Have you made a distinction between BKB/BKT token holders and actual investors because I am aware of token holders from BKB who are not privy to the information that you say has been made available to them?
I asked several questions to a token holder about the state of affairs related to betking but he did not know the answers citing lack of information from you. Once token holders have that information you cannot censor them, it is their decision what they choose to do with it (ie share it or make it public or not).
The scam accusations were against token holders who bought tokens in ICO. So if I said investors at any time I'm usually meaning people who had BKB.
As said, can't reach them all but the majority (if you sum the total $ value of tokens I didn't own) all had this info and were kept up to date with changes.
I will ask the token holder to ask you for the answers to the most important questions. Regardless of whether that person is in your good books or not he is a token holder and has a right to know the answers to any and all questions related to betking. Those answers just might shed a little light on matters.
If it's who I think it is it is someone who refuses to prove to me that he owned tokens and won't give me his BetKing username and so I can't prove he actually is a token holder and so I don't have to explain anything there.
You made no reference to the allegation you tried to dupe RHavar out a $1 million. I remember reading the original post in the Bustabit thread where he cited you were trying to talk him in to investing claiming you had mechanisms in place to protect investors crypto and now the amount has been stated so things are looking quite dire. Again it seems the evidence suggests you knew things were not going and were not going to improve soon (or ever) yet you tried to sell him an unbelievable story just to get him in to investing. Can you elaborate on this?
That was a private conversation between someone I have spoken with frequently for 5 years and he thinks it's OK to just post things in a public forum. I have 5 years of chat logs with lots of personal info he has said to me in confidence. I would never dream of posting that here.
He can choose to believe if it was a scam attempt if he likes but it certainly wasn't.
We were discussing the act of loaning to others as a business (not me asking for a loan at that point).
He said he was open to it and then gave me the example of loaning me $1mm, I hadn't asked for any amount at that time.
Since he was open to the business of loaning and suggested the amount, I asked. I then suggested he could buy tokens instead. That would be like getting interest if I would have used it for BetKing and the token price went up due to any site profit increase.
He was adamant we had to get others involved in escrow and that I had to send him the exact same amount that he was loaning.
IMO that is not a loan. There was no point us just trading $1mm in btc for $1mm btc so I declined. I also don't trust anyone enough to escrow that amount, especially the people he suggested.
At that time there was no plan to change direction of the site or to change buyback model etc so there was 100% absolutely no intention to scam someone I trusted and considered a friend (even if it was just online).
Yet he posts private conversations in public that are no one's business and leaves red trust saying I scammed investors with no proof and the whole nonsense about stealing Bustabit. Note it was removed a few days after they started attacking and he still has red trust on my name.
You also tried to raise phenomenal amounts of funds in another ICO for your "bitsafe crypto exchange" project a few months ago and made it clear betking would be closed and all BKB tokens would become bitsafe tokens. This information was not made available widely yet you still kept yout BKB investment link on betking while you were trying to raise money for the bitsafe ICO. Why?
That info was made available to every single token holder. I emailed them all personally or contacted as many on telegram and skype.
It was also posted on the website.
Sure it stands to reason if your policy is to not release that information to a non-token holder or somebody you cannot identify as a token holder then that is your decision regardless of what I or others think about it. The person I have in mind is a confirmed token holder.
One thing that certainly has happened in the recent past was that betking went from being a widely respected and widely used website to one that is a shadow of its former self and basically has no chance of attaining the heights of past glories.
After reading your posts I do have a degree of sympathy with you on certain issues and claims but right now they do not negate the problems with any general perception of betking. Some of your management/owner decisions have been disastrous and it seems by looking at how successful Primedice, Bustabit, Bustadice, Stake, Bitsler and several others are that betking will not make up lost ground.
Looking at the situation regarding LoyceV and his BKB holdings, it is a complete disaster that he was a token holder expecting to sell his tokens for around $700+ and was not aware of the situation regarding cancellation of the quarterly buy-back until after the event only to find his holdings worth just $8. I suggest that is at least one person that is not happy with their betking investment. You may cite it being business and business decisions have to be taken and that might well be true but the question has to come back full circle: why have the ICO tokens pegged to US$ instead of BTC?
In relation to the comments made by RHavar in this and the previous thread it seems several people came to side with him including owner/operators from other gaming sites. There have been several PR disasters for betking along the way:
* Trying to dupe RHavar in to private funding betking to the tune of $1 million
* Using the Crash software but not paying 2 BTC licence fee to devans - then blaming it on RHavar for the confusion
* The 20 BTC +EV Christmas 2018 Wager which was never paid out amid allegations of "mass cheating" but you never elaborated on what that means
* The betking 2017 ICO funds expenditure still shrouded in mystery Personally I agree with RHavar that after you guaranteed the buy-back and your reputation at that time was solid, you should have bankrupted yourself if necessary in order to keep your word. I also agree with him when he says that betking has zero potential left. It will take a lot of money, effort and energy to try to lift betking but it is probably too late to save it - and if you really believed in it yourself you would not have tried to shut it down a few months ago in order to open your bitsafe crypto exchange.
It is when things like this happen (you not wanting to pay 2 BTC for licensed software) that questions arise about 1 BTC donation daily between 1st December 2017 to 25th December 2017. You had a golden opportunity to make phenomenal amounts of money and keep investors happy but the beginning of the end for betking started when you closed down in December 2016 with a view to having an ICO. That was designed primarily to bring you far more riches than you were making with other peoples bankroll.
What happens next? There is next to nothing in funding left and the website makes next to nothing in profit. One possibility would be to sell it and split the money between all investors that made less than 5% profit at the time they sold up. Other than that how can you turn it around make betking viable again?
On a personal level I find it hard to believe that 500 BTC, 2250 ETH & 425 were used for the bankroll and 500 BTC, 2250 ETH & 425 were used for marketing, promotions, SEO, design, development, server costs and legal. Keeping your own words in mind, with almost all of the bankroll gone on buy-backs there is NO way $3.25 million in 500 BTC, 2250 ETH & 425 were spent on marketing, promotions, SEO, design, development, server costs and legal because even the most incompetent business owner would not spend lavishly without care hence allegations of siphoning-off funds.