Ok, so, first we went into normal and the conventional paragraphed posts, and then you talk on points of which I replied in exact correspondence for each point you proposed, and then from the 4 points, there are 9 now, of which I can't surely tell what point is related to what, so I'll make it easy and resort to just replying you in general.

About Stake, well, now you know that I am not related to Stake. You misunderstand inquiry for details backed by proofs and being a saviour. And for the nth times, I am not interested on knowing how they cheated bets with hash etc. in theory or in calculation. I came from your thread about the claim where they use motion sensors to manipulate bets, and for this time being, I am strictly interested to get to the bottom of that, I appreciate if you can answer in details the basis of your accusation while its been explained on the other thread that the motion sensors are probably meant for the mobile users and/or used to determine if the visitor is a bot or human.


I didn't check your youtube video as I am strongly believe it's about those hash etc. again, while I've made clear which part I am being curios about. Clarify that situation and I might ventured into other aspect you proposed. As for why I am not replying the part about curacao because I am not sure if I misunderstood your question or you're not familiar with Curacao licensing system and would prefer to see it as a gibberish until you provide more context. Of which you did, although still vaguely.

If I may assume you're asking why they, a billion dollars worth company, choose to have curacao gambling license instead of having on their own, well I am not their shareholders and decision maker [I am sure that point is well established at this point?] so I can't be certain why they did that, but if I may give my honest opinion, it's the same reason why other companies also have their license in Curacao. It's easy, govt. didn't make it too complicated, and yet it's quite reliable and trusted by many.

If you pull an assumption that just because they're a Serbian-owned or Australian-owned or Russian-owned or whereverelse-owned and they choose to have a curacao license instead of their own country translates into a shady and a scam practice, then by all means, please make a scam accusations against hundreds of platforms existed. I believe more than half of the platforms on this forum do the same thing. I am honestly interested to see you try to do that and will likely try to allocate my time to read each of your thread from the hundred of it.

Last, Eddie's father... my first reaction when reading it was, "excuse me, what?" you're seriously asking me to judge someone I barely know solely based from his father's reputation, of whom I also barely know? I think I'll decline, I am not that judgmental, thank you. One's reputation are not solely and entirely based on their parents' trait. What I can comment on this matter though, is that if we take a look at your thread title, "Family [...] Business", may I suggest you to take a short course, while you're travelling, about "family business". I am not sure about their company's structure, or if that's even a family business at all, but if I take your word for it, I'd suggest you to take a deeper understanding about family business as it has so many branches.

Being labelled as a family business --and I assume you wrote this label based on a concrete proof and undestanding and perhaps legal back up instead of a pure speculation and hate-biased speech?-- does not necessarily means it is run by the family and strictly followed the family's rule and decision, especially on huge corporation. I'll suggest you to focus on the "family-owned business", in the sub-branches that it has, and enrich it with a branch called "family-influenced business". They're all should be available and covered in details in various text books of bachelor-level degree of Business Management major.

For everybody's reference, Razer --and through him, Rollbit-- did not just letting it happen. As explained here on the ANN and repeated on your scam accusation thread, the decision was made and taken by the sportsbook provider. As for why the bets on Pinnacle wasn't not voided while bets on that sportsbook did, well that's what we're trying to figure out, but the decision was not made by Rollbit and I don't think there's much that Rollbit can do. Let's keep the discussion on that board so we can stay focused and easily track the development, ok?

1. Like... they use accelerometer [that detect movement, tilt, and the orientation of the device], gyrometer [that detect device's angle and rotation] and, probably at the most stretched one, proximity sensor [that detect device's surrounding against object, mostly to help them turn the screen on and off] to detect our gambling pattern? How? How does these sensors being used to read our pattern? Like it read our PC's screen position? Or how close our face to the screen that could indicate the seriousness and intensity of our concentration against a bet?

2. Last I check, no, Stake didn't pay me and certainly I did not work for them. I barely even have any contact with any of their representative. Thank you for asking, though.

3. For hash manipulation, you have Stunna's answer for that already, for the part of motion sensor, well, that's where you explain to us how, like the entire point being presented/asked by me on number 1.

