Hmm... have you tried to consider why when you ask correct question, there would be no response from me, or anyone else, is because you demanded a response around six minutes after you posted? Where, the post itself, was made one minute after an earlier post? Contrary to what you may think and believe, the forum did not revolve around you and stand by 24/7 for you.

Further, I am not sure if I or anyone else ever informed you --and by the numbers of your threads, it's hard to keep track what's already said and what's not-- that consecutive posts are highly frowned by moderators? Make one post and if you feel the need to add more info, add them through edit.

Now, onto your matter, those list... have you tried ryzaadit's suggestion here? While for the amount being stated on CG, I think they're asking for amount disputed, not deposited?

Sig BB Code and Ava updated

---

Ironically, Royse did not even penalize you for burst posting. Not on week 37, nor on 39. That memo only serve as an input for you to improve your posting quality and habit for the next round, while he still paid you in full for your eligible posts on those weeks.

I archived all three pages^[1,2,3] of your post history as per when this post is made [forum timestamp 06 Aug 23, 05:10], as well as linking Ninjastis's archive filtered to the said three weeks for our reference. With those in our hand, let's move with your post count per week.

W37 started and ended on 13 to 19 July, 2023, marked by your starting post number #48, forum timestamp July 13, 2023, 11:10:07 PM. Post #50 was not counted as eligible post as you're yet to report and update your sig and ava. Post #49 was not counted as well, as that's your submission post reporting your current post count and enrollment, the post that's considered as paid post is the one after it; post 48. So, from 13-19 July, you made post #48, timestamped as stated earlier, to #41, timestamped July 19, 2023, 10:07:20 PM, that's 8 post, and it matched Royse's count.

W38 started and ended on 20 to 26 July, 2023, marked by your starting post number #40 to #31, that's 10 eligible posts, matched your and Royse's count, so I am not going into details with this.

W39 started and ended on 27 July to 2 August, 2023, marked by your starting post number #30, with forum timestamp July 27, 2023, 12:14:04 AM, to #19, with forum timestamp August 02, 2023, 08:56:08 PM. That's 12 posts, exactly like what Royse count as paid post. You actually made 14 posts, where two of them posted on 2023-07-27 12:39:07 and 2023-07-27, 13:27:10 being deleted, so those posts are most certainly did not considered toward paid post. But even with that two extra posts, your post count are still far from what you claimed, 20.

And in between those years, you never withdrawn any sums of money, never lost a bet, or the likes that allows the claim that the total funds lost prior to your inheritance deposit --nice way to spend your inheritance, by the way, now I see why you're so hell bent on accusing Stake being a scam-- is 260,000-ish USD? Or were you saying that the 360,000-ish equivalent of USD is the total amount you ever deposited to Stake, disregarding what you've withdrawn, you lost, etc.?

So... you put 30,0000,000 USD instead? While your initial report to CG stated this?


You can just said 100,000 USD as stated as your recent deposit in June, or perhaps even 200,000 USD, given you've been playing for 5 years --I take your word for it-- 500,000 USD is quite a far fetched but it's within the realm of... logic. But jumping to 30 million USD just because you can't find your currency? Well, I shouldn't be surprised. After all, this is not the first time you leave me speechless for a few seconds after reading your post.

That things above aside, I'll say you're doing all of us [you included] by taking it to CG, where instead of calling names and throwing accusations here that everyone is on Stake's side, you can now get them to an arbitrator that are equipped with adequate tools to verify your claim. And above all, it's Tomas who handled your case. I've seen him handle case very objectively in the past. So, good luck with them, I'll follow that thread on CG in silent.

The article in reference is about Ledger's latest feature to opt-in for a pass-phrase recovery through a joint custody service and claimed that there isn't any actual back door to the hardware wallet itself from the said new feature. Given the keyword here is "joint custody" --where the process can only be done through three different custodians, to be precise-- I don't think it's a matter to be concerned about, as not even one entities on that service has the actuall pass-phrase.

So suppose Betnomi --without naming any individual from Betnomi that's hypothetically will try to pull this stunt-- tried to remotely "recover" and gain access to those ledger by utilizing the feature on that article, they'll need all three fragments from all three of the custodian companies to give their part [with Ledger themselves as the final party].


