I think you misunderstand what FatFork tried to say, he simply suggested that, suppose betnomi really fold their business [just like you're sure they do], flags and accusation threads from members who have strong evidences might help others, suppose they didn't know the current situation and tried to access via betnomi.bet.

It is, certainly, completely up to your decision if you want to raise an accusation thread or not.

Where the blue bird being referenced here is Twitter, the platform which now rebranded as X, owned by Elon Musk? What technology is this that you offered and how exactly will it return Twitter? Your explanation is very unclear, I will apreciate a more comprehensive answer.

Since you asked... at a glance, far as I know, three that could raise a thread and a flag will be Stayzor as mentioned above, with case of 20,000 USD and boroBTC, with case of several thousand euros [the exact amount is not specified]. Both of them don't have a scam accusation thread against betnomi or raised any flag, just posts. GekkeBelg has a 0.9 BTC case too, but he also haven't raise any thread.

I don't think the other two other complainants on CG, zIPiico and sobcapnun, of which the verdict by CG are in favor to their side, have an account here, so I don't think they'll come and raise any thread or flag.

---

Edit: ahh... there, boroBTC is right above me, posting when I compose this post.

Not sure about the second case ["player faces payout refusal"] as I haven't check betnomi's page on CG and match the complaints there with the situation at the forum for a while, but the first case ["player unable to access funds"] were actually here and posted his complaint in one of betnomi-related thread. I thought at first he was not serious and said that simply because other casino offered a promotion, but well... I was wrong.

If the user would raise a flag with reference to a post or thread backed with proper evidence, I think that'll be one that's supported by the forum members.

Was about to address this matter yesterday, but I got a bit swamped.

As I previously said, address digging is not my forte, but if you can provide a transaction ID ["transaction hash"] on the table, I'll see what I can do, or perhaps others can help fill the fields for you. But to do that, we'll need one of the TX ID as that's the first step to begin the trace.

He did not get 700+ merit, only 258.

He is the account he bought is part of legacy accounts; members that's been around prior to the merit system being introduced. We got merit "airdropped" according to the current rank we're at when the system applied. Should be on a Hero member by the number of earned merit. Got 500 because he was on Hero, deleted most of his post, presumably and most likely to cover tracks of buying account, and got "demoted" to lower rank because his activity and posts decreased due to being deleted and did not meet the criteria of Hero rank. The merit stays, though.

I've been considering about it several times in the past, but from where I stand and see this case, both parties have contribution to the situation; Rollbit for having a promotion without any countermeasure to prevent abuse and, OP, for --probably-- abusing the bonus, as explained by Rollbit Razer¹.

I think --in my personal opinion, of course-- we need more materials and information to add to the scale, which, unfortunately, with Razer's stance that Rollbit will not attend to this case anymore, it's quite unlikely to be achieved. Thus, I PMed Razer several times to get a middle way, which came in form of escalating it to the licensor, where Razer commited their full cooperation and GC will ask evidences that's became the basis of their accusation that OP cheated, and from it, make a decision.

This is the only way right now to get more weight to be put on the scale --a huge and heavy weight, if I may say. So, I am waiting for that ruling. In case GamingCuracao said OP is not considered abusing bonus and Razer --or Rollbit-- doesn't honor that decision, I will support the flag as, when and if that happen, the clause on the flag is fulfilled, namely, to best of my knowledge I am affirming that Rollbit violates an agreement with OP that resulting in damages.

I hope you can see and understand why I am refraining from supporting the flag. Simplified, it's not because I agree or disagree with OP, it's because there's not much evidences to support [or oppose] the flag.

---

¹

[This post serves as a reply to all of your consecutive posts, not just the one being quoted.]

How about you explain to people here first how exactly Stake manipulate bets with motion sensors? That way, people will probably start to doubt Stake and start to consider and weight your words. After that, and after what's below, maybe we can ask Stake for above matter.

As for you said that your accusation is not based on FUD but based on your experience because you've play so many times at Stake, it'll be what we call as "hearsay". Sadly, this board operates on proofs. And you're wrong about everybody here [yes, "everybody", as in more than one person, you might be surprised by this, but we are not one person operating different accounts, so no need for mods to ban anyone] tries to prove you wrong, you're wrong about that [pun intended]. We are... [were?] weighting your statements, which is why we asked you to provide proofs.

CicadasTR's case was built under a manipulated narrative where he said betnomi deleted his betting history while he simply deliberately tweaking the history filter to drive opinion to fit this narrative, and where the fact that he can "manually" search the bet history prove the exact opposite of the statement, and that the root of all it was because CicadasTR "made a typo" on one of the document related to his KYC process as well as refuses to submit a document that's been asked for months. Once submitted, everything is processed.

He did not "win" the case, he simply provided what's previously asked. If he provide it when asked in the first place, there is no need for that entire case. At least that's what my memory served me from my quick refresher course.