4. Just the motion sensors being utilized to cheat you by reading your betting pattern for now. And thank you, but I prefer a public discussion where everybody can read and access the information, so let's stay here instead of moving somewhere more private. After all, your whole point is to expose Stake, is it not? Why move to a private email if the forum provide you with a better means? Please bear in mind of what Stunna said as his first response on this thread, this section operates on proof, not FUD. So if you can provide adequate evidences, I'd really appreciate it and the community will be very much grateful.

I am somewhat sure you misunderstood what I asked. I am not asking about the hash and thing, I am asking about your claim that they utilize motion sensor to cheat their users, how do they do it? Far as I know, motion sensors are used to well, detect motion, as in enhancing UX by reading their mobile device's orientation, as pointed by Tabas and I on the other thread, as well as what's being explained by ChatGPT,

OP has created an accusation thread, here, this piece of information has well been pointed out by Slow death on post #5 and repeated by Beparanf on post #7.

---

OP, there's no need to create multiple threads [I understand this one is moved from Gambling section to Scam Accusations, but still] as it'll confuses anyone following the development of the case by having to go back and forth between threads to keep themselves updated with the development of the case. I'll try PMing their representative to revisit your other thread. Though their last online date was ten days ago, they'll still bound to get online and hopefully notice my PM. Meanwhile, please lock this one immediately so all of us can stay focused in one thread.

---

For added context for anyone curious, BC.GAME had replied on the other thread as follows:


of which until this day, OP's attempt to get in touch --according to OP's latest reply-- bears no fruit. Let's see if we can sort this one out once BC.GAME come back online.

---

Edit: PM sent

As intriguing this theory is, I have to ask you again, perhaps explain them in a way that non-techie guys could also understand while you're at it, how, in your theory, do they utilize motion sensor to cheat their members?

I'll take this as your answer for point number 5 and 6, so here's the complete reply for point 4, 5, and 6.

---

4. Ahh... so your gold reservoir are intended to... create a new... floor when a dump happen? And the stability here, who has the power to say, "this is the new price stability"? Who decide how many gold in reservoir to be sold to stabilize the price? Pretty much centralized, don't you agree? Further, how exactly should the holders feel their investment is secure with this concept? When the price plummeted, all you'll do is creating a new floor, the sum of fund they invested during the previous price --presumably not even ATH-- will have a good chance of being unrecovered. They'll have to wait, maybe good long years for the price to crawl back, or perhaps stopped climbing back up as people losing faith or got frustrated because the price is "stabilized" but their wealth depreciated greatly?

As for the case where you reinstate the price, how could it be impossible? Have you not considered a scenario of FUD-fueled dump? Especially as the FUDder knows your concept offers a promise where the price will go several points up. They buy, they dump, they create FUD, they buy some at certain low, create another FUD that drives the price lower, and you kicked in to "stabilize" the price, or even better, reinstate to its former price, and the cycle restarted.

5 and 6. [which answer was as quoted on the early part of this post] At this point, I feel like your answer started to became evasive. First, how could not a single of my argument relate to your project while all I asked is about the details of them? The plan for credit card is not related while it's on your whitepaper? The topic about scenario of possible dump is not related while it's a very possible situation of crypto? I don't understand where you got that idea. I can understand if you said that as a defensive basis of your evasiveness, though. Also, I can't help but think how hard is it to point out the exact video [you posted 10 videos of varying length so far] and the time if you're inclined to help me understand? Unless... you don't have it.

So, against my better judgment of spending my time at other things, as well as to prove myself wrong, I spent around one and a half hour listening to your videos, none are skipped, only set to 1.75 speed with pauses at some intervals to wrote a note about your explanation. The videos I watched are as follows:

1. 🔥Global Reserve Coin: The Ultimate Gold-Backed Cryptocurrency! 💰 Secure Investment & Game Changer 🚀
2. The Power of GRC: Marketing Strategies, Bitcoin Comparison & Building a Thriving Community! 🔥
3. (GRC) LIVE STREAM: Why It's a Game Changer 🔥 | Latest Updates & Promotions 🚀

The answer for my question, credit card and bank, can be found at video number 1, at around 29:35, where you explained your roadmap and got to the credit card milestone, of which your explanation was, and I'm doing everybody here a favor by saving their time by transcribing it for them, as below

"Global Reserve Coin credit card for crypto integration, at the moment, it's not possible just because there is a really strict government regulations and if we don't follow it or whatever happens if we like to push our own narrative, umm... even the sanctions, you know, stuff like that, like if I issue a credit card, people can't use it in Russia so I don't believe that's fair or in other countries as well because of the sanctions and stuff like that. So in the future, and I believe that's going to be very soon, when there's going to be a new world order, whatever you want to call it. Possibly opening a global bank again in the near future, but that's my belief in the bank where you, like, back in the days you can walk in, you can exchange GRC for gold or for whatever currency you want."

