his "[un]official" title on his personal text clearly made this stance on being offended: "Thick Skinned Gang Leader".

To answer your question, if you're [easily] got offended by someone online, it means you're "doing something wrong", as you need to have a thicker skin if you want to have peace of mind on the forum or basically anywhere else on the internet.

In short, be like Bill, not Bob

A bit added info for this part, a DT-member can't counter the negative tag with positive, per se, as how it used to work. Previously, when a negative [-1] is perceived as unfair, a DT can jump in and countered with positive [+1], both scores will negate each other. But with the recent system, both scores "co-exist" and what's shown in someone's profile is the total scores, e.g., if someone has 4 negatives [-4] and 5 positives [+5], it will no longer shows -0/0/+1, but rather -4/0/+5

Call me cynical, but I don't think the main purpose of their story is to share their "KYC experience" from HitBTC. They created an account, minutes later hit --pun intended-- this specific thread that's been buried under several other accusation threads about how their KYC procedure is clear and easy, and then went under right after.

Correction, you actually win one match according to the image below. And, if I may propose a possibility why they require you to submit SoW, it most likely because you deposited at 9.32 P.M. and immediately withdraw one hour later at 10.33 P.M. after one bet, it might trigger their AML/ATF policy.



A document of SoW can probably be annoying, but as everything is done in honest and good intention, I am sure this problem can be solved quickly.

My memory is vague for this matter, but if it is correct [and there is a good --not huge, just good-- chance that it serves me wrong] there are campaigns in the past that required their participants to enroll with their email as PoA. So, even without the forum's address database gotten breached, some emails are accessible for scam attempt.

Not that I'm saying OP got his email breached from that method, just... pointing out a small fact. I think it's more likely OP got "compromised" from database auction.

Edit: verifying that my memory does serve me correctly.

Not trying to be out of topic, but... does one of the casino you use to enroll to happen to be the recent one that's got into the spotlight, betnomi? Because IIRC --and by it, I mean I confirmed my memory by searching the posts and reading them again-- many users of betnomi got nice waves of spam in their inbox. So maybe that's where it came from.

One hilarious thing that I found out upon digging further... well, "further" doesn't justify what I said because I looked at one image of their "customer" and the rest of it was spent laughing my ass off --I mean, that's Danny Ocean sitting next to another stolen image-- is that they fabricated their customer review with fake profile, so yes, definitely another red flag.



About the company, though, I agreed with what Gladiatorcomeback said. I think it's legit and real company that they borrowed without the company's consent. Crypto Mining Service, Ltd. is a real company, given they were striken off and threatened to be dissolved on 6th of June and fought the action to be discontinued by fulfilling the required document one month later.

They actually did mentioned an incorporation, on their about page, registered under #07568979, Crypto Mining Service, Ltd., registered on 17 March 2011. But I am somewhat sure that name and license was borrowed without the real company's knowledge, and that the company itself has never declared their official website, at least according to this database

How does royse get paid to defend them, again? Far as I know, he doesn't even have any business with them, not even as a campaign or competition manager?

You are not asking to either bring supervisor or to pay you. As I previously mentioned on your other thread [amongst many other], you still ask the 1M USD even after they granted your demand and let the supervisor talk to you. In fact, the first thing you tell the supervisor is to pay him because you "want to bury this" and it'll be better to "wrap this", pretty much sounds like an extortion for money




Nope, he's leaning more toward grasping at straws and throwing muds rather than venting, if I may give my opinion. So far, he accuses Stake to be a scam family business due to the owner's father's past history, changing betID during live betting, using motion sensors to cheat their user, manipulating betting [mine games] history, and paid anyone who question his story as people on their payroll.

But yes, I think he's in denial, he lost his inheritance money to gamble at stake.

Then, I'll suggest you to write email to their security and perhaps marketing team about how they should behave and what criteria should they look for instead of writing it here because, as I am sure you can guess, it's rather pointless.

Though I sympathize for the current situation you're currently in, that red banner above this thread is not for nothing, it serve as a warning that the platform should be taken with some degree of precaution. May I suggest you to do more DD of the platform you're about to play prior to depositing and playing? This forum has a very good... track record of platforms, it could serve as a good reference point.

Hmm... at this point, it will feel like I am trying to antagonize you, but I can assure you that I have no hidden agenda here other than to straigthen facts, so... to be fair, the impression I get from OP's own screenshot and dexsports.io's statement [both were presented below for easier access of the context] was that the fund being returned instantly, and that the claim of "a lot of hassle" came from OP himself without supporting evidence. The only image he provide as evidence is a chat with their support team that literally snipped to the part where they refunded his bet, there were no part of the chat where OP has to pursue their support to withdraw, or any effort done that made him managed to get his fund back.




IF we peek into their ANN thread, though, there's a recent claim of withdrawal being blocked [quoted below], and regardless it came from a newbie whose first and only post is about the complain, it might still be wise to be very cautious when betting on this platform for the time being.


Focusing back to OP and this case, as previously mentioned, OP had a case with other platform for an almost similar situation, violating a TnC of sportsbook that's yet to be straigthened out by OP. So, while the platform itself, dexsport.io, should be taken with caution, IMO, until OP can give explanation of that case and this statement [hopefully with evidence] of hassle, his statement also need to be taken with grains of salt.