It's a common rule on most casino with an understandable reason behind it. One that can be easily think of is that multi acc means they can cheat on whatever bonus the casino --I'm talking about casinos in general-- gave, like faucet, rain, first time deposit bonus, free bets, etc. Another thing is the possibility of distributing a huge amount of balance acquired through cheating or abusing the system into several acounts with smaller withdrawal amount to avoid suspicion.

A one time withdrawal of 10,000 USD might raise the casino's attention and prompt them to look into your account. Split them into five or ten accounts, and then withdraw 500 USD at a time, and you can take them all without even going into their radar.

Grab your popcorn, it'll be a long story to read.


The feedback is not solely made on the case of Laki21000, it also reflected on how they addressed the situation for accusations raised against them in general, i.e. banning without trying to look for clear evidences first, or even tried to consider listening to the defense made by the accuser (the user they unilaterally banned), how they goes into grasping straws like this, or how when they're cornered, instead of trying to address the situation professionally, they choose to twist words and changing narratives through a sneaky edit like this or this --not to mention that the original unedited-but-edited post was hinting a hidden threat of "we know you"--

But, as I am quite agreed with what examplens said on paragraph two and liked the perspective I previously failed to see on the paragraph three, I was more than ready to change my tag, as stated on the quoted post below,


However, sadly, that outcome is not quite reached. We are still not in the clear on why Poika5 was banned on the first place. Sure, they offered evidences that AG deemed trustworthy enough, namely one of these (see the screenshot) which later rebutted by Poika5 on the whole post.

And with Poika5 went AWOL, and TD refused to answer the defense on his last post, we can only assume on several things, one is that Poika5 did multi-acc-ing, or maybe it was the "inhuman activities", and when they realized it's a lose war, they buried themselves. If this is the case, and TD has proofs, I am failed to see why they can't provide the proof of multi acc here and need to have a third party with policy of hidden evidences. If I may mention name here, Sportsbet tackled similar issue without needing to wait for so much ruckus.

If I may point out one thing that's seems amiss to me is how TD basically goes through this whole headache of blocking Poika5 when they offered KYC, twice, then insist that they need KYC to see the problem only after Poika got concerned of their privacy, then going through AG, dragging the whole situation on excruciating slowness, taking their time to verify KYC that the ticket almost closed by deadline only to come with the explanation that is far more obscure than what they've --forced-ly-- told us here on this forum weeks before it

Another possibility --and I have to admit that my imagination runs pretty wild on this one-- is that they reached an agreement off the screen with Poika5, with NDA involved, hence the sudden AWOLness.

But, for this case and specifically at this situation, I hate assumptions. I am well aware that I am sarcastic and witty and a real pain in Jesus' arse, but I am --at least I perceive myself as-- fair and reasonable. I would much prefer to lean toward facts than wild assumptions.

I can accept and would consider that the sneaky edit and word twisting is more likely an unprofessionalism of one entity --who named himself the-marketing-guy-behind-this-post-- and would probably be unfair to be held against the entire company of TD. Basically, all they need was kicking that guy and replacing him with someone more professional, and future scam accusation issues would hopefully didn't have to get through the same misery of smear campaign. I am more than happy to forget about the whole word twisting scene --with the sincerest hope that they won't attempt the same stunt next time our path crosses-- they don't even needs to apologize to me for whatever bad impression they've made on me, i understand completely that it's a risk included in the package when you choose to poking people with persistent questions and annoyed their days, every day, just to get to the bottom of the truth and giving fair justice to anyone deserves it.

This brings us back to what my statement on previous post said, I will consider changing the tag to neutral if they can give clear reason for the case of Poika5, which would convince me that they're a transparent and fair business. However, again, this is not achieved. We got to the bottom of Laki's case with them basically admitted they made a mistake and tried to grease their way out of it, and Poika's with something that's far more unclear than what previous "interrogation" gave us.

I'm more than happy to change into neutral if they replied here, or on the more appropriate place, Poika's thread, the evidences they said they've well documented on this "manner that's impossible for an ordinary human player."

Bottomline and tl;dr: In my personal opinion, it is not safe for anyone to play on such platform which would confiscate your funds and would only consider your case after so much noise was made. We don't know how many people out there in the past already got to this similar situation and didn't get a good ending because they're not persistent enough like Laki. And that, deserves a warning. Maybe not a type-2 flag, but clearly a tag.

