Have you got any email reply from them? If they replied, you can probably ask them what to do on this situation. If they haven't reply you, have you tried their other email address? Which one did you use to send them an email? support@ftx.com? Try these that's listed on their portal for claiming:


meanwhile, what's the development from the NFT company? Have they give you a legal power to control that wallet or something that might help you gain access to that fund?

If I may get slightly out of topic...

Democracy can simply means a system which determined by the "citizen" of the said system, they elect their representatives, from their own, where they determine the outcome of the said "poll" instead of those representatives being automatically elected by birthright like monarch or dictatorship.

And this is held true, if we look at how the process of DT election, especially the one I marked in bold.


As you can see, the only way to be eligible to be a DT [well, DT1] is by having the "citizen" voting for them, this is not DT electing each other [congress members get elected by the votes of other congress members]. In fact, there is no criteria in the system that require a DT1 to be elected by other DT1. IIRC, there was a situation where someone without any other DT trusting him and he still got elected as a DT1.

If you're talking about "dis-votes" instead of "votes" though, i.e.: where DT members "elects" another DT to be kicked out of the system, was it not the very practice of democracy too? There is no absolute power where someone can not unilaterally kick someone else, there has to be an enough agreement between the DT to kick the said user [who abuses their power, if I may add] from the system.

Even now? Hmm... that's a bit strange, they don't have any active flag against them, that red banner shouldn't be displayed yet. I even checked BPIP just to be redundantly sure, and the data is correct, no active flag against them.



That said, you can always ask for more support [or opposition] to your flag on the link I previously provided.

Just locking it is fine, it'll prevent further meaningless posts that split the attention and discussion to two threads. The button to lock the thread will be at the bottom left of this page [only accessible through your account as you're the one who started this thread].

You have a thread for this issue here, is there an added benefit of creating this new one? IMO it'll be best to just stick to the old one and update the opening post with latest development if you deemed it necessary. Having another thread will just confuse people and make it difficult for people following your case to keep themselves updated as the discussion will now happen simultaneously in two [or more] different thread.

I've send them multiple PM as well for quite some time, informing them about the open cases against them, they barely responded to any of it although they went online not long after I sent them the PMs, or notify their TG representative to ask for their forum representative to come back online. That is one of the contributing factor of my consideration to place a negative feedback on their account, to warn the community as they're unresponsive.

OP or BC.Game? BC.Game's negative feedback was placed by me, it's there to warn the forum participants of the current situation the platform has. For OP... not sure why, I think he had a questionable history. A quick glance into their trust page gave a hint that his account changed hand and he immediately requested a loan? To be honest, I didn't really put the weight of his case into the scale as I was not overseeing his case, it's too... hard to navigate. A ruling made by AG was in OP's favor, though, they believe BC should honor the bonus --I only read the last post by their representative that's quoted by OP somewhere-- and paid him.

It shouldn't be, as you can see, with only supports from Coin_trader and me [this screenshot was taken before post above, before Get-Paid.com supported then withdrawn the support, and thus, return the situation back to the same state as earlier today] the flag shown as insufficient. I take a look into their profile in guest mode as well and no, there isn't any warning flag against them. Unless you're referring to that negative score on their profile, that now shows +3/=1/-1?

Uhh... no, you're raising a flag for violation of written contract [type-3], you need 3 DT supports for that. Currently there are two DTs supporting it [Coin_trader and me], assuming no one opposes it, you'll need at least one more support from a DT to activate it.

This, I don't think it is. As established, he's no longer in DT, his feedback won't show by default, unless royse put him in his trust list, which... I am very much confident does not and will not happen.


Looking at LV's weekly trust list summary, TL has been loyally placing Royse on his distrust list for probably since he placed it there back in July [I didn't trace back that far, only few weeks back], I think it's the the latter, that he gave royse negative feedback. It seems he's... revamping his feedback? A lot of feedback was made on same day, and several bear same format as comment: an older date which assumably the date he made his previous feedback, followed by an explanation.

