Cloudbet last scam accusation, what do you think?

[mikeywith]

I guess you all are aware of the 330BTC story > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5106313.0

which now has been resolved after an extended period of time.

the player deposited 129 BTC , no questions were asked.

afterwards, the player won 201BTC and had a total of 330BTC that were held by cloudbet for account ownership issues.
 

without going into much details, my concern is this ;

what if the player lost his 129 BTC ? i guess we all know that oblivious answer, no questions would have been asked.

now assuming the player was from a country that cloudbet does not allow, or any other reason, shouldn't they return the initial deposit immediately and keep the winnings for later time ?

 
TL;DR ; when you deposit a huge amount of bitcoin, no questions asked, no KYC b.s, but when you win, clouldbet plays the KYC card, do you guys think this is ethical ? should cloudbet get away with such actions?

[1715090431]

1715090431

[1715090431]

1715090431

[1715090431]

1715090431

[coinlocket$]

If I'm not wrong it works in the same on the normal fiat websites.

You can open one account and deposit 10k and lose everything in 1 minute but if you win you cant withdraw your winnings.

[Avirunes]

I think KYC verification should be done at the time of deposit and not at the time of withdrawal. That eliminates the whole situation of confiscating the balance. It only make them seems like they are plotting something from others point of view if they are asking for KYC at the time of withdrawal.

Still I don't consider this as untrustworthy but doubt their ethics. They have right to check if someone is breaking TOS or not but like I said above KYC process should be initiated prior to accepting deposit from a gambler.

I appreciate that you raised the topic for community discussion and I think it has been raised by others as well in scam accusation but never took any initiative to start a discussion.

[cabalism13]

Ofcourse it's unethical, if they will do that I think they should have done that in the first place. I don't see the logic on why you have to do a KYC first before you can claim your winnings.

This is some kind of blocking the user's rights on getting his money back with a big amount of profit. And yes, for some reason it may turn out to be scam if they didn't pass the KYC because of the lack of requirements.

[mikeywith]

If I'm not wrong it works in the same on the normal fiat websites.

You can open one account and deposit 10k and lose everything in 1 minute but if you win you cant withdraw your winnings.

just because other websites do it, it does not mean it's right. the wrong doings of others never justifies one own's mistakes. am i wrong?

exactly, if they care so much, then they shouldn't accept a large deposit and hope for the player to either lose it or fail to comply with their requirements.

they do have their own TOS which i am pretty certain that it doesn't state the exact point of when KYC card could be played, but they use this forum to advertise their website, and we as a community are the once that keeping the forum alive for them, why not have our own terms, if the community thinks this is unethical, and since we can't enforce any rules on Cloubet outside of the forum ,then  cloudbet should at least be  tagged for such unethical behavior.

until they make it crystal clear for the players that while depositing they need to go through  KYC not only after they win - i personally think this is more or less a legit-scam-behavior.

[Thule]

It's a known strategy since most people lose all their funds.Asking KYC in the beginning would lower the profit significantly.
My personal concern here is that at the amount of 1xx B they should have asked for KYC before allowing to bet.
There are known bet mafias who have their dogs to place bets on bought games.
Wouldn't be surprised if they would use BTC casinos since there is no KYC and monitoring of these kind of abuse.

[TheNewAnon135246]

It's a known strategy since most people lose all their funds.Asking KYC in the beginning would lower the profit significantly.
My personal concern here is that at the amount of 1xx B they should have asked for KYC before allowing to bet.
There are known bet mafias who have their dogs to place bets on bought games.
Wouldn't be surprised if they would use BTC casinos since there is no KYC and monitoring of these kind of abuse.

I agree that online casinos should ask for KYC when making deposits above a certain amount (similar to withdraw limits on exchanges). This whole thing could easily prevented by asking for KYC upfront.

[Avirunes]

If I'm not wrong it works in the same on the normal fiat websites.

