It was not deleted, it just got merged. As Mahdirakib explained, consecutive post is against the forum rules, so the mod "delete" your second consecutive post and merge it with the earlier one. It's still there, you can see it merged on post #17. Same thing with your consecutive post on #23.

Can you please tell us again where the scam is? I am failed to see how they scam you as they offered to release your fund, so no monetary lost is experienced. As for bugs that... made players lose the games, wouldn't that technically a player scamming another?

Then I suggest you to write to the arbitrator and explain about this [I didn't see any mention of this on your case in CG or AG], they argued that it's revoked because you abuse the bonus, but the screenshot of a statement made by your host clearly informed us that they initially consider it OK to wager anything above 1.01x, so it shouldn't be considered as an abuse, given you play by their rule.

I think it's already done, that Sorsis Chatwin is innocent. The writer said the refund will come from his own pocket and it's signed "Sorsis", implying [or trying to send a narrative] that he's also a victim of this mess but he's the one who will sort things out.

I am interested with the later part of the statement,


it means they'll come with a new name and a clean sheet, isn't it?

They are judged based on their [in]action. Currently there is an active type-3 [contract violation] flag, which is the heaviest flag this forum has, and two negative feedbacks from DT that serves to warn the community to exercise caution playing in their platform for the time being.

But yes, I agreed with the possibility that they just delaying the situation. On other case that's being mediated by CG by dplay, they initially said all they ask was an address to send the fund, which the user sent privately, and they asked for it to be public [I don't understand why it has to be public], and then they asked for one TXID, which they later argued invalid although the user can easily validate it, as it's taken directly from internal ID from BC's.

Did you ever discussed with your host [or other BC's representative, perhaps] or had they got a chance to explain why all of your balance, including your account balance, was revoked? I didn't see it being talked about in your screenshot.

Reuploading image for visibility... not sure why OP was asked for full betting history or if it helps with this case, given his situation is a suspect of multi-acc and not a... betting abuse. Anyway, I reuploaded them altogether, though.

OP, next time, please upload them through talkimg, it's a image hosting made by a reputable member here and dedicated for this forum.

OP, GekkeBelg, Pmalek is one of the DT, and as he's supporting your flag, you now got the three supports you need and the flag is now active. Please bear in mind that this is not permanent, each of us the DT has our own reason and judgment on why we supported the flag. The statement we agreed upon supporting the flag is that we affirm to our best knowledge that the situation that warrant the flag is true. Once the situation developed and what happened is no longer correct, though, [which hopefully is because BC started taking action and handling cases against them professionally] we were kinda obligated to retract our support. For the time being, it's active.

---

It might helps you navigate through their case, the link that I use for the reference on their feedback leads to my summary of the current situation and the list of cases against them [and their status], I routinely checking the development from every sources of each cases, so I think it's kinda up to date. Umm... lemme just repost it here,

You probably miss the part where OP explained that  all of the balance was gone from his account. Don nicely quoted the image [I merged them both below to give a clearer context] to show that everything is indeed revoked.

If I may ask, what's the point of stopping the tipping feature [with an assumption that his withdrawal is not stopped] in concern of OP tipping to another account and withdrew from that other account? He can simply [suppose his balance returned] withdraw from his own account. After all [if we follow your assumption] it's not locked, he doesn't need to take a detour when he can take the direct course.

To be fair, this is not the first time Rollbit applies this approach, I recall there was another case in the past where Razer approached the case with similar manner, and a quick stroll at ninjastic tell me there also other case on their ann, although I didn't click it to read further.

On that case above, though, the situation seems to lean toward Rollbit. The OP of that case was kinda... suspicious because Razer was ready to escalate it to their licensor, where every proof can be served, and the OP refused to do so. Logically, if the OP did not do anything wrong and the multi-acc counter-accusation made by Razer was wrong, OP will be more than happy to move to the licensor, it should be bullet proof case for OP. Instead, OP didn't address the situation further and slowly gone from the forum.

I'd like to hear more about it from both parties. I especially would also like to hear what Rollbit want to say about their recent very aggressive and invasive KYC. Hopefully Razer will pop up here soon after he noticed my PM.

Sorry, I was probably a little bit unclear. What I asked was whether they asked you to show [during the screenshare session] your exchange account, i.e. opening your binance account and show them your balance, your deposit and withdrawal history, or the likes, within that account?

