Mostly, I think, a video call serves as a double-verification, they could make sure that the ID being sent to them for KYC is indeed owned by the person who own the account on their platform. Video editing during live feed would rather be difficult, thus the possibility of KYC forgery and/or using someone else's ID to complete the KYC can be minimalized.

You do aware that gambling platform has an IP detector that --unless you use VPN-- could tell your location and, from it, get a rough guess which language you're speaking, right? It could be that they're guessing your mothertongue and was waiting for a verification staff that speak the language to be available, as speculated above, could be another reason. We need more pieces for this case, from their side. I'm reaching to the representatives by PM, let's see what they thought about this.

To be fair, wintomato had previously confident with their findings and were willing to provide the said findings to a third party mediator, but so far their answer was what I quoted below it, no proof or other info provided that could tip the balance of the scale towards them.



While for replying to their accustion, so far from what I understand, Wintomato inquire about something that can be summarized as similarities on IP address and device fingerprint, which OP had replied here and on CG as below,

Uhh, for what you've done, wouldn't that be a value bet? While for what you're about to do, that'll be the very basic definition of syndicate betting, isn't it? Which, more likely than not, are something that's not allowed by sportsbetting platform and will results in ban and/or limitations?

For reference:

Yep, OP definitely missed what my post tried to convey. LOL. It's ok, though, no hard feeling. Miscommunication happens.


I certainly hope they will maintain their current approach for this case. The overseeing officer did a very good call asking for both parties to submit the allegedly tampered evidence instead of quickly making decision from one part of evidence. If the casino said OP was banned for multi-acc abuse, I hope CG will ask for and verify the data of the other allegedly related account, to be sure that the allegation is --this time-- not baseless.

---

OP, I saw that you have a new under-review post on CG. I hope this is you informing them that TD is yet to reach you?

If I may give my two cents, I think the best solution you can do right now is to handle the spredsheet yourself, it'll greatly limit the possibility of same incident to happen. A lot of bounty manager has this approach, I can name one or two BM who work alone, tackling all the weekly report and updating spreadsheet all by themselves.

I am not sure how busy you are with your real-world job, but suppose you have a hectic schedule and can only spare little time on bounty managing daily, perhaps you will want to make a rule where only you on the team that can add, remove, accept, and reject participants in the spreadsheet. If you have to outsource a spreadsheet manager, they can only input stake, count posts, and such, without control to adding or removing new participants.

Does that "offer you can't refuse" involves the person to place bets for you with their account? I don't think that's a good idea. I'm not sure how correct I am, but I think that'll still be considered as an account abuse and/or bet limit evasion.

I am familiar with your name and had to check back to recall that we met on one --cluster-- case of a scam accusation. Now, I'm not sure how correct the final verdict for that case of yours, but if you're limited by almost every betting platform, it probably means you're on their shared blacklist, maybe for abuse or, hopefully, for a simple uncleared misunderstanding.

It'll be better if you try to reach those platforms --maybe not all, just couples that you preferred the most-- and ask for the reason of limitation and solve them. It's a better idea than dragging people into the... offer they can't refuse... with a catch.

Hmm... that's quite unfortunate.

From what I can guess, there will be two possible outcome: (1) you wait for several more days as allowed by the countdown and hope TD will reply on the last minute, which then they'll probably say something that goes with the line, "we will/have initiate a contact today, we were busy", or (2) you tell CG right now and inform them that TD haven't reached out to you yet and hope CG will take some action to persuade TD to reach you. Same outcome, just different time span.

Next, I have to agree with the part about "another reason", sans fake, as I won't make a stretched assumption. Far as I know, casinos usually asked for KYC as first step of investigating why your account for banned. Normally, user will send their documents, got looked at by the casino, minus the drama of fake KYC and requirement for notary-approved document, got verified, and they'll tell the reason why you got banned, which the user wouldn't accept, and that's usually where cases on this board started.

Your case, though, began and got stuck on that "minus the drama" part. So far, you finally passed it, so the next step will be them reviewing your case and tell you why you got banned. Account abuse. Arbitrage betting. Bug exploitation. Syndicate betting. Dare I say... late bet? Or is that a sore spot and a no-go topic? Well, you get the gist of it. So yeah, there will likely be another season of lengthy discussion after this.