You can open one account and deposit 10k and lose everything in 1 minute but if you win you cant withdraw your winnings.

just because other websites do it, it does not mean it's right. the wrong doings of others never justifies one own's mistakes. am i wrong?

Lovely  and agree with it

exactly, if they care so much, then they shouldn't accept a large deposit and hope for the player to either lose it or fail to comply with their requirements.

they do have their own TOS which i am pretty certain that it doesn't state the exact point of when KYC card could be played, but they use this forum to advertise their website, and we as a community are the once that keeping the forum alive for them, why not have our own terms, if the community thinks this is unethical, and since we can't enforce any rules on Cloubet outside of the forum ,then  cloudbet should at least be  tagged for such unethical behavior.

until they make it crystal clear for the players that while depositing they need to go through  KYC not only after they win - i personally think this is more or less a legit-scam-behavior.

I think I will go down with neutral for the moment to highlight the issues and wait for what Cloudbet has say to this solution. They also should be given a chance to speak and prove something that we might be missing here. Also I would wait for others as well to speak into this matter.

Come to think about my earlier post here, here is just a little modification to my suggestion included in that post. I think large deposits should be accepted but prior to that they should go through KYC process as already said but for small deposits I think some casinos might think kinda waste of energy or feel lazy about it so they can come up with limitations for unverified accounts (like deposit/withdraw limitation, bet limitation).

Best example- I guess Bittrex/Poloniex implemented this kind of thing.

[Findingnemo]

I think owner can decide what rules they can implement on their site so its our duty to read the terms and conditions before signing in to any sites but most people skip this part just like always skip button.But I didn't know the answer why a renowned site made action like these,I think their sites reputation is more worthy than $330BTC

[Slow death]

which now has been resolved after an extended period of time.

This is the problem of the lack of regulations for this market. And as these casinos, exchange and wallets, do not have physical office and with  phones number for the case of have a big problem be possible to solve these problems more directly, the situation only worsens.

It is very complicated solve a problem only here in the forum... And we do not forget it:

- the owners of the casinos, exchange and wallets are anonymous, but these same anonymous owners require that their clients deliver true documents? How absurd is that?

[coinlocket$]

If I'm not wrong it works in the same on the normal fiat websites.

You can open one account and deposit 10k and lose everything in 1 minute but if you win you cant withdraw your winnings.

just because other websites do it, it does not mean it's right. the wrong doings of others never justifies one own's mistakes. am i wrong?

I'm not saying this is right or wrong but if we have huge websites regulated from different governments like PokerStars doing the same thing why do you expect a different thing from them?

[The Cryptovator]

I think KYC verification should be done at the time of deposit and not at the time of withdrawal.

Second that.
Few case I have seen same issue regarding KYC lately. It's look like a policy to freeze customer fund. Why need fucking KYC especially during withdrawal since they are accepting crypto-currency. Every betting website should disable deposit option before KYC verification if really they need it. I am not fan of KYC especially any crypto related site. They can set withdrawal limit for unverified account like Binance, Bittrex. It's not really wise decision ask KYC only during withdrawal.     

[mikeywith]

I'm not saying this is right or wrong but if we have huge websites regulated from different governments like PokerStars doing the same thing why do you expect a different thing from them?

I expect something different from them because this forum is one of their main advertising platforms, therefore they should follow what the community thinks appropriate, and i can only assume that the majority of us here disagree with how couldbet or any other gambling website go about this KYC b.s when they have to send money and not bother about it when receiving it.

i am not calling for a lawsuit against them, but rather a community stand-up against these unethical behaviors that come from cloudbet or any other gambling website that uses the forum to advertise their business which lack basic ethics.

just as the majority of the community came to appose account sales when it's not even against the forum rules, why not tag those who follow inappropriate business model?

[Thule]

- the owners of the casinos, exchange and wallets are anonymous, but these same anonymous owners require that their clients deliver true documents? How absurd is that?