Based on OP's reply here, I don't think the second one should be weighted into the scale, the platform itself is questionable, IMO. The first one, though, have one point of interest. I just took a glance at it, so I am yet to really read them, but OP was banned by betby, it's the same provider that used by Rollbit, might explain why, though the reason for the two cases is different.



I'll do it right now.

---

OP, do I understand that Rollbit's representative also asked you a screenshare where you're accessing your wallet [an exchange wallet]. May I know what else they asked you to show while sharing your screen?

That is pretty much established, OP acknowledged that he's in this situation due to his poor decision too. As Rollbit already done their duty and did nothing wrong here, nor can do anything about it, what we're trying to do [and what's left to do] is pursuing the FTX address and [if possible] recover the fund

Try to update this issue on CG and AG, so they'll also understand what currently happen and what's the recent situation is, and they can pursue this matter from their end. Their representative on this forum is kinda non-responsive, so probably the other ventures above more fruitful.

Ahh... pardon the misunderstanding, I thought the fund was already sent back to you, given it's worded like the snippets below. To be technically correct, allow me to revise, there's no money lost since the fund was offered to be sent back to you, and thus, still, there is no scam attempt happened.

Two things that has to be straigthened regarding this as they're rather crucial points; One, as I said on the very early part of this discussion, they're not scamming anyone. There's no money lost since your fund was sent back to you, and two, they're not trying to buy you. The way I see it [and I think most who reads it does too] it's some kind of token of appreciation for pointing out the bugs. They don't have to pay you any, but they choose to do so. Likewise, you're not obligated to receive it, but you're free to do so if you give the list of the bugs you discovered.

One can simply be a DT and still ignore the bad drama theater all the time. They can shy themselves away from reputation board and still actively improving the quality of the forum by tagging scammers on marketplace, loan defaulters, scam projects, plagiarist, or hunting spammers on other boards. That activities doesn't make them involved in the DT politics.

Actually, from neutral ground, that ToS made it ok to ask in every situation, including yours. Especially if we look at it from their lens, where the user was abusing a bug in their system.


May I suggest what's been suggested around this forum so many times: grow a thicker skin.


Unless I read the situation wrongly, I thought they offered you to list all of the bug you know, in exchange for 100 USDT for a reward? You're free to accept or to decline this bug bounty reward.

To make the record straight, I have no intention to pressuring them. My negative feedback was not to "force" them to compensate anyone, it's there in reflect to their recent inactions despite many attempts I've exhausted to invite them here, and to serve as a warning to every user to practice caution accessing their site for the time being

Sorry, I got the notification of your reply yesterday, but I was quite busy at that moment so I just glanced at it and then went straight to bed after. I didn't want to sound that I am cornering you, but I think you misunderstood the point here. I think there are two ways to see this KYC situation, from the customer [you] and from the operator [blackjack.fun], but both brings similar result regarding KYC: that you have to do it.

From customer's perspective, although it's true that you did not ask for withdrawal [whereas the KYC article said you'll be asked for KYC when you deposited exceeding 2,000 EUR or requesting withdrawal] and thus shouldn't trigger KYC from those clause, there is another clause in their ToS that allows KYC request simply because you start betting on their platform, and that they're allowed to suspend your activity until you do so. I've explained it here on #11, if I may further shorten it to the bare essential:


So yes, even if you did not ask for withdrawal or made a large deposit, you're still subjected [as you're agreed] to KYC verification whenever the platform deemed it necessary [on this case, they deem it necessary because they suspected a foul play].

From operator's perspective, as briefly brushed above, they require KYC because you triggered their alarm, you're caught cheating on their system by exploiting bug [your true intention aside], this made them worries and require KYC to get a better detail of this "abusive" user and to prevent similar situation to happen again in the future.

Both lead to a situation where you have to do KYC. I understand your confusion that you did not ask for withdrawal and thus [you think] you shouldn't be asked to perform KYC. However, the clause on their ToS allows them to ask this from you, with or without withdrawal and high deposit.

As for why the operator "give up" on KYC, I believe it's actually a good-will and solving a situation. You refuse to perform KYC, they require your KYC, you both in a moot point, so they offered a way out: don't do the KYC, take your balance and leave. As for the 100 USD for listing every bug, that's them rewarding you for bug bounty, many platforms have this kind of bounty, even this forum has it.  You wanted to find their bugs, and there it is, the bug you found so far are rewarded by them, certainly it can be considered as a good will?


Umm... sometimes we need to realize that we've overstayed our welcome, our presence and help is no longer needed, and it's best for us to leave.