Ahh, forgive me, I misunderstood your post. I thought on the sentence I underlined, you were referring to OP and a counter-accusation, as in he did a poor work and using alts on your campaign.

I understand correctly you're saying and admitting that it's one of your team that cheated the participants and thus one of the concern here is valid? May I know your plan to prevent this same situation from happening --or currently happening, suppose you have an active campaign-- in the future?

To be fair, only four out of six users mentioned by OP is not registered, yashmahfuj1200, kenaz198, INMYROOM, and dammyzee1, the other three has an PoA history. Unfortunately, the tabs on their spreadsheet did not list each participants' address, it's only shown on a dedicated tab, without username, alongside the amount dued on each campaign for each wallet instead of the sum of every campaign gained by an user, so we can't exactly know which address is belonged to who.

I take a time to look at the archived spreadsheet for yashmahfuj1200, they're rewarded as follows:

• Twitter: 14.5799
• Telegram: 14.8182
• Article: 68.9530
• Tiktok: 44.0314
• Total: 142.3825 with probably some rounding error

An interesting thing to point out, such amount was not listed on the "distribution" page, however one transaction on the payment proof that BM provided shows a transfer 142.3826 to an address, 0xb1...55c8, that's never enrolled on the campaign --at least that's what I get from a quick search-- but somehow still listed on the distribution page with amount dued 14.8182 --not 142.3826-- and nothing more. A little bit curious about this.

Next, I take a look at INMYROOM and dammyzee1:

• Twitter: 17.4959
• Telegram: 17.7819
• Article: 68.9530
• Tiktok: 55.0393
• Total: 159.2701

• Twitter: 17.4959
• Telegram: 17.7819
• Article: 68.9530
• Tiktok: 55.0393
• Total: 159.2701

the number did not show on the distribution page or at bscscan for both account.

Do that mean bounty star caught the cheaters and cancel their payment prior to sending them to every eligible participants? Probably. Do that mean bounty star split them and made them lost in between that nameless-address-only distribution tab? Also probable. But I sure as hell am not interested on labelling each address on that tab with each participants just to find out what address(es) stand out from another. Anyone interested is welcome to do it, though.

As for kenaz198,

• Twitter: 17.4959
• Telegram: 17.7819
• Article: 68.9530
• Tiktok: 55.0393
• Youtube: 84.9090
• Total: 244.1791

the amount he got, 244.1791, is shared with 16 other people. Like above, I find little to no interest on tracking all these address to connect them with each participants. Maybe later, if I'm feeling bored and have some free time at hand, maybe I won't, but certainly I am not doing it now.

One thing that I am more interested to know about is how these three addresses ends up on the spreadsheet. Bounty Star, correct me if I'm wrong, the only people who has access to add, edit, or delete entries on that spreadsheet is you and your spreadsheet manager, correct? And both of you input entries into the spreadsheet based on the data submitted by participants? So how come --at least-- four accounts that never enrolled, didn't post a PoA on your bounty thread, ends up in your spreadsheet? Some was never heard of on this thread for years, even. How could such mistake happened?

And that is the main purpose of this thread. Not about reimbursement or you paying the difference of what participant should get. It's about your credibility and the assumption that you deliberately input entries based on non-existent participants so you can take a portion the bounty allocation to your own pocket... at least that's what we want to know. I think OP only interested on stirring the pot, as they never came back after posting here.

While for the proof that you asked, OP had already give it on the opening post, it is proven that four entries on your spreadsheet are not based on a real enrollment, so now it's your time to give your proof.

I'm taking a risk of derailing this thread and posting something out of topic here, but... regarding Thepogg, you'll probably want to familiarize yourself with their approach on ADR, as already explained here


That said, it doesn't necessarily means I'm against the idea that arbitrator can be biased. Having a third party arbitrator to resolve a dispute has their own merit, namely both conflicting parties can submit private-natured evidences that otherwise shouldn't be shared on this forum. But, one of the downside of an arbitrator, IMO, is that the case is handled and overseen by one person, which would pose to certain degree of the arbitrator misses one or two key points, be it deliberate or not.