I initially was hesitant to leave a feedback, but the amount of complaint raised against them was quite worrying, not to mention that my invitations to get their sides on those cases turned to deaf ears, so I thought it'll be better to warn the community for the time being, to proceed playing on their site with some wisdom

Simplified DT [Default Trust] are list of people whose judgment and views of many aspects are considered as... "trusted" by the forum. If you see that score next to each username, the +0/ =0 /-0, some shows +4 and some shows -5, that's because a DT leave a feedback on that user's trust score, either a positive, neutral, or negative. +4 means 4 DT leave a positive feedback on them, =3 means 3 DT leave neutral feedback on them, -5 means 5 DT, and so on.

If a non-DT leave a feedback, their feedback won't show by default and won't reflect on their trust score, though it's still accessible through "show ratings" below the "untrusted feedback" part of the trust page.

Similarly, a flag requires DT supports to be active. You can have dozens of users supporting it, and it still won't be active unless the DT supports requirements are met, as you can see in your own flag, where many people were supporting it, yet it's still not active due to insufficient support.

1 DT support for type-1 flag, and 3 DT supports for each type-2 and type-3 flag.

3 supports means there has to be 3 DTs more in total who supports or opposes it. So, suppose it's supported by 3 DTs and opposed by 1 DT, it still won't active, as the total who supports it were only 2 [unless it's opposed by a DT2 and supported by DT1, but let's not swim in that headache right now]. Similarly, if it's supported by several DTs and opposed by more DTs, it won't be active.

And no, a rank won't affect it, neither is merit. Someone can be a legendary with 10,000 merit [and let me throw +100 feedback, while we're at it] and he's probably still not a DT. There are other sytem and a whole different mechanism regarding DT, but that's the gist of it. If you have more questions about DT, feel free to ask.

As for the link, it's here: Request Support (or Opposition) for Flags here!

Yeah, I initially planning to do that, to create a summary of active scam accusations against them and use it as my reference. But with me being me, I figure I might took some time to create it with desired format. Meanwhile, I visited CG earlier and noticed a good amout of open cases against them. I think it'll be better to place the warning with "temporary" reference link, to immediately warn users, before [perhaps] moving to a more established one.

Am I correctly assuming this thread has a relation with a recent piling [unattended] scam accusations against BC.Game and their silence? A concern that it'll follow Betnomi's step? I've tried hard to reach them and encourage them to solve cases raised against them, but... well, ultimately, the decision is all theirs.

For the time being, I am placing a warning for forum members to use this platform with grains of salt due to the complaints, be it in this forum, or on arbitrators; regrettably, in form of negative feedback. I tried to delay this feedback as long as I can in hope that they'll deescalate the situation by addressing the concerns, but it gets piling instead of decreasing.

Allow me to borrow your thread as a list and reference point for my feedback. The amount of dispute on the open cases below can probably also help judging how serious their situation is. As for BC's representative, if you read this, hopefully the list below can help you on navigating the cases you need to attend.

---

Currently, these are the open cases against BC.Game, with the declared fund being confiscated:

BC.game asking me to lose intentionally, then confiscating funds by GekkeBelg | resolved | mBTC88
BC GAME LOSES DISPUTE AGAINST ME - AND STILL DOES NOT PAY MY WINNINGS by Jannn [a continuation to this thread] | resolved | $3,409
BlockDance B.V., BC.Game and its Fraudulent “Operator Verifier” by earlypaco | resolved | $7,111
BC.Game cancelled my bonuses and locked my account with $100k+ USD balance by -god- | resolved | $250,000
BC.Game - can't withdraw 7.97 BTC by dplay | resolved | BTC7.97

