Have you at least try to inform betnomi about this thread so they can give their side of the story? I've see your post on their ann thread before you created this thread but I dismissed it because it's too troublesome to navigate through the story with so many comments and discussion overlapping your post, so moving it to this sub-board will hopefully do us all a favor, but at least inform the accused. It'll only be a fair case if they were given a chance to defend themselves.

A super quick glance at your and betnomi's post history told me that you both has not engaged on any dialogue about your case yet, in sense that they addressed you directly.

---

You might want to create your own thread for that, so every side can stay focused on what's what and who's who.

---

Edit: I've PMed betnomi informing them about this thread.

Sadly, your flagship product, which I believe is resembles to Midjourney and Craiyon seems not ready for test. Could you please look into this matter? And am correctly assume that there's nno token allocated for team at all?

That does not exactly answered my question, if I understand your statement correctly. Allow me to make it more specific, I am aware that you said team didn't have any allocation from the tokenomy, but do they have access to that nearly-100%-supply? I see from etherscan that the 21Q is already minted to these three ^{1 2 3} addresses. Do you have the private key for these wallet?

Though I am completely ok with their rather unfriendly manner --especially as I was very polite on that first message-- on responding to my message on their channel, I was also surprised on this turn of event. I thought they went so hostile because they don't want to acknowledge the case, but they've solved it instead.

If I may give a wild guess based on the worst and most possible notorious scenario, they probably didn't want any exposure of cases against them in public. Thus the urge to solve every case internally through their website and deleting my chat informing them --and public-- that's there's a case against them.

All things considered, given the case is solved, I think it won't be fair to keep the negative feedback I put against them as it's no longer valid. I withdrew it as a show of good gesture and appreciation towards their action solving the case.

I am very tempted to make a joke and say 1,731 USD, just to tick your nerve and further prove the point of what's written on my personal text, but then I'm afraid you can't tell a difference between a joke and a statement, so I opted to say the truth instead:

"None. I voluntarily overseeing your case and tried so hard to help you understand what your case really is and why your balance is confiscated."


Umm... yes, that's why I choose and put them there in the first place, to save people's time from pointing that fact that I already know and acknowledged and openly state. You telling me that is kinda... defeating the purpose.


I am not sure. Maybe they do have a case and problem against SB, maybe the accusations are unproven and just part of smear campaign? Like i said, trustpilot's review can be bought. Maybe your case, which overseen by CEG, could help us a bit. Speaking of which, what's the update of the case? They gave their verdict yet?


We did, trust me when I say we all did saw those screenshot. It's kinda hard to miss when they're being repeated and reposted way too many times. And I'm sure we all know what's the case really is, as I've pointlessly tried to explain to you several times.

Not sure why can't you see it yet. Either you're in denial and deliberately turning your ears deaf or you tried --so hard-- to paint SB in different color. Rest assured though, everybody who read this thread with the capability to correctly calculate 2 + 2 understand what's the real case here. You can stop your charade.

I'm out.

Ok so, basically this is your total token supply:

21 quintillions from first three clicks, that's 21 x 10¹⁸, or if we want to be specific, 21,000,000,000,000,000,000
100 millions from the next 100th clicks, so 100,000,000

That'll bring us to 21,000,000,000,100,000,000

We can get 100 free pat through the free pat button, but that won't count towards the deposit. The only way to progress through this investment project is through buying pat on uniswap --and presumably other platform as we progressed-- store them on the wallet we connected to your platform, type in the amount we want to deposit, click the button, and that amount will be taken from our address to a burn address. Am I correct?

Two questions if I'm good so far:
1. What's the burn address? I assume its the universal ETH burn address?
2. Who control of the current total --and continuously growing-- supply before anyone buy them on uniswap?

This will sounds harsh, but these are truth, so it have to be spitted out:


Yes, so does many other investing-crowdfunding-platforms.


This too. They promised a very tight selection and only select few based on certain criteria. IIRC one or two even claimed that after that phase, the candidates would fight for vote by the group of investors and only handfull will go with the funds.

I am sure if I'm not too lazy, I can dig one or two whitepaper from the pile of projects in the past that's collecting dust on my download folder, but I don't think that's necessary as I am quite sure all of us can agree that these two points are very common on many projects who proposed the same idea.


