Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief

[LoyceV]

Royce, don’t go broke paying people back who were scammed by them..

It reminds me of the case where someone was scammed $50,000 while using the most trusted escrow on the forum. Nobody tagged the escrow, and he didn't refund the victim.

He lied about going on a dinner date with the CEO in person

Even if that's true, it doubt it influenced someone's decision to deposit Bitcoin to the scam site.

He was only concerned with his own selfish interests; he was paid

But he also paid campaigns out of his own pocket, and it seems like he's going the extra mile to pay back victims.

he failed to conduct basic research; I regard him as a person who is easily manipulated.

This I can agree with. Sometimes being paranoid pays off. That's why I've rejected most of the campaign offers I've received. I'm pretty sure some of them would have turned into a scam.

[dkbit98]

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

I think that right thing for you would be to consider changing your opinion about red flag you created against Royse.
Up until now I didn't want to give my opinion, but now I opposed this allegations against him.
I really don't understand some people who are acting like judge and executioner in this case, and continue to blame Royse for everything...
in real life they would probably cause someone to commit suicide or do something crazy  
Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366632

This I can agree with. Sometimes being paranoid pays off. That's why I've rejected most of the campaign offers I've received.

I can't wait to hear some of those stories... maybe you should write a book titled What would happen if I was a manager in bitcotintalk forum.  

[mv1986]

He lied about going on a dinner date with the CEO in person

Even if that's true, it doubt it influenced someone's decision to deposit Bitcoin to the scam site.

Well, there are two points I don't get here @LoyceV:

1) Why then would someone mention the dinner with the CEO in person if not for the sake of engendering trust in a certain person/audience?

Was it an important meeting? Like "Last night at dinner with the CEO we talked about optimizing the payout ratio for Bitlucy and improvements for UI/UX".

Or was it like "Guys, I was at dinner with the CEO in person and, you know, I am a well trusted member of this community with over 2.3k merits and I wouldn't promote a scammer"?

And even the first sentence could be incredibly smart and subtile in terms of placing an advertisement and engendering trust.

2) Really? We all know how subtile advertising works. Some of us are more aware of the mechanics and don't let ourselves convince by it, while others are not and base their decisions on, let's say, secondary trust relationships. That's how the whole influence game works. People buy products from companies that are advertised by people they follow and trust.

Also, let's say I would like to gamble a bit but I don't know which casino to choose. How would I go about it? Well, I'd probably prefer a casino promoted by someone I trust over a casino I have no idea about. Especially, when the person I trust is even actively involved with the casino service itself.

Ultimately, someone with Royse' experience and reputation should have been much more careful, especially when he decided to get himself involved in a conflict of interest. He knew that his most valuable asset actually is the constantly growing community following and trusting him, working with him. But then there came a point where he thought about leveraging it against a deal with a SINGLE other person to his own benefit.

This is by no means to say that Royse ever intended to scam the community, I emphasize this with several !!! But there are many situations in life where, for instance, a manager isn't directly to blame for certain events and yet has to go. Since I belong to the category of people who dislike outrageous hate against people who unintentionally *** fuck up once, I would also agree there must be a way back for him. It is not up to me to decide whether a red tag should remain, but I can and want to tell that I am very happy this whole community has JollyGood on board. He is upright, strict, and does what he does with integrity and consistency. Hence, I do support his decision to leave the red tag.

Edit: Ah, Royse even lied about the dinner. Missed that part.  Well, I leave there what I said, but lying about it is nasty. Even if some of us agree that it might not have influenced everyone with their decisions, but why the heck lie about it? Clearly malicious intent then... Even if a lie were not to lead to the desired outcome, the intention associated with it says a lot. A bad plan that fails doesn't make it a negligible action by that person because of that failure.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

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.

Clearly his employer does not think the same.

UniJoin team is not comfortable with the recent reputation I have. They wanted to terminate the collaboration. The remaining balance has been sent to their given address : bc1qs9knfc8tvct59z80tv7yhszevf5lneuvpm9s28

It's clear that they do not know his history as much as we do. So they panicked. Add some overzealous people and imagine the affects in their mind.

He lied about going on a dinner date with the CEO in person

I think we need to be a little more careful before we say anything carelessly. It’s a lot easier to say many things without being a part of the event that did not go well. You hear a story, take it, think it, add your thoughts in it and then you tell it in a better form depending on how you processed it.

I am assuming you haven't read everything very well. Many people don’t, they do not give time to understand a situation but leave a post with the words they are comfortable with. As far as I can see their communication channel is telegram, conducted many meetings and had voice communication. It is also very clear that they do not live in the same place. Where did you get that dinner date in person? I want to know what I am reading is wrong.

