Well, if you ask me, giving you the benefit of doubts that your narrative is honest and your friend suggested the site to you, I think you both need to use this as a learning medium. A lot --if not most-- casino forbid more than one accounts from the same household, this is a quite known knowledge amongst crypto gamblers. It's quite surprising that you both didn't know about this rule already. And further, your betting technique, many casinos also frowned upon betting with low odds [1.01, 1.02].

No, just update the opening post, adding the link to your flag. Do the DTs see your thread and flag? Well, I can say that, so far and for sure, there are three DTs overseeing your thread, given we're already commenting and giving our input. I noticed that you've also made your request here, so yeah, DT will most likely see your thread.

Let's... have a tad bit more patience. I've PMed UserU, he'll hopefully come and address this issue on this thread once he come online and notice my PM.

As for why they "play on your feeling", I believe [if we suppose the situation here is simply due to that you played on internet cafe] it's a case of departmental communication. It's not that they're intentionally tried to play with their customer, I think it's simply customer support team just get a reply from the security team and provided you with the information provided to them, without being able to look into the log themselves.

Hopefully, this situation can be solved when their representative come and have another look at your case.

On that case, as I've said, I think their silence means they're sticking with their initial ruling, and that they're not going to reconsider your case. As for flagging them, which account do you want to flag? Is it Stunna, it's Stake's official account, but the account has been inactive for a while.

Basically, if you want to raise a flag against someone, you go to their trust page [go to the profile and click the button on "trust"], scroll to the bottom of the page, to the "new feedback" part, the option to add a flag will be next to a negative feedback.



There will be three type of flags you can choose [the description of each flag is there on that page]. Flag type-1, Newbie Flag, will only need 1 DT support [or 1 more DT supporting the flag against the ones opposing it], and flag type-2 and 3 will need 3 DT supports. [You can read more about flag here if you're interested].

You can ask for support or opposition for flag here. But bear in mind that DTs will not just jump into supporting [or opposing] flag blindly, for the same reason I can't: because taking an action for a flag requires us to affirm that what happens is like what's described, to the best of our knowledge, and that the flagged account indeed did as accused and/or guilty.

Nope. Far as I know, most casino have it in writing [that the user agreed] on their ToS that if one or two clause were broken, they have the right to confiscate everything. Those who let the "violators" get their fund back were doing so as a good-will, not because they're obligated to do so.

For this specific case, if we assume that OP did violate the ToS, the casino has right to deny any fund that OP owned, it's there in one of their clause,

---

Now, moving to OP's topic, I assume no one invite UserU to this thread? Allow me to send my regards, then.

They actually have choices to reply or not to reply to a scam accusation. The scam accusations threads are here to warn people of a scam attempts as well as give space for every involved parties to give their side. If one of the involved party didn't want to give their side, then I'm afraid there's not much we can force them to do.

As for what you [or, the other side of the involved parties, the one that's left with silence] can do, it's case-by-case basis, in several, the silence can be intepreted as an admission of guilt [depending on what the evidence point out to us] and flag or negative feedback were given as a result. Thus, if you deemed it necessary and the right thing to do, you're more than welcome to take that road. But, your case, sadly, IMO, doesn't warrant a flag. At least that's what I got after reading your case and proof you provided.

I explained my assumption here about the two pronged situation, which I am more than OK that you can't accept, as it is just my assumption, but that's the way I see and intepret your case, my very own opinion after reading the narrative and evidence so far.

Others might think differently, and they'll probably see Stake as the wrong side here, support your flag if you raise any, or leave a negative feedback themselves on Stake's account.

As for why my motive, I don't think I understand this part well, but if you're asking for I'm here, as I said here, I am not benefited in any way from this case, whatever the outcome is, I am here [on this board, not just on this thread] simply to oversee cases, probably help solving them, and that's it.

I didn't mean to be rude, but I thought we've come to a conclusion that if they didn't reply you by then, they're probably won't reply any further as they're sticking to their last decision?

I was actually referring to the part I underlined, that they consider betting from different game accounts [in other words, different username] from the same IP address. As your friend were already registered to that IP, once you made a bet with your account using the same home wifi connection as him, you're considered breaching the terms you agreed with them.

The case became worse as your friend were limited, this makes your account to be perceived as an attempt to circumventing a betting limitation.

Oh, sorry. I got the time of your registration mixed up. Your friend was limited since March, you registered since July, and your friend ultimately deleted his account on September, this is the correct rough timeline?

I might be wrong, but I think the rule below is what they consider you've breached

Your roommate got his bet limited to $1 since March, and you have your account since last year, so, roughly around September last year? Won't their excuse valid, then? For about 6 months [if not more], you're playing from the same IP as your friend?