Now, this is what I called unique. Let's say someone propose an idea of creating an immortality capsule, or a time-space bending portal, or something that's way more realistic as it's already proposed and developed, an affordable AI imbued contact lens. These projects certainly meets your criteria of potential, most promising and very less likely to not succeeding --who wouldn't buy an immortality, and with the proper team, it's not impossible to create that very affordable AI contact lens?-- if... they can be developed.

You'll provide experts to help develop this idea? What if the idea is to travel to Jupiter? We all know there are space-travel project these days, so with proper rocket scientist, human biologist, anatomy-somehing specialist, and whatever team needed to give birth to this idea, it's not impossible at all. You'll try to outsource these team too?

Speaking of team, I noticed that question is left unanswered.


Snipped, irrelevant.

Allow me to once again inform you, this time probably very very slowly, with some highlights on key points:

Your winning bet is not voided because they did not acknowledge the match result. Your winning bet is confiscated because you're suspected of abusing rule of multi-acc.

If I may put it in other perspective, suppose you play --and sportsbet provide such game-- poker, or blackjack, or even paper-rock-scissor, or for the love of Lucifer, probably even who-blinked-first, and you ends up winning, the fund will still be confiscated because it's not about the result of the game or match you played, it's the possibility of TnC breach in form of multi-accounting.

It will be confiscated until it is proven by CEG that SB suspicion is wrong. But thankfully, as I am sure CEG is very neurral and they're the one wbo will oversee this matter, if you're indeed not guilty, your fund will be released. That said, it also means if the evidence provided by SB is deemed valid by them, you'll have to say good bye to that winning of yours.

It's no longer relevant how long has it been since the game ended, the only applied timeframe here is what's CEG need to draw conclusion.

Sportsbet did not have control on how long they can clear this issue anymore other than giving the evidences required by CEG as soon as when asked. Why? Because now they have to answer to the arbitrator instead of having to handle it themselves, you asked this case to be handled over by CEG instead of their own representative. So the least you can do is wait very very very patiently because, after all, this is exactly what you asked, and that you made yourself.

I'm sorry, what?

Do I understand this correctly, we connect our wallet to your platform through MM --or whatever-- when we click "free pat" button, we paid an ETH fee to have 100 PAT sent to a burn address instead to our wallet?

Been there, done that. Like ajiz138 pointed out, I've tried to reach them through their TG, nicely. They deleted my chat --I saw it through my personal TG account--, blocked me, and took one step further by reporting me to TG admin as a spammer so that I was blocked from PMing their CM. I don't think I am biased when I said they're not welcoming people to tell them to do anything with their situation on this forum

Sorry for the delayed response, I was busy with something else on other sub-board. I've give your whitepaper a read, but forgive me for asking, which part exactly describes why and how your platform is unique? I can't find anything highlighting points that set you different than other long-dead projects.

I also noticed that you reserve 15% of the total supply for team but you didn't mention who exactly the team is. Perhaps you can inform us further about this?

Ahh, sorry, I was multitasking of forcing myself for a quite-late-dinner, typing the post above, and listening to my housemate rambling about his work, I added 1 too much zero.

I'm not good at reading contract, but I dont don't think this project has a smart contract that lock everybody's PAT and the LP? I can't find this info on their very minimalist website, but if I'm correct, then I'll say it's more of a money-grab than a ponzi.

All investors need 4 years before they can earn anything, and if the dev has total control of the LP and or at one point within the 4 years period they got listed on a CEX, it is not impossible for the dev to dump the entire supply they controlled and vanished, especially as during that 4 years, the price have a good chance to move upward, as the dev themselves predicted this,

Unless I missed some points, I don't think I understand this project correctly. They promised their user 100,000x of what's deposited on their account, but the only way to deposit PAT is through clicking the free button. Wouldn't that means we didn't invest anything --aside from time for clicking the button-- for the project? How would they make income and --when the first person finally managed their 48th month-- how exactly would the price be determined? There's no market for their token.

---

By the way, welcome to Legendary

If you want to, you can try to ask Casino Guru to intermediate, I saw that they're listed on that platform. Now, CG does not handle sports-betting related issues, and given your winning amount were achieved through sports betting, there's a chance they rejected your case, but we might try to reason that the basis of the case is not a bet --or bets-- but rather an invalid region restriction.

examplens kinda sealed it up, they also excluded him, he's now (-2)

I got stranded here because apparently Iike to torture my brain and exposing it to severe headache. Long story short and completely unrelated to this topic, I finally tried to tweak the trust list around one week ago, and just a few hours ago, I realized that apparently it leads to me made things a bit too complicated for my brain... and what's displayed on my trust page, but talking about it will be OOT.