But let me turn the table, purely in the spirit of discussion and not being aggro, why do you think it'll be good and safe to remove the negative and turn into neutral if they didn't show any good gesture or any sliver of professionalism?

How exactly my knowledge --or the lack of-- on stock jeopardize my credibility? I'm, fortunatelly, quite familiar with how stock and bonds works in my country, which became the reason why I initially wondered how exactly someone could buy a partial ownership in Canada simply by... well, I am not sure what method do you exactly offered, since you have not answered that question yet. And as I said and acknowledge, some rules might be different from my country and Canada, but from what I found on my quick research and what you said on the quoted text of my previous post above, it is not quite different; either through a stockbroker, an authorized financial entities --read: banks--, or through opening an account. So how is it exactly? Both for my credibility and for the method you propose.

And about not protecting the community, again, how exactly do you judge that my actions are no longer to protect the community, and rather the opposite, if what I tried to do is covering all their bases, making sure all that needs to known, well... known. For example, the one interesting thing that still left unanswered, do you have all the necessary legal document and permit to go public? It's a yes or no question, very easy to answer.

As for the rage, rest assured, Sugarball, I am completely chilling right now. If you must know, I am currently sitting in a rocking sofa and a chamomile tea with perfect warmness sitting next to me. While for me not making any sense, on which part of this circling discussion did you lost, dear? I'll be happy to spell it out for you.

Do you have another screenshot to make the conversation whole? Just to be sure no one is biased and fully understand the dialogue you have with rollbit as well as knowing all the facts from your side. Screenshot of a relatively small part of the whole conversation seems rather prone for misconception.

So which part exactly does my educated guess wrong? Investor would need a Canadian bank account --I'm pretty much sure a Singaporean or Dutch couldn't just go to their local bank and asked to buy your share-- or a brokage account. And you, knowing this --I'll assume you do know about this and not just learned from me because you're not running about it first to your "contract lawyer"-- offered a nice "feature" where people buying from you would have a portion of ownership of the company.

Tell us how, exactly, if they'll need to have a brokage account and/or Canadian bank account to buy your shares, do you propose investor to buy? Because this is not mentioned anywhere in any of your document, or posts. By simply sending some fund into your designated wallet? Wouldn't that against the law, then? Which, would circle us back to one of the original points of why this issue arose; have you got the necessary permit and other legal documentation to conduct IPO?

I'd say it is less of an assumption and more to an educated guess, since my questions and statements are made based on your answer and some quick searches.

But to clear what's unclear for you about my source, in hope we can get into the bottom of this, here's several --I always crossreferencing with several sources-- that helps me with my... guess:




Now, as I might be wrongfully informed, I'm only human after all, and clearly your legal dept. would knows better about the rule of buying percentage of company ownership in Canada, why don't we straighten this up with you citing us the rules --preferably issued by Canadian govt.-- that said otherwise.

LOL, ok, and what did your contract lawyer said about this plan for IPO? Have you run this idea though them from the legal perspective? I'm not an expert in legal for investments, especially the one in Canada, but a quick google result told me that your "next round of investors" would need an account in Canadian brokage firm to buy these "few spots available" in order to be able to "purchase a percentage of the hosting corporation in Canada". Not to mention the paperwork you'll need to have to be eligible to held a public offering of physical business entity. Am I wronf? Again, what's your contract lawyer say when you run this prospective idea to them?

I'd guess the video call was to "double verify" OP's KYC documents. If OP --to put us into their shoes-- did found a vulnerability and exploited it, there's a chance they submitted fake KYC too as a failsafe and to hide their real identity. Agreeing to a video call would suggest OP is not scared because they're guilty and more than happy to cooperate.

Wow, like an IPO, then? Have you got an in-house legal team in your office? In Canada?


Just to be clear, the admin in discord is... yourself? So you kinda vouched for yourself? Convenient. And why can't the team details made known to public? If they're legit and totally going for a long term business, I don't see a reason why not, especially as it'll eventually has to be published in the near future.

Checked and I can see you have the linux version updated minutes ago, but no version for windows is available. Although I can also see you followed my request to remove the older version which contain malware.

Your windows wallet does detected for virus by virustotal, I doublechecked the result given by pestxo by reuploading the file for a new scan, the result is as below:


 

Amongst them, are these two, NetTool.Win32.TorTool.gen and Trojan.GenericKD.64525574. NetTool summarized as


while genericKD summarized as


I am giving you a benefit of doubt that those malware were unintentional, but to protect the best interest of anyone stumbled upon your thread and the project --and through it, the infected wallet-- I'd have to leave a negative tag. Please fix them. Once you have and uploaded a better version of your wallet, kindly notify me and I'll be happy to remove the tag once it is proven to be clean.

