Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief

[Wildsyy]

Royse777, I know you're a good person but damn... you gotta do the right thing before red tags start piling on. Keep in mind that most people are very reluctant to neg-trust someone of your reputation, so if you start getting those tags you messed up hugely.

Hi Moon.

I know I am a nobody on this forum, but, Roysee I must say so far has been a man of his word. He said he will rectify the issue out of his own pocket. He’s almost maintained conversation with me for the last ~12 hours.

I’ll be sure to update you all as and when he closes my ticket from the Google doc.

I appreciate there is more people than just me, but, one step at a time..

[1715076535]

1715076535

[1715076535]

1715076535

[1715076535]

1715076535

[examplens]

based on all that has been said in connection with this case, I withdraw the red tag by my side and change it to neutral.
I don't think Royse intended to deceive anyone, in the end, he is most damaged here. With financial losses, he has seriously damaged his reputation here. I hope for some positive developments in solving the whole thing.

I see no reason why the original owner of Bitlucy to be protected. all available information should be provided, he is a scammer and if this time passes without any consequences, it is certain that he will continue his business.

I think it is now clear for everyone that Royse is not a scammer here and red flags against him should be removed or at least turned to neutral, but Royse is guilty for being naive and for not asking help and second opinion from other forum members earlier.

this is how I see the whole thing. most often honest people are naive because they do not expect to be deceived, I would say the same is the case with Royse. However, if he wants to work as a manager, he must recognize such things and that’s what sets good managers apart from the average.

[BetHunter]

based on all that has been said in connection with this case, I withdraw the red tag by my side and change it to neutral.
I don't think Royse intended to deceive anyone, in the end, he is most damaged here. With financial losses, he has seriously damaged his reputation here. I hope for some positive developments in solving the whole thing.

I see no reason why the original owner of Bitlucy to be protected. all available information should be provided, he is a scammer and if this time passes without any consequences, it is certain that he will continue his business.

I think it is now clear for everyone that Royse is not a scammer here and red flags against him should be removed or at least turned to neutral, but Royse is guilty for being naive and for not asking help and second opinion from other forum members earlier.

this is how I see the whole thing. most often honest people are naive because they do not expect to be deceived, I would say the same is the case with Royse. However, if he wants to work as a manager, he must recognize such things and that’s what sets good managers apart from the average.

Mate, what are you talking about?


He was in on the scam all along with LUCY and now they had some disagreement over the scammed funds. He was telling me in LIVE CHAT that they lost all customer data and he continued to work for them and refuse payouts to people of their own deposits!



https://ibb.co/ydgt07N



ASK HIM to explain this chat.

[decodx]

Honestly, Royse777, as I read your testimony above, I find one thing difficult to understand.

As per your timeline, you started communicating with Lucy character on September 4th last year and continued until December 11th last year. Than, after a few months break, you reconnected on April 17th, when he offered you a business partnership.

But, how could you claim something like this just a few days later:

Those who are confused about my involvement with BitLucy. I have partnered with them and holding a small percent of share of the company. We are working on legal side to come to a contract and my role with them is Co-Partner & Marketing Director. I and the CEO are good friend and it's been over a year we are hanging out regularly. So we have been able to build up a level of trust to each others. We both wanted a business. Since we both understand the gambling industry we decided to bring the best in this space.

There is clearly some discrepancy here. Either you're so naive that you've trusted someone you've never met before, after just a few online chats, or you actually know the owner of BitLucy and that you're good friends, as you said, and now you're trying to hide the facts in the hopes of saving your reputation. I'm not sure which option to believe based on the current information available. Honestly, I believe you are too smart to be as naive as you are portraying here. Maybe you can help me see the third option, if there is one?

[suchmoon]

actually know the owner of BitLucy and that you're good friends

Knowing someone and being (or thinking that you are) good friends after some chats online is a thing these days. Feels weird to me too, but that's the world we live in. I don't think there is a contradiction in these claims, particularly considering that the "CEO" is likely a charismatic con artist, as good con artists tend to be.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

What are the options for Royse777 now? He has a business in this forum. Looks like he won't get any more business now.

After reading the post, it seems that if anyone is at a loss here, it is none other than him. Everyone is saying that he is not a scammer and again they are giving him red feedback and flags, blaming him for everything. who knows what real situation he had?

I feel now that I have no idea how Trust Feedback, Flag and Trust include / exclude works lol. Everyone made me confused now, fucker 😘!  A 9103 word summary of a more or less 10 month long story is being judged by everyone just like that? It was good. 😉

How many of you have actually done financial transactions with Royse and what were your experiences? I would really like to know.