Disregarding the current situation right now, I am inclined to think the opposition toward cicadasTR's flag is an exercise of good judgment. The flag was a reference to an accusation thread where narrative was conditioned and the evidences were fabricated. Will you say examplens is biased because he opposed a flag that's raised under a violation of ToS [refusal to perform KYC], a false accusation, and based on invalid evidences?

Ok, got interested with this one, so I popped back in once more. Maybe GigaBit need a help in refreshing their memory. Here's the two addresses you previously announced in the forum and you can sign to prove the ownership,



loginsam45, you do aware that this works two way, right? You can also sign message from any of both addresses above to prove ownership of GigaBit account

Do you mind to upload a screenshot of your most recent attempt to reach their live support as per their representative's suggestion, for our --and your-- future reference and proof that you've did what they asked you to but still ignored? I'll quote that image for visibility.

Meanwhile, BC's representative has not been online for a few weeks, so I don't think they're aware of the current development of this case, but it won't hurt to see the development [backed with evidences] from your side for the time being.

Why is there anything to be shamed about? I have to take a refresher course to get reacquainted with your case, and after reading it, even with the situation betnomi is currently neck-depth in, it'll still be wrong to support your flag. Your case was proven that they did not delete your betting history, you just did not set the right filter, and the reason why your fund was confiscated for far too long is because you did not submit a document they requested for KYC. All processed accordingly the instance you provide it. Were you suggesting people should support a flag for a case with such basis?

The statement of which members agreed upon supporting type-1 flag, your flag, is:

"Due largely to the factors mentioned in [...], I believe that anyone dealing with [...] is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."

None of it is valid because the reference that's became the basis of the flag shows otherwise. If people have to support these flags just because now betnomi --if we assume for a second here-- is proven to be abandoning the sinking ship, this will be a wrong way to support flag. This is why the need for anyone having their funds confiscated by betnomi to raise their scam accusation and --if they deem necessary-- a flag against the platform.

If all signs shows and verified to be a concrete evidences of an abuse, I am sure DTs will not hesitate to support the flag.

PM sent, please wait for Razer to come online and notice my PM.

---

Edit: Got a reply from Razer, Rollbit is more than willing to cooperate and answer to any third party addressing this issue. Given there's no ADR that's suitable for this case [sportsbetting related] you can escalate it to complaints@gaming-curacao.com. Please note that the ruling made by the master license holder is final and binding to both parties, so both parties has to honor the final decision made by GC.

Just because you asked, trust and distrust list are well documented by Loyce and open for public for anyone interested. Here's yours for the most recent week as per when this post is made: https://loyce.club/trust/2023-07-22_Sat_05.07h/3540644.html

How exactly do you propose to "save" the blue bird, with all the hints shows it refers to Twitter, through this project? Why the self-moderated thread? Where is the team? What happened with your previous project?

Just in case: archived thread | archived website

It's not closed yet. The button to lock the topic is at the bottom left of the page. You might also want to edit your title with something to indicate the situation has been solved by adding such wordings on the title, and, it might help if you would show a good gesture by explaining the actual situation on the opening post.

You have my sympathy. I know that it won't mean much compared to the financial lost you experienced, but I am simply extending my honest feeling. I've been quite acquainted with you and cases you have against platforms throughout the scam accusations board, and I can only give a ballpark of how much you lost. To add 0.9 btc on top of that pile... I can only hope you didn't lose enough that'll drastically affect and alter your life quality.


And then, we can finally get a better picture of extent of the damage of this current issue. Recently, throughout several threads across several boards on this forum, many were wondering why [if we suppose Betnomi hits an ice berg] there were no complaint, no scam accusation raised, no body wailed their lost deposit, except for an user who lost 20,000 USD who escalated their case on CG, as well as boroBTC and GekkeBelg above, and yet there's still no one "formally raise a complaint" on scam accusations board. And there it is, finally a suggestion for someone who got their money stuck on the platform to file their complaint. I think it's a good approach for the community if boroBTC would want to. The scam accusation might be won't help returning the fund back, but it can at the very least inform us how serious the situation is, how severe the damage is, and --at the very least-- allows people who frustrated at their lost fund a way to vent their frustration

Ok, so I stared at that post for few good seconds. So... you don't have a ground for that accusation? Any shred of evidence? Anything? It's all just a theory in your head, and when you said you'll give the correct calculation, you actually don't have anything other than a guess, and that's why you locked the thread?

OP, Butternuts25, do you have any more thing to add? If you don't, I think this became quite clear to us that you tried to abuse the system and peer-pressuring housebets into giving up the confiscated funds. I'll consider this case closed and will take other case you might escalate in the future with grains of salt.

The last information provided by Razer is that the decision came from Betby, their sportsbook provider, not by Rollbit themselves, and thus there's nothing they can do about it. The rule about sportsbook canceling bets is also already stated on their Terms and Conditions, of which you agreed upon signing up,


I am sorry that I have to tell you this, but this case is as good as solved. Nonetheless, if you still want to pursue this matter, I can PM Razer on your behalf --since previously you told us that Razer set his PM to not accepting messages from newbies-- and ask him if Rollbit would want to take this matter to another party and see their ruling about this.