And I don't think the two appointed entities are likely to willingly give the passphrase to Ledger [as the third and final custodian] to complete the pieces as Betnomi is not the one whose ID authenticate and opt-in for the said feature, suppose the winner of the ledger opt-in for that feature. And suppose they're not even subscribing for the service, then their pass-phare were not even split and partially-shared to those three entities, so the concern of Betnomi taking a backdoor is even less possible.

If you bother to read the entire post you quoted, or read other threads related to this case, you'll understand that betnomi[dot]bet was one of their older domain

Stayzor has made his own accusation thread about his case with Betnomi, here. OP, you probably should edit your opening post and change the link to his case from the existing one [which redirect to his post on one of thread about Betnomi] to his specific accusation thread. This thread might could serve as an "index" for the cases against Betnomi.

I am quoting the image part for visibility. Staying true to my post here, I'll guide you to raise a flag if you deemed it necessary. The shortcut is to simply click this button, and you can choose which type of flag you deemed fits your situation better.

If you want a comprehensive steps, though:

1. Go to Betnomi's profile and click the button of "trust" on that page


2. From the "trust feedback" page, scroll way to the bottom of the page where you get to the point where you can leave feedback [you can leave a negative one for them too if you want to]. Right next to the negative feedback, there's a link to raise a flag.


3. From that point, to which you'll be redirected to the page below, you can choose which type of flag you want to raise.


Flag type-1 will only need 1 DT support to be active, but it's the lightest flag and only appear to newbie and guests. If I may judge from your situation, it's more fitting to raise a type-2 flag [a violation of casual or implied agreement], it'll require 3 DT supports to be active, but judging from current situation, I don't think you'll find any difficulties to get [a lot of] supports. You can arguably raise a type-3 flag too, considering that they violate a written agreement [their ToS], it'll also require 3 DT supports. The decision is yours.

I think you misunderstand the narrative. OP advised his friend to immediately withdraw to his [the friend's] binance address, of which the platform in question is yet to process it, the transaction still shows pending review, which matched the statement made by OP.

I am very much sure we are talking about the same account, UID #106374, profile as shown below:



or, if you consult to his profile on BPIP and/or use BPIP extension, of which gave a more comprehensive results, the profile will give you information like what my previous screenshot show, as below:



He does own 700+ merit, but he did not get all of them by earning merit [other members send merits to his account]. Only 258 are given by others [this data shown by "Earned Merit" field on BPIP. The other 500 are "airdropped" to his account. The forum "rewarded" existing members prior to the introduction of merit system by assigning merits that correspond to their current rank when the merit system being introduced.

For example, if someone is on Full Member rank when the system being introduced, they will not start at 0 merit. Instead, he'll begin with 100. Likewise, a Hero Member [like me] who has been around before the merit system being introduced, started with 500 merits. Thus, although my merit shows 1,132, the actual merit I earned is just 632. I got 500 bonus merit and 632 earned merit.



deadsea33 was at the same rank as me [Hero Member] when Merit System being introduced, thus he also got 500 bonus merit. But later on, he deleted most of his posts.

The ranking system in bitcointalk are influenced by "three" factors [previously only "two", with merit being the recent addition]: post count, activity, and merit [actually post count did not calculated and considered toward ranking up, but as activity count is heavily influenced by post count, let's just say it's one of the factor].

When someone --let's say a Hero Member with 490 post count, 490 activity, and 510 merit-- deleted 50 of their post, their post count will became 440, and the activity count will decreased to 440 as well while their merit stays at 510, since activity count is tied to post count but merit are permanent [and can not be undone once sent]. This number did not met one of the Hero criteria [480 activity and 500 merit], thus he got demoted to the rank below it, Senior Member.

On deadsea33, he practically wiped clean his posts, effectively also reset his activity count and demoted him so far below, while his merit is still intact.

I hope this explanation helps you understand better the situation regarding deadsea33's merit.

I understand correctly that the concern you have is that the total merits flow got stuck or --at the very least-- some of them goes to waste because they're "frozen" in the banned accounts? You can rest assured that they're not... well, in a way. If I may assume, your worries come from an understanding that Merit and sMerit are limited, and what circulates here and now are the same numbers being generated since the birth and introduction of merit system.