He was only concerned with his own selfish interests; he was paid

But he also paid campaigns out of his own pocket, and it seems like he's going the extra mile to pay back victims.

"I was not stressing for my money but stressing for staff and customers withdrawals. This was important for me more than anything."
Not just it, many times he was talking about staff and withdrawal. If he was selfish he would push his first before anything else.

I really don't understand some people who are acting like judge and executioner in this case, and continue to blame Royse for everything...

That's my point too. With all due respect, a few people are taking it as a chance to proof something from it so it benefits their own interest. After all one is down means several have the opportunity to fill up the empty space (hate it or love it).

[Rikafip]

Up until now I didn't want to give my opinion, but now I opposed this allegations against him.
I really don't understand some people who are acting like judge and executioner in this case, and continue to blame Royse for everything...
in real life they would probably cause someone to commit suicide or do something crazy  
Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366632

Gotta agree with this. He for sure should have handled this situation much better, but was his intention to cheat anyone out of their money, or help someone doing that? I don't think so. So yeah, opposing the flag as well.

[LoyceV]

Yesterday, Royse777 moved from DT1 to DT2. I assume he (she?) requested to be blacklisted.

[Igebotz]

He lied about going on a dinner date with the CEO in person

Even if that's true, it doubt it influenced someone's decision to deposit Bitcoin to the scam site.

With your reputation and influence, if you introduce me to a site to invest in and also assure me that the owner of the site is your boyhood friend, I will invest 100% without hesitation, because I doubt you would be stupid to introduce a scam site on the forum and if I end up being scammed, it will be on you LoyceV because of your huge influence.

He was only concerned with his own selfish interests; he was paid

But he also paid campaigns out of his own pocket, and it seems like he's going the extra mile to pay back victims.

If I am paid $20k for my work and the total amount scammed is less than $15k, I can easily pay from my own pocket to restore my reputation. I'm just giving an example. I can't confirm where he paid off, so please get me some information.

He lied about going on a dinner date with the CEO in person

I think we need to be a little more careful before we say anything carelessly. It’s a lot easier to say many things without being a part of the event that did not go well. You hear a story, take it, think it, add your thoughts in it and then you tell it in a better form depending on how you processed it.

I am assuming you haven't read everything very well. Many people don’t, they do not give time to understand a situation but leave a post with the words they are comfortable with. As far as I can see their communication channel is telegram, conducted many meetings and had voice communication. It is also very clear that they do not live in the same place. Where did you get that dinner date in person? I want to know what I am reading is wrong.

You could have asked nicely, you are too late to the show, I've been on this table from day 1. 

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.

[LoyceV]

With your reputation and influence, if you introduce me to a site to invest in and also assure me that the owner of the site is your boyhood friend, I will invest 100% without hesitation, because I doubt you would be stupid to introduce a scam site on the forum and if I end up being scammed, it will be on you LoyceV because of your huge influence.

That's stupid not the smartest thing to do! Did you also invest in [ANN][ICO]HoweyCoins: the only BitcoinTalk-endorsed ICO - GUARANTEED PROFIT? It's literally the only ICO endorsed by theymos!

Seriously though: this is exactly why people lose their money on Twitter when someone's account gets hacked again. They just hand it over the the scammers.
This is the internet. I wouldn't trust investment advice from professionals. After all, why would they need my money if they're that good? So don't trust random people on the internet.

I can easily pay from my own pocket

I don't think the campaign manager's profit margins are anywhere near those numbers.

I and the CEO are good friend and it's been over a year we are hanging out regularly.

Hanging out together in a chat, I assume?

[Harkorede]

Up until now I didn't want to give my opinion, but now I opposed this allegations against him.
I really don't understand some people who are acting like judge and executioner in this case, and continue to blame Royse for everything...
in real life they would probably cause someone to commit suicide or do something crazy  
Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366632

Gotta agree with this. He for sure should have handled this situation much better, but was his intention to cheat anyone out of their money, or help someone doing that? I don't think so. So yeah, opposing the flag as well.

He didn't cheat anyone imo, he's pretty much a victim himself, I'd agree he was naive and probably waited too long to pull the plug, however, I still believe if he had just come out as the campaign manager without saying that he was close to the owner/co-owner most of the victim would have joined any ways, none of the victim I've seen so far are close to Royse in the forum, so I'm not so sure how his statement were the main deciding factor for their action to bet on the site. Royse is not just as guilty as any manger that have promoted an ICO that turned out to be a scam, but also very every bounty participant that joined and influenced via the social media accounts, articles and/or video reviews.