I'm a bit... confused. Might be nice if you can add more context. You're a Costa Rican with US driving license? Or are you an American currently living in Costa Rica? And when you registered your account, what's the situation of your residency?

Because that's a known practice for a token offering? They allocate some funds for marketing etc., for the time being of the ICO, the number were just "number" on their platform, be it token earned from marketing, private sale, ICO sale, etc. Once the ICO concluded, every token will be minted. To mint this, you'll need to withdraw from the platform. Every unclaimed and unsold token will be burned.

Not sure if this project applied the same principle, but all signs point to that direction, at least from what I intepret from their announcement.

Is that a fact or are you guessing? Can you perhaps provide a screenshot or any backing evidence to prove that the token are still operational for few years after the ICO [and the deadline to withdraw token, as they announced].

Ok, I dig further, this time their medium. As it turns out, the main problem was, indeed, the "ICO" withdrawal. There was an article prior to the one mentioned above, here, that implied that the deadline was not just for ICO token, it was for every token in their system.



As you can see, the announcement we previously discussed was intended for every token holders, not exclusively for ICO token holders.

Do you mind giving us more info about this case with what I asked above your post? It's still unanswered. I'll PM rollbit's representative and invite them here once I understand the situation from your side better.

Do you mind tell me how? I don't even know there is a way to check an email address belongs and registered to whose account, forum doesn't allow a search by email address and won't show someone's registered email without their consent.


Scaled or not scaled will not be a different, the format will still shows that each columns are aligned. For added information, the screenshot I made was from a tablet, so it's a "scaled" version.

I just PMed by Google+. He shared a screenshot of his profile with me, showing his account's email address to me. It is different from the one shown by @alex2012. Given seclog didn't show a change of email from his account recently, I can vouch that he's not part of this scam-attempt/account-selling.

I'd also like to use this chance to publicly apologize for the inconvenience Google+ experienced because I jumped too fast and didn't notice the signs of doctored image.

nutildah and Little Mouse, do you both mind to remove the neutral tag against Google+? I apologize to you both too for any inconvenience happened from your side.

---

He did sign a message at one point, but I am not sure if the address is still accessible to him.

Google+, if you read this [as I didn't write this on my reply to his PM, stupid me], can you confirm if you still has access to bc1qr40dwlh5wywg99967j0fc02es97mf0luzgvf3j or not? If you don't, it might be useful for you to... re-stake your address.

I think they've also warned about this. I take a long look at their telegram history, I think at one point, after the swap, they tell people to withdraw any remaining balance from the platform. There's a possibility that you missed another deadline. So, even if we suppose that your token was swapped automatically by their system, your balance will still be lost because you missed a deadline of withdrawal for all accounts. Can you look into your old email around these date to see if they send blast email to everyone informing this?

---

Edit: Forgot to finish a sentence, the edit and addition marked in italic.

Interesting finding. That explains what I've been wondering since yesterday by a lot: how he removed the neutral tag given by actmyname. I initially thought he temporarily distrust AMN, I checked his trust list during the time to confirm this, and [as there were no info of such] I thought he did it for about minutes, just enough to make a screenshot, and then delete his list, so the weekly record didn't archive that.

But editing the upper part of the page [or the lower part] made way much sense.

I happen to have screenshots of profile pages around the same time of that screenshot [in April 2023] in my gallery, and indeed, the forum didn't change layout or the likes, layout shown on the profile page during April should also shows what we see right now: all text aligned between each rows.


I guess there were no easy way to prove the ownership, even if Google+ come and answer here, it'll be a classic he-said-she-said.

I can think of two ways to prove or debunk the allegation, but it'll be quite... inconvenient. One is proving the connection by wallet transaction and see if the scammers wallet of which OP send the fund to is connected to Google+. The other is to debunk it [and it'll be very annoying, and I can understand if Google+ refuses to do so] I guess Google+ can ask for a trusted member to verify the dis-connection between his account and this mess by sending them a PM containing a screenshot of his profile from his page.

The screenshot bounds to show his email address and the member who got trusted with this task can match if the email written on his profile matched with the one being offered. I'll say again that it'll be very inconvenient as Google+ will reveal his real email address, if we suppose the screenshot above isn't his and the email address truly registered to him was not as above, so I can understand if he doesn't want to go with this method. Might worth to mention that it is not a sure fire, especially if the email was changed few weeks ago past seclog's data [is there a way to get a log way back for months?].

Ninjastic archived the original title, and it does indeed contain the "[escrowed]" part. As for when it changed, though I can't be sure with the exact time, it should be around after the bounty ended, given up to the announcement of the end of the bounty he made, the title still had it.