So, it'll be actualized when new world order come? Which you believe is going to be very soon, but for all we know can probably happen in decades to come? Where's this great details you're telling me? Am I watching wrong video? For the sake of giving you benefit of doubts, though, I'd ask you again to provide me the link to that video of explained in great details, because from what I watched, with the only explanation was "in the future" and "in the near future" it's rather ambiguous, perhaps even unclear. And that lead us to my sidenote on previous post,


I also find so many contradicting and questionable statements on your videos, and that's only from three that I watched. But let's limit the discussion to the points above and clear them before moving on others that's kept on my note. Thank you.

Hi, thank you for accepting my invitation and promptly [re]addressing the issue here once notified. I am not sure if I've asked this on the ANN thread before, I understand that the one voided OP's bets is the sportsbook provider --and not you-- and thus your hand are kinda tied on this matter. If you could help OP and the community understand better, though, can you please tell us to the best of your knowledge --or perhaps even better, an explanation from your provider themselves-- why the bets are marked as incorrect while the odds are not varied too differently --thus, incorrect-- with the one on Pinnacle as on OP's screenshot, or with the ones listed by Poika5 above?

Temporarily freezing withdrawal can be for several reason, but for this one it's quite likely, IMO, that your betting history were under review by the betting provider to check for any abuse or something else. If this is the case, there's nothing Rollbit can do but to wait for the conducted analysis to be completed [by the game provider, not by Rollbit] and when they give a go, your fund got processed.

As this matter is solved, you might want to lock this thread and marked it as solved by editing the thread title and add the "solved" word. The button to lock a thread is at the bottom left of the page.

I assume correctly this account is owned by the same as thread poster, cryptogeniusdice? If you happen to be different people and you just here to pitch in your findings and curious about those sensor, I'd advise you read OP's other thread where some possible explanation has been laid out by couple of members.

Meanwhile, as for your own article, I took a quick read at it and it was about a partnership with a marketing company? May I know what you tried to propose here? I don't think cooperating with a marketing team is something illegal? Unless I am wrong and there's something fishy about Optimove? Please divulge more.

Razer was just back online [I glanced at his profile earlier yesterday right after your post] later yesterday to address other issue. There's a chance he didn't aware of this thread. I'll try to notify him by PM.

dkbit98 tried that for us, I tried them later after his findings and I can confirm that it is inaccessible and was probably --as dkbit98 suggested-- put there only to confuse visitors and ultimately led them to use the fake clearnet.

You do aware that you can answer point number 5 and 6 along with this post, right? Not sure why you don't do it. So how about this? Point me to the time where you explained in great detail for what I asked in those points, and I'll reach you back with the complete discussion addressing the other point of reinstate vs. stabilize

As someone who frequently watching scam accusations and complaints raised between a platform and their users, I have to admit --a known fact, perhaps-- that I resort to utilizing neutral and negative trust at times to attract the involved parties back to the unfinished discussion. But that is not without reason and not easily, i.e. not like handing candies on halloween. The occasion I put tag on those accounts, if my memory serves me right, can probably be counted by one hand post frost-bite incident, and immediately retracted once the addressee returned to the topic and clarify the situation. The tag were also --IMO-- justified by the development of the case at that time. For example, platform X went radio silent in the middle of several unresolved disputes with unforeseeable chance of them returning, which --again, IMO-- entitled to be seen as suspicious, thus the tag.

If I was asked with a question whether neutral or negative [or positive, even] tag should be given out like candies? For neutral, I think that is the purpose of neutral as per Loyce's guide and as he'd stated several post above me; To leave something that's not necessarily good or bad and to de-escalate a situation. So yeah, as long as the neutral is not a disguised negative [marked as neutral but said something that goes with "this bitch slept with my Dad"] it's fine. But I am agreeing with what nutildah said too, if a user was planning [regardless they openly admitted it or not] to use it for personal note, it'll be better to keep it private.