On to the topic, your post that I underlined, I don't think it's necessarily true. On one of the thread I read on my attempt to fix what I currently broke --or failed to understand-- I searched throughout the forum for clues --which also how I ended up on this board and nosily read this thread-- and read that,


So, on this relatively new decentralized DT system, mr.relax can be kicked out of DT2 without having Buchi-88 to remove him from his trust list, you just need more DT members exclude him [~mr.relax].

Please tell me I am correct, because this whole trust settings is a new territory for me.

They will not going to answer here.

I noticed they were online from your information and looked at it yesterday, but as I'm a bit swamped with something else on the neighboring thread, I just took a glance and made a mental note to comment on it when I have some space in my plate. Which is now.

I'm not sure if it was there before or it only appeared since yesterday --i.e. they went online just to made this update-- but this is the current message displayed on their signature space,

Well, I'm more than willing to drop the topic if you will.


Sadly, with all due respect and saying this to you as gentle as i can, far as I know, based on several occasions where I watched him addressing issues raised against sportsbet, steve is a man of his words. When he said he's no longer in position to comment, or that he has no further thing to add to the topic raised, that's exactly what he adhered to. So you'll need to make do with what we tried to help you understand.


Stealing is illegal, confiscating funds from someone doing illegal activity is not. Regarding your question about creating a website, it depends on what exactly you wrote on that TnC and what service do you offer. Were you writing exactly as what those gambling platform wrote on the TnC, and do you provide the same service, and were you registered and supervised by gambling authorities? And does the users violate the points on that agreed TnC? If it's a yes to all of the points I asked, then sure, I think you're entitle to confiscate them.

But if you don't have a license, you confiscate without valid and proof-able reason, then that is illegal.


If you ask my very honest and personal opinion, I'll say "no", as I've said before, it might be an oversight. They've been in contact with you and trying to clear your issue as fast as they can, I think there's a fat chance that what --still-- appeared on your profile is not crossing their mind.

But let me ask you again, will you be more comfortable if that "unable to withdraw [...]" message --which I assume still appear to this second-- is replaced with something like the one I show you, the one that goes with the line "please contact support"?

Because if you feel more comfortable with that and preferred so, I can't guarantee you anything, but I can try PMing Steve to ask their team to go with your preference and show that message on your profile instead. Just know that the message comes with the fact that you are locked out from the account, thus the request to contact security team.

If I were you, I'll be grateful of this oversight they had, where they still let you in while they investigate the possibility of multi acc. But that's me, I can understand if you preferred the other optio. Should I try to do you a favor and PM Steve?


Ok, as this is clear that you won't settle for being accused of multi-acc --and I'm not judging that you are-- and they insist on having proof of possible multi acc, then I think it'll be better to just wait for CEG to review all of the evidences given by both parties and draw their verdict. Rest assured that if you're not guilty and this is all just a big misunderstanding fueled by panic, everything will clear itself. Sportsbet has no interest on cheating their users, just like Steve said,

This thread and post has became --at least for me-- really really confusing and lengthy, filled with wall of text. I'll try to make it easier to understand by separating each topic into sections

---

---

You'll probably accuse me to be in the same league with him after I said this, but unfortunately this is the truth and I have to spell it out, feedback is given based on the user's opinion toward other user. And so far, his opinion is arguably rather correct. His feedback, as you've also quoted, said,


This is based on possible truth, thus arguably correct. If we apply the rule of "guilty until proven otherwise" their system caught you as suspicious and possible multi acounting. Until CEG gave their verdict, the common belief is that you're related to "punt10", "best10", "adi25", and "winwin10".

Of course, sportsbet --and by sportsbet, I mean Steve-- could verify this in matter of minutes or hours, when he had free time on his agenda, sometime arond this week, but unfortunatelly that's not possible anymore as this case is now under CEG's jurisdiction.


We like it or not, this statement is 100% correct. you continuously spam posting with copy and paste content.

So, we can't exactly say his feedback is not based on truth. As well as just because his feedback said something that didn't work on your favor it instantly means he's on the bed with sportsbet.

---

---

He tried to give you an even better solution, namely escalating your issue and cleared it out earlier than the timeframe given by sportsbet compliance team. Sadly, this couldn't happen because the matter was taken out of his hand.