The flag says:

that anyone dealing with Royse777 is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so.

By my interpretation of the above statement, that's not true. I'll be opposing the flag.

he can be trusted, but he lacks management skills; I will not hire or recommend him.

Come on man! He didn't come short or failed at his role as a campaign manager or marketer, if there were many users as victims shouldn't that means he did a good job or his influential, ironically ? ..

What happened is not good for his reputation and, he should have known better given how long he's been in this sphere and how many scam casinos/bookies have come and gone on this forum so I wouldn't blame UniJoin for calling it quits with him, yes because most people will be cautious of using any service he's representing or introducing to the forum henceforth.

[mv1986]

I opposed on the flag by reading royse side. His intention is not to scam people by accepting the job base on my personal opinion. He just want a job and we should admit it that working as co-owner to a working casino is really a dream job for user in crypto that involved in gambling. A neutral tag is sufficient to note that he was involved on a shady business but a flag should be given towards the Bitlucy account itself. I’m not a DT and my words and vote don’t have a weight here. But I understand how messed up situation Royse enter by being involved to this shitty casino.

I am not that much into English law, but there are certain categories:

1) Intent
2) Gross negligence
3) Light negligence
4) The classic "Ignorance is no excuse" (which is kind of a variation of 2) / 3) )

Given how this all enfolded from a time perspective, when warnings were received and responded to, I'd say that one of these categories probably applies. The only one that involves clear intent is obviously 1). 2) - 4) do not involve intent, but guess what happens at court: you get punished regardless. The only difference being is the severeness of the judgment against one. What also counts I'd say is the actual amount lost, obviously. So saying "There was no intention so who cares" just doesn't sound right to me. However, it also doesn't seem to be right that Royse can't make up for the mistake. Surely, there must be a fair way back to the pre-incident status quo, that's no question to me.

I really think it is important to know how much was actually lost and whether is realistic for that money to be paid back, even if over time. Or at least if the parties make deals that both sides can agree on. Now another problem is that, reading from some comment here, even balances went missing and that means winnings are essentially lost while deposits must be proven. It is not an easy process I guess, but open dialogue with the victims and a public explanation by all parties involved that a solution is under way, I guess red tags could carefully be reconsidered. As long as there are victims who prove they are still left behind, in my opinion red tags should prevail. I am even sorry to say that, and I am open to criticism regarding my statements here. But I think it is only fair also to those people who are new to the forum and do not know him as well. That is what the trust system is for: give them a fair chance to make a reasonable judgment whom to trust and whom not.


Edit: Sorry, but this just came to my mind in a certain way and I would like to add it.

We all too much argue from the perspective of forum reputation. If we make forum reputation the base principle of how the forum is governed and the trust system is applied, we run into a lot of problems. I'll elaborate on that in a second. If we have a sort of "rule by law" approach (and I know our pseudonyms here are neither lawyers nor judges), it makes much more sense.
If we go with the first approach, merits and trust could also turn out to be dangerous. Why would someone not abuse merit and trust if the forum demonstrated that you can get away with it exactly because of your awesome scores? Also, if someone is new to the forum and runs into a "Royse-like" situation, but with a less trusted or less-known manager, and the person opens a scam accusation thread. What would happen? Usually, most here would say "how stupid can you be, trusting a bounty manager with zero trust and low merit score?". And then the person responds "well I found this thread with this super high trust manager and I could have lost my money the same way I did with the low score manager, no?".

I always understood the merit and trust score as an asset to the person owning it. The person can decide whether to put that merit and trust score on the line whenever he or she wants. Royse chooses to put it on the line, Loyce decides against it. Both have their reasons. But when that score is put on the line because one engages in an activity for whatever incentive there is, shouldn't that person also be held liable for any damage others incur?

That is why I think the example one brought up here with the $50,000 that went lost is a good one. A red tag should have been given. Or let's say the lending market: someone with super high scores receives collateral and the money that someone borrowed is paid back in time according to the rules. Now out of a sudden the lender says the private key to the collateral is lost. Well, what are the options? Pay from own money or get red tagged, no matter what the trust score is. Perhaps it was true. The lender writes a three pages long outstandingly convincing explanation. Totally crazy story and it must be true. But the victim doesn't get paid. What would we say? In my opinion there can't be any doubt that it is a red tag unless there is a reimbursement at some point in time to which both parties agreed upon.


I also want to say this thread is hopefully not perceived as a hostile argument between some or all of us. I like reading your opinions and I think it is for the better of this forum if everyone pitches in. Might help for the forum to have a solution if these things happen again in the future.

Cheers for now!