Other than when I use the neutral to mark some accounts back when I investigated clusters of spammers alt-accounts one year ago, I don't recall I've use them as my digital assistant. I relied on my good old-fashioned notebook and sticky notes to write things I found on this forum or cases I am currently overseeing when I am not sure of something instead of relying on making neutral as my stick notes.

While for negative, I'll say, no. There should be a strong motive and evidences behind it, signs that point to a justification to leave the tag. I'd like to see myself as someone who's quite conservative on tags too, that I'm not that interested on painting someone's account red or neutral, without educated reason. And when someone pointing it out to me and prove me wrong to tag someone with red, I am not reluctant to revise them immediately.

Of course, I might be biased when I see myself and my justification against me from my very own perspective and my memories might served me wrong. But that's what I thought regarding candies and trust feedback.

Those things said, I'd like to venture to a topic that perhaps several will consider as out of topic. I separate it with a line, so in case anyone are not interested to read a thought about something outside the justification of distributing neg/neu like candies, you can stop here.

---

Text below can be considered out of topic

---

So, I took this topic to bed last night, after reading the whole thread, with Gazeta's post [suup, by the way] as the one ignites it. I was thinking, and these text below can be perceived as me thinking out loud, that perhaps its time for the forum to get better acquainted with the third sister of the trust system. The community were too absorbed and focused on the older two sisters --the Trust List, a.k.a. Tilde, and Trust Feedback, a.k.a. PosNeuNeg-- that the younger one is underutilized and overlooked, or perhaps misused under misconception: Trust Flag.

I have to say that the concept of flag probably pose as a quite uncharted territory for many, and can be quite threatening due to its semi-permanent nature [can't be deleted once raised, can only be retracted], and I might propose them wrongly on this occasion --though as per theymos' own explanation, I don't think I am. But --as per last night, and it's still a working in progress on the back of my mind-- I think it served the very purpose of decentalized trust and DT system intended by theymos, given that the current trust system [Trust Feedback] we use were intended for marketplace. What theymos said about flag's purpose,


With flag, even non-DT can raise their case and ask for support or opposition from DT to activate it. It offers equality instead of exclusivity on feedback system where only DTs's scores are visible. Whereas the DT can exercise their judgment [and the trust vested into them by elected into DT] in a way that's non-centralizedly affecting the subject in question as the number of DT who supports or opposes the flag directly affect the outcome of the account being "marked".

One case can be perceived differently by DTs, this is not a secret. One DT might inclined to support a case [flag] against certain member due to their personal reason and/or past history with said member [read: re-tal-i-a-to-ry] while other DT disagree with the flag. And so the "war" begin where the biased support will be drowned by the opposition [vice versa] and the account will or will not get the banner activated.

This is a much more decentralized system than the trust feedback where one DT's opinion against other will instantly reflect on the said member's account.

And, in a way, the nature of unremovable flag might pose as a learning medium for everybody to exercise research and strong basis prior to escalating anything instead of distributing them like a dentist on Halloween.

Nope, still like before, accessing through mobile version will let me through, but activating "desktop version" will make me stuck on cloudflare page on chromium-based browser. I don't think it's a big issue, but I'm pointing it out in case admin team might want to look at it? I figure people who use mobile probably won't even bother activating desktop-version [they'll use their PC for that], unless they're like me who frequently switch between versions on my tablets and phones every now and then because I was too lazy to turn on my PC but got curios what's a page looks like on desktop mode, or if I want to test something, or for other reasons.


This one is Chrome on incognito


This one is Brave on normal tab on different device [tablet]


This one is Firefox on normal tab

I have Opera on every devices, if anyone curious and want me to test it on them too?

I also confirm that everything works smoothly again. Got mention and merit notification as usual. The merit count continue from before the cloudflare incident happen, though, probably due to the reason stated by TryNinja, and that the total merit received during the down time is not registered by the bot. So people, you might want to manually reset the merit count.

I reported the last of their thread to mod for deletion, hopefully they'll also take further measure by banning the account. Please tell me you use a temporary and disposable account [and password] to test the water?

1. Let's drop point number 1 as we're chasing tails on this topic where the other topics are more intersting to be pursued.