But if you really curious on these questions, FatFork has actually explained them here. If I may repost it, and add my own words to divulge it further




I've also addressed this issue, as below


I can understand that this is the source of all of this mess, you read the reviews and got panicked. I am not sure if you're familiar with trustpilot and this forum prior to this case, but if you didn't, it's a common knowledge throughout this forum that trustpilot is well... not that trustworthy. People can be --and are-- paid to wrote positive review there, as well as can be paid by competitors to write bad reviews for other platform. That is why everybody need to take the review --or basically every review anywhere-- with grains of salt, and dash of lime.


Because that winning amount is still under investigation. If you're proven to violate the ToS --that you've agreed upon signing up-- you're bound by the contract that you accept and allow them to confiscate your fund. They played nice enough by letting you re-claim your deposit, because they actually have the rights  --which, again, you've agreed-- to confiscate all of your fund.

Once your case is cleared and you're proven to be honest, I think sportsbet will be more than happy to release that winning amount and you can withdraw them. But again, it's all depends on CEG's decision what action should be taken for your case. Both parties has to agree and comply with whatever verdict they gave.


Answered above,

---

---

That's... basically the TnC of every sportsbet and gambling platform out there. You want them all to change their article? You're free to try asking them, but I don't think they'll welcome the idea.

It is why this forum have this sub-board and a lot of DT gave their time and efforts --in my case right now, a serious case of migraine-- voluntarily to oversee each of the case raised, to help everyone see the truth. There are case of a platform abusing this TnC and there are case where the user tried to scam the platform and play victim, and the DTs are not siding with anyone, they --should-- remains neutral. If a platform proven to abuse their TnC, they can expect a rainshower of negative feedback and a very pretty looking red banner above every single thread they have, take a look at this recent one for example. The same thing also applied if an user is proven to try to cheat the platform.


1) yes
2) yes
3) yes

But you seemed to failed to understand the situation here. Your winning bet was confiscated not because they didn't want to pay or consider that bet as invalid. It's not because they did't accept or acknowledge the result. Your winning bet was confiscated simply because they suspected you of multi-acc, which breach their TnC, which validate them to confiscate your fund until they've done with their investigation; the investigation and decision that now fall on the hand of CEG.

---

---

They did. The compliance team asked you to be patient and allows them five working days to solve this issue, it's there on the email as evidence. And I think it's quite hard to believe that Steve only posted here after you rained their chat. I can't see him sitting on his office monitoring the chatroom got swamped by a spam of copy and paste and then run to this forum to look into the matter. I think it's more because he has few minutes of free time on his hand, logged into his account here, saw a PM --or two, or three-- and addressed the issue right away.

All in all, saying that they had not tried to reach out and working on resolving the issue is an incorrect statement.

---

---

I don't think I should comment on this part as it would only brings us back to the very beginning of this headache inducing post(s) filled with quoted post within quoted post.

---

---

I spent nearly three hours typing this --not kidding here-- and I really hope you can understand the situation better now as well as understand that there's nothing sportsbet and steve --and you-- can do other than wait for the results to be validated.

P.s.: I am not sure I understand correctly the snippet of CEG you posted above, as what you gave is a very small portion of what seemingly long email chain. Were they saying they returned the decision to sportsbet compliance team and let them find a way to meet you in the middle, or that they'll mediate you both and overseeing the evidences given by each side then took decision based on it?

I think I'd have to address an elephant in the room thread: that you seemed to perceive their response time is slow, as evidenced as well as to address your chronological order number 1-8.

May I point out that it's just 26h:48m [I fixed your minutes to match your screenshot] give or take couple hours to match the difference between your local time [the time your withdrawal is locked according to the screenshot, which in your local time] and the time applied by the forum when you create this thread, which UTC +0. Wouldn't you agree that it's too rash? You're trying to clear an issue with a platform which operates worldwide and caters probably hundreds, if not thousands, of complaints and disputes everyday. They need time to address each of the ticket raised in chronological order, from the earliest to the latest, and then back to reply from the earliest response to the latest. Expecting them to response within minutes is rather... rash, IMO.

I am not lecturing you or trying to say you're wrong, it's completely to someone's consideration and decision when they should open a thread to address the concern, I just try to point out that your chronology number 1-8 --which repeated various times in various forms throughout this thread-- didn't really help your case, it only paint you as someone impatient and that this case probably wouldn't need to be escalated to this point and situation if you exercised some restraint.