[dkbit98]

Knowing someone and being (or thinking that you are) good friends after some chats online is a thing these days. Feels weird to me too, but that's the world we live in. I don't think there is a contradiction in these claims, particularly considering that the "CEO" is likely a charismatic con artist, as good con artists tend to be.

He was charismatic con artist for sure, and I think we saw many like him in altcoin, ICO and gambling space during last few years.
If you didn't watch it yet, check out this Tinder Swindler documentary about a guy called Simon Leviev aka Shimun Hayut, who stole millions from people, served only few months in Israel prison and he still lives a luxury lifestyle.
Speaking in strict terms he didn't stole anything, but his victims sent him all their money because they became ''good friends'' quickly... sounds familiar isn't it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R3LWM_Vt70

Oh and btw he claims (lies) that he purchased Bitcoin back in 2011   well maybe he did, but not with his own money for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dUBPAsrzk0

[DireWolfM14]

I don't think there is a contradiction in these claims, particularly considering that the "CEO" is likely a charismatic con artist, as good con artists tend to be.

My first impression was that Royse777 was as much a victim as those waiting for their withdrawal, and I believe he's telling us the truth.  I also don't see any contradictions in Royse777's claims, and I must admit there are a few people here on the forum whom I've never met in meatspace, but I consider "friends."  Hell, I have workmates whom I've only met in Teams meetings and also am very friendly with, and this is my analogue job.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that either, as it is more and more the world we live in.

Keep in mind that most people are very reluctant to neg-trust someone of your reputation, so if you start getting those tags you messed up hugely.

I resemble that remark!  I have never had any issues with Royse777 and don't believe he's a scammer in the slightest bit, but I think I explained myself well enough for the rational behind my (now removed) red-tag.  Since I had been keeping tabs on this fiasco I've been waiting for an opportunity to revise or remove my tag, I never thought it needed to be permanent.  I finally revised my tag yesterday evening before I even saw this thread or read Royse777's post, only because I no longer saw BitLucy as threatening to accumulate more victims.

As for the remaining red-tags, I hope those who've left them will reconsider.

[JeromeTash]

I have taken some time to read through, and It's just so amazing how things turn from good to bad in a matter of hours or days. I was holding back into getting involved in the whole situation because I felt the whole story was not complete, and I am glad you took time to describe to us what happened.

IMO, I feel you had some genuine intentions and ended up getting duped like all other players awaiting their payments. I mean, if you really didn't care since your reputation had already gotten messed up, you would have just walked away minus paying the signature campaign participants and trying to compensate some scam victims out of your very own pocket.

I hope the saga concludes in the best possible way, and also perhaps a lesson to you that there are a lot of wolves in sheep skin online.

[Igebotz]

As for the remaining red-tags, I hope those who've left them will reconsider.

I'm just seeing this topic, and after reading the Op and the comments throughout the thread, I believe we can all agree that he was driven by what the CEO offered him, that he failed to conduct a thorough background check, and that the Bitlucy team was so astute that they took advantage of his reputation to get what they wanted.

Money isn't everything, Royse777; always conduct a background check before accepting any contract; your reputation is enormous, and one mistake from you would attract an inordinate number of victims.

I hope this has taught you some valuable lessons! I'm sick of bitlucy nonsense. Off

I've reconsidered my tag

[suchmoon]

What are the options for Royse777 now? He has a business in this forum. Looks like he won't get any more business now.

If I needed a campaign manager I think I would still consider Royse777. Nothing in this debacle indicates that he wouldn't be capable of doing this kind of job.

If I wanted to join a campaign managed by Royse777 I'd probably want to make sure that the funds are in escrow.

[Solosanz]

Well thing goes bad after his problem with Bitlucy, his campaign: Unijoin have ended the campaign because of his recent reputation.

UniJoin team is not comfortable with the recent reputation I have. They wanted to terminate the collaboration.

Since he's still owe clients money and he isn't sure he can paid it all with his own pocket, I will reconsider to change negative feedback to neutral one because I didn't mean to hurt his reputation. I think the flag is already enough to warn other users with this problem and it's make sense to not leave negative feedback after I read this thread.

Negative (shown as -1)

• If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
• If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

It's used for a scammer or high likely to scam, not the genuine user who want to solve his problem because he has been dragged with a scammer.

[Joel_Jantsen]

What are the options for Royse777 now? He has a business in this forum. Looks like he won't get any more business now.