I am giving them a generous benefits of doubt and would like to consider the silence was due to a workload because they're finalizing one campaign... or so, from what I perceive by glancing at their group chat, instead of deliberate action. A chat to their group --effectively-- informing all of the admins about the existence of this thread has been sent.

I've take that into my plate, the PM notifying rollbit about this thread has been sent, just in case they set their inbox to block PM from newbies. Also, again, just in case, I also sent the same PM to Rollbit Razer.

Unfortunately there's still no change or development from my side, the admin of bounty star haven't replied to my chat or even read them, will probably try to reach them again through the group chat later today.



While for their message you screenshotted, I think that's not what they tried to say and you misinterpret it. They were not saying they are letting go and hiring four different people in a row, they're saying that they have to change the spreadsheet four times during the duration of certain bounty because people keep asking for revision, changing their database --I think most likely they're referring to address--, complaining for missing stakes, etc., which they consider as something they can't afford to keep on going and keep "compromise with the rules" because it's participant's responsibility to keep the data being submitted "clean" --worth mentioning that the rules of no address change is applied by many BM--, hence the new set of rules below the paragraph stating that no data may be changed after initial submission, complain will only be handled by the end of the bounty and no more late submission.

Well, IMO it's always good to expand the "database" of known bounty abuser and, on this case, the only trouble you create is perhaps to the owner of those accounts, given yet another account on their farm is revealed. Overall it's a good job.

It seems like you caught a continuation of a huge acc-abuser cluster.

Twitter username https://twitter.com/Andersmaxsi56 is also used by thanhloancvn whose already tagged for alt-account abuse,


With known previous address:
0x5fFa08cf190089cd35F80E4F9514AD42Ab52DBFa
0x428bF97Bb2135f149cda069F0Fb8548Fe9749557
0xaAF7f40c07722197b9184f86Bd613C206f5B038F
0xAb5Dd5d3428866D1dEe9701f840605EdbBA7e87A

The address 0x...DBFa was also already reported by YOSHIE and Ratimov back in 2020, connecting huge cluster. You might want to report the findings on this thread to the collection of Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk IV (2023 Q2) [MODERATED] 🧐

Total post (including this one): 2922

Looking forward for great weeks

Uhh, I think the current situation here is that OP already had the documents notarized and thus proven to be legitimate, hence their reply that OP "quoted"; TD had also --now-- acknowledged that the document is legitimate, and they will try to reach OP personally. Emphasize on "personally", as in taking the case away from CG's supervision. I wonder why.

---

OP, have you got in touch with them as per their last statement on CG?

I'll make additional formatting so the posts can be understood by others easier.


Care to tell us their name? And I don't understand why would it be something hard to do to have them acknowledge their partnership with you publicly, given the project itself is quite ambitious and certainly could boost their marketing and brand if succeeded.


And these current registration numbers in Switzerland is...?


Neat. When can we expect this?

I'll advise you to exercise some patience, the case is still under CG mediator's review with 3 days left on the timer, and they're yet to decide the next step. Assuming you're the wronged side here and the proof you gave to CG is the undeniable one that you sent an original, untampered docs for KYC to TD on the first place, thus, suggesting that TD were the one editing the evidence prior to submitting the said evidence to CG to better fit their narrative --have to say, this is not the first time they twist things to works in their favor-- it's quite rational that they'll keep silent for as long as they can. No one want to jump so quick to admit their misbehavior.

I'll also suggest you to refrain from spamming their ANN with tantrums, it didn't contribute anything towards your case. If you want to do something that's more beneficial and impacting, I advise you to focus yourself on an effort to reach AskGamblers and ask them if they could to re-open the case instead, giving you a chance to provide evidences from your side that you did nothing wrong, and the evidence submitted by TD to them was a foul play.

There are instances AG reopen a previously closed case to be re-reviewed. Again, assuming your proof is solid, you could at the very least revoke AG's verdict that you're the one cheating TD and made them see what actually happened.

IMO that's better than throwing posts on their ANN that came to a deaf ear.