For point number 9, how exactly does jeremypwr, according to your opinion, is part of "this scam"? He tried to oversee and help your case by notifying sportsbet's representative, and it's proven to be worked. Steve did come here the instance --I assume-- he read jeremypwr's PM.

Point number 10, I'd have to agree with you. If the case is like what I assumed, that initially you're locked out due to the 48h policy but then within that timeframe they suspected you of multi-acc, then the message should not said what's shown, but instead something like this or this. I believe this is an oversight because they're already and currently in communication with you in regards of multi-acc --chronology number 5-7, which happened before number 10-- so it's very possible that they didn't check your account again to change the message displayed.

11, this is quite interesting, perhaps a language barrier made you perceived the post wrongly, as you stated that English is far from your primary language, but allow me to quote the exact post Steve gave as his first response and break it down


I don't see where he's more concerned that you spammed their system. He gave you his words that he'll see your case himself, which means escalating it and sped it up --it's certainly a privilege, he cut the line for you-- and urged you to show some restraint and stop raining all of their media. This is not without reason.

Panic posting here, as I've also said earlier, just made it difficult for the neutral overseer --and whoever read your thread-- to comprehend the situation. Wall of repetitive text and screenshots just made people lost track and focus of the issue.

Emailing, well... it's actually quite impressive, if I may be honest, 400 emails certainly shows dedication... or a lot of free time at hand. But allow me to explain this as well on why Steve urged you to stop doing so. Other than because it will clog their system, the way ticket-addressing adapted by many platform --far as I know-- is by queue number.

When you sent them an email, your email got into a queue. Let's say you're the 137th person emailing them that day --or during certain timeframe-- you're on queue number 137, which means your email and complain will be addressed after they addressed #136. If you send them another email, your previous queue would be voided and your newest will be the one active. Which means, suppose you're initially at 137, your second email --that's sent before they can even address the earlier email-- would be pushed to the back of the queue, perhaps number 159. Your 359th email? It probably pushed you to the 666th. Your 400th? Maybe somewhere on the thousand-th.

So yeah, Steve's advise to stop panic emailing is actually to help you and the other customers. He already put your case on his plate and tried to track down your email. If it kept jumping queue, it'll just make it harder for him to clear the issue. [Of course, this is statement and explanation made based on my knowledge and assumption, anyone is free to correct me if they have a better knowledge and experience on this matter]

Spamming their chatroom, I think it's more to protect the interest of their community than to protect their name from "the expose". Put yourself in a sportsbet user's shoes, they tried to engage in a discussion, or tried to ask something, and their chat kept being cut by someone complaining a repetitive words that's effectively rendered the chat room non-functional, wouldn't you be annoyed? Now put yourself on the chatroom admin's shoes, they tried to engage with their user and their response kept being pushed out of the screen by the same complaint, wouldn't you find it irritating? IMO, it's not about Steve concerned about how they treated their one specific customer --especially as he's already offered to take the matter to his own hand-- it's about making sure the entire system works and able to cater everybody's interest.

Next, point/chronology number 12. I didn't see this screenshot in any of your post, perhaps I lost it between the repetitive links, would you please share us again the exact screenshot?

This is the end of addressing the first part of your post. Now we go to your second part, which I'll breakdown to parts without changing the point of the questions,


He tried to, but you forced it out of his hand when you escalated the case to CEG,



According to their TnC which you've agreed upon signing up, specifically 18.1.(ix) the answer is yes and no,


If your account is found to be the one and only you have, thus not multi-acc ing, and as your bet is legal --at least that's the assumption when this post is made-- then yes, they'll be more than happy to restore your account, there are instances of this events, like this one for example. But if their suspicion proven to be correct, then no, you'll not get your winning bet, it'll be voided as per your agreement with them upon sign up.


Explained above, it might be an oversight and that the case is developed to something else where the 48h-after-deposit is no longer the case, its --used to be-- 5 working days to investigate the matter of multi acc. But will you be more comfortable if they changed the message on your profile now?


I don't think I understand. Do you mean if you lost a bet and asked for the bet to be voided? Then no, why would a betting platform allows a lose bet to be voided just because the user asked for it? It called gambling, not charity event.

If you mean to ask that if your acc is proven to be multi-acc abuse and we suppose the bet was a lose bet instead of a winning, I'm not at the capacity or position to answer this, but if we consult to their TnC, the answer is they're actually allowed --and you agreed-- to confiscate all of your funds.


And they did, the Operator had tried to reach out and working on resolving the difference with you, that's what Steve tried to do here but you decided to take a different course