If I needed a campaign manager I think I would still consider Royse777. Nothing in this debacle indicates that he wouldn't be capable of doing this kind of job.

If I wanted to join a campaign managed by Royse777 I'd probably want to make sure that the funds are in escrow.

This.

I applied for my first signature campaign after ages and saw people withdrawing their applications in the thread because of the said accusations against the campaign manager and I was skeptical too. The funds were in escrow, and the project being promoted didn't come across as a scam to me. It would have made sense to tag the participants or the campaign manager should they still keep promoting the project knowing it turned out to be dodgy which isn't the case. This thread further clarifies it.

The rule of the thumb is: Stop participating in his campaigns if you don't trust him or do your own due diligence before putting a signature on your profile.

[LoyceV]

He was charismatic con artist for sure, and I think we saw many like him in altcoin, ICO and gambling space during last few years.

And the campaign managers of most of the altcoin and ICO scams got away without a scratch! What's the difference here? Royse777 was offered partial ownership, but it doesn't look like he had anything to say in the "company". He couldn't handle withdrawals and didn't have access to funds. Were should we draw the line?

[dkbit98]

And the campaign managers of most of the altcoin and ICO scams got away without a scratch! What's the difference here? Royse777 was offered partial ownership, but it doesn't look like he had anything to say in the "company". He couldn't handle withdrawals and didn't have access to funds. Were should we draw the line?

You really don't know if something is a scam until it happens, but you can certainly have red flags and suspicions.
I would like to know if Royse signed any written contracts with this scamming owner, because trusting someone's word is just not enough when they give you a title of partner and co-owner.
If it was only a verbal deal, than I would ask for written confirmation and proof of funds, because I am by nature a little suspicious, but I don't know what other people would do.
As for campaign managers, I don't think Royse was the first or the last one to manage a scam project, but I hope he learns something from this.

[Poker Player]

The question that remains for me now is the support for the flag.

Most of us have given Royse777 the benefit of the doubt and changed the feedback from negative to neutral.

Also, many of us are still supporting the flag, and I think that is correct as there has been some sloppiness in Royse777's performance and it should be reflected in some way for a while as yahoo62278 said.

The only thing that seems a bit paradoxical, delete the negative feedback and continue supporting the flag.

[LoyceV]

The question that remains for me now is the support for the flag.

I don't think this is correct:

Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Royse777 is at a high risk of losing money

The people who lost money, lost it when dealing with a casino website, not by dealing with Royse777 directly. It looks like Royse777 lost money too, while he did pay the people who joined his campaign.

[Solosanz]

I don't think this is correct:

Does this mean neutral tag alone is enough for a warning?

[eddie13]

I need to look into this more before I make a complete decision, but I’m not seeing Royce as a scammer here..

When you get an opportunity to work for a crypto business like this you take it.. It doesn’t always work out, most startups don’t work out, you never know if they are going to be honest until they prove themselves one way or another..

Royce, don’t go broke paying people back who were scammed by them..
Maybe the signature payments if you really feel bad about it, but not the deposits..
They knew they were taking risks themselves..

[Igebotz]

He was charismatic con artist for sure, and I think we saw many like him in altcoin, ICO and gambling space during last few years.

And the campaign managers of most of the altcoin and ICO scams got away without a scratch! What's the difference here? Royse777 was offered partial ownership, but it doesn't look like he had anything to say in the "company". He couldn't handle withdrawals and didn't have access to funds. Were should we draw the line?

He lied about going on a dinner date with the CEO in person; I believe he was aware that the company was broke, but who cares? He was only concerned with his own selfish interests; he was paid and he failed to conduct basic research; I regard him as a person who is easily manipulated. That's where the line should be drawn.

The question that remains for me now is the support for the flag.

I don't think this is correct:

Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Royse777 is at a high risk of losing money

The people who lost money, lost it when dealing with a casino website, not by dealing with Royse777 directly. It looks like Royse777 lost money too, while he did pay the people who joined his campaign.

And yes, they lost it all thanks to Royse777, who assured them that the site was safe and that the owner had been his boyhood friend for a long time! We can't tell if he paid out of his own pocket because there have been so many lies that we don't know what to believe any longer. The flag is valid.

I reconsidered my tag not because I was wrong but because I've never seen him in such a chaotic situation before; he can be trusted, but he lacks management skills; I will not hire or recommend him.

Well thing goes bad after his problem with Bitlucy, his campaign: Unijoin have ended the campaign because of his recent reputation.

Well... Not bad