I see that jamyr's last online activity was on 5th of August, though you've been very lenient to him by extending the deadline several times, shouldn't we consider a possibility that he's not aware of your latest request to refund the up-front payment, given your post requesting the refund is on 6th of August [as also listed as reference link on the opening post], one day after his last online date?

He still failed to met his end of bargain, and thus his future deal and enrollment should still be taken with grains of salt, but maybe --just to be sure we ventured all possible scenario-- he has no intention to not refunding the payment, he simply did not noticed the final request and warning.

If you have issue with their platform, raise your own thread and explain things in details backed with evidences there, it'll help to solve your case better as well as people overseeing the case to follow what's going on.

For this thread, given OP reached to their representative nearly two weeeks ago and was online about last week but didn't give any update, I think they managed to get a way out of this case that both parties agreed to. OP, mumu68, it'll really be helpful for us if you can confirm this and tell us the outcome of your case.

If you follow the threads, no one is discouraging them, the forum is encouraging them to return, urging them to solve the issues, where their [in]action itself has spoken for them and their reputation.

I am sure eternad simply has the best interest at his heart to understand more about the situation and see things from different angles, to find out if this is a simple misunderstanding or flip.gg indeed cheated you, and if possible, to see the length of things they'll do to solve/ignore things. Flip.gg is not here on the forum, so they can't defend themselves or give their side of story. But, as you're very sure on this matter, and as you're the expert on referral system due to your very long reputation here, and your purpose here is not to accuse them and get settled with a solution but rather to,


then let's take your word for it. Let it be noted that flip.gg might cheated their referral partners by deleting refereed users from their list. Thus, not a good platform for referral earners.

But what about gamblers? Are they safe? Do you have other thought about their other features? The fairness of their gambling game, the deposit and withdrawal procedure, any other thing that might help us, from your long standing reputation here?

Though your input is much appreciated, the case is now in the hand of Gaming-Curacao, their licensor, so no body should do anything until their investigation is over. Welcome back from the long inactivity, by the way.

This is what I wanted to know more before weighting things, OP's background story is still very shallow in context and has little to no basis of supporting evidences. Screenshots of those emails will help us understand better what they actually demanded and what's probably happened.

Though I am not familiar with NFIB, I am somewhat sure they'll still take a look at a case if the victim [namely, you] provide enough and clear evidences. With lack of evidences, no law enforcement can do any investigation, even judges will not issue a warrant under that circumstances.

I barely active on referral earnings, but doesn't the list contain how much you earned from who? And for deleting data, yes, there's a big likelyhood that they have to keep data [at least for several months after request of removal] once requested, but the removal from referral earning list should reflect immediately. After all, the user can and will no longer play.

Providing the screenshots of the letters [I'll assume you're referring to an email chain] might help add more context and understanding here. With the current description you gave, is it possible that they're asking for Source of Wealth instead of the origins of the 100k USDT back to the very beginning? Like your employment slip, or some inheritances, whatever documents to prove the source of your wealth. Or, if they indeed asked for the origins of the funds in sense of the source of deposits, perhaps they're not requiring you to give a full detail of entire transaction back to a decade ago? Perhaps the last two or three transaction chains?

Their 24-H volume for spot trading according to CMC is USD 1,127,413,542.60, and though you've said that their futures trading volume is fake, thus that number is probably also fake, the small numbers of raised complaints here [I just did a quick keyword search and glanced at the numbers, haven't look at each of the threads to see what's they're about] and that they've been around for several years tends to give them --big or small-- benefits of doubt that it might be a case of miscommunication. Thus, repeating what I said earlier, giving more context will likely helps us understand the situation better.

How likely is it --or have you consider the possibility of-- one referral of yours requested data removal and to delete their account from their platform, and thus also removed them from your referral list?

I don't think they're the same company, given the "official" registration of their company is "cryptos-miner.co" and that one is Crypto Miner. The face of the company according to their site is Scott Greenwood, and the one above is Adrian Poocock. Even if we suppose that company is theirs, it's already dissolved last year.

[My apology for being OOT]

It'll help to consider the type as a degree of severity, like a cancer or a burn. Stage 1 cancer and first degree burn is the lightest. Likewise, type-1 flag is the weakest, a newbie and guest warning flag. Type-2 and 3 needs a violation of agreement, one side fulfill their deal, the other side did not. Though, IMO, type-2 is a bit tricky, it's rather ambiguous as there's not --again, IMO-- a fine line that can differentiate if it's should be a type-2 or type-3.