2. For the record, yes, I understand that the value is in gold, where the use of USD is to reflect the price of certain weight of gold. That said and with your explanation, assume you're forced to sell off all of your gold reservoir, what next? Your token equals to 1 gram of gold [just a random example] that equals to 50 USD? This correlate to point number 4, as below,

4. To say a scenario is impossible in crypto is rather dogmatic, isn't it? Nothing is impossible in crypto. Many currencies --that's ironically also the ones you use as your basis and your marketing point-- assure their holders that they're safe. With no intention of providing an apple-to-apple basis but for a mere illustration, UST for example? Or BNB? Or... ones that strike better, all of those dumped and failed token in the past that assures their holders the same, that the scenario of being dumped is not possible because they're something-backed? I can mention a lot and perhaps spent eternity just mentioning cases. So yeah, I have to say that stating the scenario where your token being suddenly dumped is impossible is borderline dogmatic, or at the very least, naïve.

That opinion aired and stated, I am stepping into the matter being discussed in this point, the scenario where your token being completely dumped. You're saying that based on your optimistic calculation, you can only recover about 30-40% of its initial value? So applied to that scenario provided, where initially 100 USD is 150m GRC [GRC USD = 6.67 x 10^-7 or 0.000000667 USD] and it plummeted and dumped 99% of its initial price [again, if you say this is impossible, I'd advise you to take a walk in CMC or CG and see ATH vs ATL of questionable coin] so the new rate will be 100 USD for 15b token^[1], you can only recover 40%, so it's like... 9.33 x 10^-9 or 0.0000000093?

The numbers are not important and can be ignored to avoid confusion. The bottomline is, you can only recover approximately 40% of initial price suppose the token got dumped? And this is a scenario when the price was dumped 99% or was it a calculation based on 50% depreciation? How is this a sense of security?

Moving further, you pump it back as you promised, because this is the security of your token, your assurance that upon a price crash, you'll liquidate the gold to buy back and drive price up. And people know about this, they've anticipated it, so when the price bounced by the liquidated gold, though can't be exactly to it's price before because as you stated, your reservoir will only be able to boost it back to 40% of its initial , they dumped the rest of their token soonest possible because they know price won't go back up as their reservoir, i.e. their safeline, has been completely depleted. Yes, the dumped token will generate a 2% tax that'll be allocated for gold next month. But they cycle begin again and again and again until that 2% is for a minuscule amount of gold. What do you propose? How is this still a sense of security?

5 and 6. Much that I like to assume that your words are inconsistent because you initially said you won't have a legal body, that you don't trust bank and govt. and now you said you'll built a legal body, and that waiting this whole "global power dynamics shift and the world is more decentralised" probably won't happen soon and will take years, if not decade, and most likely your project has ceased to exist before then [either by scenario number 4 or people found better project and lost interest in yours or other reasons], and so on and so on, I prefer to say I probably didn't have a good grasp of your thought. But, as I said, not many people --me included-- have the luxury or the urgency or the need to sit around for hours sifting through your monolog to find the exact explanation, you can help us by point us out to the video explaining exactly these part, down to the minute, from what time to what time, and I'll give my best to spare my time listening to it.

One interesting point that I'll put here as a side note for my own future reference, in case this is not covered on your self-proclaimed "explained in great detail", how do exactly the global economy being monopolized by USA affect your company's legal status in Australia? Each country has their own regulation for legal bodies, irrespective of US govt. power, the downfall of U.S. of A won't likely suddenly make govt. in Australia, or their neighboring countries to be suddenly more decentralized or centralized. I don't think Australia will suddenly more proactive in adopting or suppressing gold-backed crypto because USD is losing its power.

---

^[1] I made an error on previous post by saying 300m because I hastily use calculator to count it by adding 99% to the equation instead of calculating the real amount, i.e. 1% of the initial price, 100/150m x 1/100]

As previously suggested, it'll be helpful for the forum members if you upload them to an image hosting platforms like talkimg [that's owned by reputable member of this forum] or like imgbb if you prefer, so they can see the image instantly without having to click a link. But, nonetheless, I'll do it for you. Deliberately taking this as a screenshot with visible address bar to prove that the images are as provided by the links above.



They are the same image as you provide throughout your threads and posts. If I may ask again, can you please explain how Stake, in your educated opinion, use these sensors to cheat their users?

Can this be considered a nice merit record?