Meanwhile, remove the wallet immediately so anyone can't download it. I'll be forced to escalate the situation to a scam accusation and raise a flag if you refused to do so.

Back to the original matter at hand, up to this point, we aren't sure if this project will be able to run or not, let alone give the promised of forecasted return of 10%-100%, since the bare minimum product itself, your wallet, is yet to be build, and you asked people to invest in you, without even a clear details of the people behind the team, which you'll only release months later?

And, just to be sure, by the sentence I mark in bold, you certainly did not mean legally owned a portion of the company in Canada, right?

They might be unaware of this thread. I glanced upon this thread yesterday and intended to PM them and made them aware of this accusation, but their last activity --as per yesterday-- was back in November or so, and looking through their website, I can't find their TG. Discord seems too... bothersome for me.

Anyway, I checked again and they were online earlier today, I send them a PM.

Ahh, no. His account was dormant since april 2022, but this is not his first post here, he had 7 posts prior to this one, with the first was a complain --and an audacity to ask for VIP stat for compensation-- for being locked out of his account. Steve has addressed it and found red flags.


Since their discussion seemed to happen internally through emails, I assume he can't prove his innocence and Steve's judgement is right, thus he sorely tried to paint SB a different color through this.... "accidentally" stumbled upon an accusation thread against SB. He commented on Snne's post on SB ann thread and must had known about this thread already since then.

---

Snne, as I've seen you online several times throughout this long weekend and remained silent, I guess that I hit the spot correctly? You have another point to raise or evidence to show?

So it's really really not even for a functional application? Just... the very basic of it? And there's no guarantee that after people invested those amount into you, you'll come back with a wallet and a project that runs? There's a chance that the project is scraped and their investment goes into limbo?

Have you even calculated the financial aspects of your project and determined the softcap?

Yes, as in the MVP, right? The minimum viable product? But your last statement said that 10K will not even close to launch it? I honestly don't understand if this is a poor language barrier or you aren't well versed on your project or... the other, more notorious and more negative one, but were you saying that suppose you managed to gather 10K USD, it is not guaranteed that your wallet will be able to work and run? Like, those people invested and at one point in the future you told them, "sorry guys, insufficient fund. I managed to build the base of the wallet, but it won't be able to run because the dev I hired refuses to complete it because I stopped paying due to the lack of fund. Thanks for your time and money, good bye."?

For legal docs, when can we expect it? Together with the launch of your legal documents? On April 2023? Wouldn't it only need few hours, if not minutes, to add a section about your team and their pictures on your website? I can't comprehend why would it should take nearly four months for that.

I am sure we are all aware that none of your reply addressed the matter of team details. The statement I mark in bold though, is quite interesting. You made it clear on your roadmap document --which traditionally should be on the same file with your whitepaper, but that's ok-- that your softcap is 10K, and now you said it wouldn't even close to buid your wallet? Why does each of your statement on different sources keep contradict each other?

Yeah, thanks, but I'll appreciate it more and would strongly prefer if the said info is consumbable here? Where people can easily access? It is bound to happen anyway, as I think it is rather inconvenience and less appealing when someone wanted to remit their money through you and wanted a sense of security by knowing to whom they hand their money to, and what they get is, "come to discord and meet our member."

Besides, I've took a quick look at it, and it's not much. Literally zero added info about the team.


 

And do I understand correctly that you're in the middle of cwowdfund to kick start your wallet, for 10K USD?

Not sure how wide their work area is, or why you would mention them as your example when you can use a third party from your very own base office, Canada, but what I actually asked is not KYC, it's KYD, your team, you planned to give a detailed info of the people behind the platform who remit money worldwide, right?

20%-100% ROI bears a huge difference with 10%-100%. If you reasoning that they typo is excusable because 20% falls in between 10 and 100, I can't understand your logic in basic finance. And you want to propose an invest product? 20%-100% means people would expect at least 20% annual profit, as you advertised on your website, they didn't know that it is a typo, and the lowest expected return is 10%, half of what's advertised. When their annual return is 15%, you've successfully misleading them.


This one? https://rndpoint.com/
They offered a service for KYD and AML compliance? In Canada?