The easiest instance that obviously belong to a type-2 rather than a type-3 is if I wrote you here right now that I'll send you some btc if you say I am the hottest guy on earth, you did, but I didn't fulfill my part of sending you fund. Though it is technically "written", everyone knows the nature of the agreement itself is casual. Thus, it belongs more to the type-2 [violation of casual or implied agreement] than a violation of written contract. The obvious case of a type-3 flag is when an invoice is involved. It's definitely a written and formal agreement, or someone defaulted a loan.

A harder and more tricky situation to differentiate, though, is cases like where a platform cheats their campaign participants by not paying. Is it a casual agreement? Is it formal?

On to the more on-topic part, I am not supporting or opposing the old flags because I am not familiar with some of them [including [Csmiami's] and I have my plate quite full these days. I find a lack of interest to get acquainted with old cases and verifies the facts myself [to fulfill the clause that I voted the flag with the best of my knowledge] to support or oppose it.

I am not quite sure about this, but if the title itself may suggested, shouldn't it belong to Investigation sub-board? It houses... well, investigations and personal data

I know I came a bit late [I'm quite occupied with personal matter and my free time at crypto space was previously spent for one case that's rather... moot] but I would like to add some more to this matter,


the result if you search their so-called "very legit company" is:

Know what? I spent several minutes typing long sentences to OP, trying to explain the possible situation, re-explaining the bombs situation, addressing his complaint of JSON file on one of the video he uploaded [06:19], but in the end... I deleted all of those posts. I think you're right, I'll just waste my time again. I should have listened to my own advice to myself few posts ago, to give up on this case, take a back seat and grab some popcorn when he address anyone as a huge conspirator circle that tries to rob him.

Some cases shouldn't be touched with a ten meter pole simply because the accuser is not welcome to any form of input.

Ok, let me try this again before I gave up [again], your problem was that you want to know the details for betID #167247337064, which tile set the bomb, where you placed a bet for two bombs and they gave you a set to check for eleven bombs. Honestly, after I've spent a good hour re-reading your threads and watching your videos and making notes, I am not interested to do it again just to fish out your record of #167247337064, and as many has mentioned, it's too blurry to allow us to read the strings, so, with the hope that the original video you own has a clearer and better quality, can you please provide the hash and the client seed?

Oh, by the way, one interesting thing that popped into my mind while re-reading your posts and reviewing your videos, that you might also want to answer [or add to the growing list of questions you deliberately left unanswered like the motion sensors, or the dispute-slash-deposit], you said you never wanted to extort them for 1,000,000 USD, you just want them to let you talk with their supervisor. It didn't match what the record of your conversation said, given your wish was granted, you talk with their supervisor [from Stefan to Jovan], one of the first things you said were:

I think you missed the instruction, I can't see your flag in Betnomi's inactive flag [nor in active ones, as there were not any]. Were you just placed a negative trust instead of raising a flag?



If it helps and you want to, just click this one, it'll redirect you to the page to raise flag against betnomi: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;addflag=2532772

Oh LOL, if you want to toy with them a little, ask what authority regulates such rule, or ask them to cite which articles of law in their country specified this.

And if you read my comments, with the slightest willingness to understand them and perhaps a good reading comprehension skill, you'll find that I am not talking about the INR, I understand that part, I am suggesting that what they asked you to provide is a disputed amount not the total deposited amount. Disputed, deposited, different words.


How do you propose me to ask stunna for the absence? Last I check I don't have any of Stake staff's phone number on my contact, so I don't think I can get in touch with them at will. Besides, as you've escalate to CG, they have the right to cease from responding here and address the concern on that platform. And, by the way, Stunna's online sporadically. Believe me, the absence is not because of you, not for the sake of avoiding you. Again, this forum is not revolving around you. I know, mind blowing.


Good, what was their reply for your inquiry of archived bet history?

While for "manipulated bet" that's archived, have you tried to at least read and give consideration to understand what --again-- ryzaadit said and nicely explained here and here?

Come on, this thread is not even two pages long. Almost like what my previous post and reply to you on this same thread said, this time, if you bother to read the references on the trust page where the link of "fake profile" you gave redirect us to, you'll understand that the person you quoted, nutildah, is one that's very familiar with that fake profile information you gave. Or... even better, if you tried to carefully read the threads you're about to post, any threads in the future, you won't ended up like a spammer which ironically you quoted as deleting their post when warned and pointed out.

Now, as for why they're not "booted" from the forum, it's because forum does not moderate scam activities. And to answer your question of could it be... again, the opening post made by OP has described the possible reason; they build their trust for a slow rug pull.