There are group of people called Merit Source, there are several thread talking about these members, but one that probably will give you a good and easy understanding is this one. Simplified, Merit Source are members who get extra sMerit, "minted merit" if you may, from the forum, so the amount of circulating Merit and sMerit keeps being replenished, it's not constant and stuck at one number like "total supply" of a token. Please have a read and don't hesitate to ask here if you have further questions.

That'll be me, the one OP accused of being the alt of Pmalek, LOL, another attempt of OP's to grasp at straws because his accusation didn't meet the outcome he wished [people supporting him and pressuring Stake]. I gave up with his case after his baseless accusations of motion sensor [still unexplained up to this point], name calling, and thinking anyone that who questions his evidences as people conspiring with Stake against him. And ohh, the multiple threads with same topic that it became repetitive, hard to follow any significant update, and borderline spamming the board.

Anyone suggesting him to reach CG and AG, I don't think it'll just be a waste of source. If the ruling made in favour of Stake and against OP, it's extremely quite likely OP will say CG and AG are paid by Stake, or the likes.

I don't think I understand what OKX's stance on this. Weren't on this table's pipeline, all they require you is to fill the victim's address, disregarding the source? And now they require an official warrant because the chain of transactions begin with a deposit from a binance address?

So, in other words, OKX is a dead end and they will not proceed to freeze the account due to insufficient materials? I am sorry to hear that. But for what it worth, OKX was a far fetched method, anyway, since [as previously said] there's a huge chance they can't recover your fund, only freezing their account, and the KYC will quite likely to be a fake one too.

My initial thought was against this idea, that it'll be better for everyone that feel they're scammed by betnomi to have their own thread, and that you probably could later edit each link on the list of the case on your thread with their thread, because having them to write here will make their case easily overlooked and drowned by spammers. But taking it into a long shower, I reconsidered and think this proposition might have its merit. After all, the threads raised against betnomi will quite unlikely get any answer from them, thus the purpose of having each of their own thread is rather useless, and would just give more threads for spammers to roam, posting on several betnomi-related accusation threads at once. Having them focused into one thread might help keep things neat.

Test

Stayzor is about to create a scam accusation and raise a flag, if I am not mistaken. They asked for a guidance --and provided-- on how to create a scam accusation thread on Betnomi's ANN thread.


February, if I get it right from the announcement on the signature ann thread, the one continued on and got hold on April is the avatar campaign.

And to answer your question about fund, JCLadisav, the wallet is already empty. I won't be surprised if icopress paid part of the final payment from his own pocket.

My apology for the [too] late response, OP, life gets the better of me. I was addressing to several other threads and when I am about to get to yours, I got distracted by matters that require my attention. If it worth, I was intending to reply to your post about since you were not depositing to TM1Z...wx9R and the address you send your fund to was not one of OKX addresses, then OKX will not be able to do anything, and that to pull a connection between TFZH..D6LP to TM1Z...wx9R might be very time consuming as anyone will need to check 50-something pages worth of transaction, and that if your friend has a tx hash, then it'll be better if he's the one submitting the complaint as he's the one directly affected, OKX most likely would want him to be the one raising the request of fund freezing.

But... I figure OKX's reply to you topped all of my comment above.

For this part, though,


I understand that you send them this after they give the conclusion of their investigation ["we have investigated ... to recover your fund"]?

I see that you addressed so many people's response to your statement, I'd really appreciate if you can give your opinion regarding mine; that in order for this accusation to be valid, Rollbit themselves has to be proven as a scammer, whereas cases against them are currently mostly solved.

I pointed out so many things and that's the only one you choose to answer? Deflecting again, aren't you? But sure, I'll level with you, let's focus on that poll first, and I hope on your next reply you'll address all of those matters I raised here. After all, it's arguably a nice point of DD to anyone interested on your project. They deserves to know those details, and get answers about it instead of the perpetual evasiveness.

Moving on, to what you asked me. What's my point? I believe I've made it quite clear,


Did you get it now?

Your answer, though, is extremely interesting. I understand you make a poll, wanted to see your investors opinion [which, a good thing, to listen to your community, the point being raised aside as it's rather controversial], and then the majority voted yes and you still go against it? Against the majority vote of your community? Doesn't it imply that the ultimate decision lies in your hand? A centralized system? One that you're pretty much swore against?