Thats the exect reason i refused so often to provide KYC to exchanges who have no real office.
They ask to send your documents than my first question would be where is your HQ to be able to make claims against your company should my documents be in any form misused in the future and asking about their storing facility/security which is required by law to store customers sensitiv data.
I bet 10 BTC not a single of these online casinos has these kind of facility to be law conform about storing users sensible data.

But the main irony is as you mentioned already you are forced to provide full documentation to someone who hides himself.

[Lauda]

-snip-
TL;DR ; when you deposit a huge amount of bitcoin, no questions asked, no KYC b.s, but when you win, clouldbet plays the KYC card, do you guys think this is ethical ? should cloudbet get away with such actions?

You can't do anything about this unless you want to tag most casinos. This is a problem outside of the scope of the forum.

[Thule]

-snip-
TL;DR ; when you deposit a huge amount of bitcoin, no questions asked, no KYC b.s, but when you win, clouldbet plays the KYC card, do you guys think this is ethical ? should cloudbet get away with such actions?

You can't do anything about this unless you want to tag most casinos. This is a problem outside of the scope of the forum.

But this forum still advertise these casinos......

[mikeywith]

You can't do anything about this unless you want to tag most casinos. This is a problem outside of the scope of the forum.

but we do tag account sellers , and i assume they are more in number than the casinos ? if we all agree that the casinos are performing unethical behavior that could even be considered scam or at least extortion - why shouldn't they be tagged?

technically, Cloudbet extorted documents from Swofty and refused to pay him the initial deposit until the extortion was finished.

it's really funny that Cloudbet now have a positive trust score after all that.

[DireWolfM14]

I think KYC verification should be done at the time of deposit and not at the time of withdrawal. That eliminates the whole situation of confiscating the balance. It only make them seems like they are plotting something from others point of view if they are asking for KYC at the time of withdrawal.

I think it's telling that they will ask for KYC once a withdrawal is requested, but not when a deposit is made.  If they were to ask for KYC upfront, I imagine they would have far fewer clients.  

Still I don't consider this as untrustworthy but doubt their ethics. They have right to check if someone is breaking TOS or not but like I said above KYC process should be initiated prior to accepting deposit from a gambler.

This made me chuckle, if their ethics weren't dubious they likely wouldn't be in the casino business to begin with.  I'm sure most casinos are not likely to care if their clients adhere to the TOS if those clients keep losing money.  Once a client wants to claim a prize, that's when the TOS become tantamount to gospel.

I'm not trying to disparage casinos or their owners.  As long as they are operated as legitimate businesses and don't attempt to scam their clients, I believe they should have every right to exist.  I think it's great that the forum allows them as well.

[Lauda]

You can't do anything about this unless you want to tag most casinos. This is a problem outside of the scope of the forum.

but we do tag account sellers , and i assume they are more in number than the casinos ? if we all agree that the casinos are performing unethical behavior that could even be considered scam or at least extortion - why shouldn't they be tagged?

technically, Cloudbet extorted documents from Swofty and refused to pay him the initial deposit until the extortion was finished.

So every time an exchange asks me for documents to withdraw, I'm being extorted? Keep in mind that you don't get asked anything for deposits/withdrawals under certain amounts (or unless something triggers alarms). I have issues following this logic.

[OgNasty]

You can't do anything about this unless you want to tag most casinos. This is a problem outside of the scope of the forum.

but we do tag account sellers , and i assume they are more in number than the casinos ? if we all agree that the casinos are performing unethical behavior that could even be considered scam or at least extortion - why shouldn't they be tagged?

technically, Cloudbet extorted documents from Swofty and refused to pay him the initial deposit until the extortion was finished.

So every time an exchange asks me for documents to withdraw, I'm being extorted? Keep in mind that you don't get asked anything for deposits/withdrawals under certain amounts (or unless something triggers alarms). I have issues following this logic.

There is definitely an ethical dilemma with accepting money no questions asked and only giving it back after seeing personal documents.  Imagine an escrow agent doing something like that.