---

Edit:
Recent development:
[21.11.23]
- Case with dplay changed to "unresolved" as a result that BC stopped responding on AskGamblers after previously said they'll process the withdrawal immediately. The arbitrator marked the case as unresolved too.
- Case with earlypaco marked by CasinoGuru as unresolved.
- Case with Jannn marked by CasinoGuru as unresolved.
[24.11.23]
- Case with dplay got partially solved. BC asked AG to reopen the case and paid the due balance in USDT [124,000]. dplay got compensated with some amount of USDT, although not to what's agreed or desired. Thus, partialy solved, because the player still think he's not whole with the compensation but can't do much other than accepting the offer.
[26.11.23]
- Case with GekkeBelg got resolved. BC explained the misunderstanding happened that stemmed from the odds provider's side. Confirmed by GekkeBelg that he got the due amount and is satisfied with the result.
- Case with Jannn got resolved. BC acknowledged their oversight in details of the terms for bonuses, compensated Jannn in full with the amount due, and is planning fix the details to better convey the terms of bonus.
[27.11.23]
- Case with earlypaco got resolved. BC paid in full with current BTC rate.
- dplay got the rest of his balance as per requested, totalling USD 170,000. Pending for clarification and withdrawal, but for the time being, I am marking it as solved.
[08.12.23]
- Case with -god ruled as resolved by Casino Guru with the result favoring BC, where the casino has full right to confiscate funds under advantage play.

The scammer did not and does not use a mixer. A topic about mixer was brought into this discussion strictly limited to a context where someone pointed out that the fund will not be tracable if the scammer put it on a mixer. The flow of fund itself, unless I am mistaken and it's a mixer or an exchange [thus, a "pseudo-mixer"] address, are yet to meet a mixer. Someone with blockchain skill can trace them up if they want to, I... think. Sadly, it's not my forte.

I use that horizontal line to indicate a separate reply [mostly, though it's also used for other purposes in some occasions] when addressing more than one post or user in single reply. Posting consecutive posts are not allowed by the forum rules.

Anyway, flag supported for the time being due to their silence and inaction although many means of communication has been exhausted. You're raising a type-3 flag, a violation of written contract, you'll need three DT supports, you'll need two more after mine to activate it.

p.s.: can you please add the link to your flag to your opening post? It'll help people taking action to the flag, so they don't have to browse the entire thread just to find it.

That is your conversation with the NFT company?  From a quick google search, yes, they're real and legitimate.

[All of the links on this post are deliberately not shortened and displayed in full so you can easily copy and paste them] FTX's account on twitter gave this link as below,



and that same portal will refer you to this article, https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/FTX/EPOC-Index, stating,



There are several published article referring to that portal. You probably can ask them to read these articles, or ask them to take a quick DD themselves so they can be more assured for the legitimacy of the portal.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ftx-debtors-launch-online-claims-portal-for-customers-301877136.html
https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/crypto/if-you-lost-money-when-crypto-exchange-ftx-went-bankrupt-you-have-a-few-weeks-left-to-make-a-claim/

efialtis was aware of these accusation to some extent, he was overseeing the case of BC v. GekkeBelg.

Don, I am currently weighting between a neutral or a negative feedback based on the severity of the open cases against BC and the likelihood of financial loses. I am trusting your knowledge on this particular case, because... this one is kinda... hard to navigate, and I see you were there since the beginning, and I noticed you're also there overseeing other case with earlypaco. Do I understand that this case is very similar to earlypaco's, in sense that they both shared the same situation and outcome? Is there a difference between the two that's worth mentioning?

Ahh well, at least now someone can say that he's no longer in DT1 because he wiped his entire trust list and thus he made himself ineligible for DT selection.

Their questionable actions and responses toward scam accusations lately aside, this point should be clarified.

Their license is not fake... so far.

The user being referenced here had a miscommunication [or... something else] that made him think BC was a sublicense of CEG. That part of accusation happened because Jannn exchanged email with CEG representative and the representative said --as it should be, obviously-- BC was not with them. BC are not under CEG, they're under CIL.

Anyway, I'm observing the development of this thread.