[Igebotz]

With your reputation and influence, if you introduce me to a site to invest in and also assure me that the owner of the site is your boyhood friend, I will invest 100% without hesitation, because I doubt you would be stupid to introduce a scam site on the forum and if I end up being scammed, it will be on you LoyceV because of your huge influence.

That's stupid not the smartest thing to do! Did you also invest in [ANN][ICO]HoweyCoins: the only BitcoinTalk-endorsed ICO - GUARANTEED PROFIT? It's literally the only ICO endorsed by theymos!

It's human nature; we've been like this since the beginning. There were men who were willing to die for Donald Trump when he lost the election; people do crazy things. Every year, members of Christ Embassy Church donate their January salary to their pastor (Pst. Chris). Humans were designed to make stupid decisions.

Anyway, how did the infamous thymos ICO go? Everyone became a billionaire, I suppose.

I can easily pay from my own pocket

I don't think the campaign manager's profit margins are anywhere near those numbers..

Being a marketing director and a co-partner?  Should pay more.

I and the CEO are good friend and it's been over a year we are hanging out regularly.

Hanging out together in a chat, I assume?

Sounds more like a pizza date to me 

he can be trusted, but he lacks management skills; I will not hire or recommend him.

Come on man! He didn't come short or failed at his role as a campaign manager or marketer, if there were many users as victims shouldn't that means he did a good job or his influential, ironically ? ..

The first rule of marketing is to know what you're selling! Something that everyone should understand.

Royse777 should head up and prove everyone of us wrong, he can.

[Poker Player]

Yesterday, Royse777 moved from DT1 to DT2. I assume he (she?) requested to be blacklisted.

How do you do that? I've had a look at the link and it seems to me that she has distrusted usually trusted people and the other way around. So people will exclude her. Is that it? Is this something usual? It seems kind of weird to me.

[LoyceV]

Yesterday, Royse777 moved from DT1 to DT2. I assume he (she?) requested to be blacklisted.

How do you do that?

Ask theymos to blacklist you.

I've had a look at the link and it seems to me that she has distrusted usually trusted people and the other way around. So people will exclude her. Is that it? Is this something usual? It seems kind of weird to me.

That's mainly because of the way BPIP works:

6/23/2022 8:45:05 PM    DT2 selection    Royse777 (DT2) no longer trusts mikeywith (DT2)
6/23/2022 8:18:06 PM    DT1 membership    Dabs (DT2) is no longer selected into DT1
6/23/2022 8:18:06 PM    DT1 membership    Royse777 (DT2) is no longer selected into DT1

Royse777 was removed from DT1. After that, BPIP doesn't see who he (she) trusts anymore, and shows them as if Royse777 removed all of them.

[yahoo62278]

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.

I give Royse777 the benefit of doubt as far as I do not feel they set out to scam anyone. That fact alone changed my negative to a neutral. If I feel there was intent, my negative stays forever.

I still support the flag because I feel money is owed.

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.

This statement from Royse777 themselves makes me feel that Royse777 is liable for any money owed, the same as the CEO. If Royse777 was strictly acting as a campaign manager and stopped promoting when he thought the company was a scam, then all is forgiven and life goes on. That's clearly not the case, Royse took ownership of any and all debts when agreeing to be a partner no matter how big or small a partner.

If all debts are settled or agreements are reached I have no problem removing support for the flag. I really cannot disagree with any who still have a negative on Royse at this point, but since I feel there wasn't intent to scam on the part of Royse777 I will keep my tag neutral.

As far as Royse still managing, I'm not against the user earning money because once again, they didn't have the intent to scam. It's up to potential clients as to whether or not they wanna hire Royse777. I do feel that maybe escrow might be an option for payments while money is owed, but that's not my call.

[decodx]

Generally, I agree with everything yahoo62278 said, and that is why I still support the flag. I mainly resent Royse777 for failing to alert the community when he had a clear knowledge that BitLucy intended to scam. As a matter of fact, he hasn't done so to this day, despite the information presented in this topic.

There might be some who haven't seen this, so I'll repost it again.

you must understand that I will not cooperate with you, because I do not cooperate with scammers, I have already told this to your master.

the history of the scam is 11 days long.  https://snippet.host/gtsxg

I know it's a long read, but I think it's worth reading. The juiciest part of it, of course, comes at the end. I'd love to see your comments on this because I think this vividly describes how a sweet-talking scammer "handles" his victims. The fact that Royse777 commented on the post, and didn't dispute the information presented, raises the question of why he continued to promote the casino for over a month after that.

[hacker1001101001]

I still support the flag because I feel money is owed.

Owed by whom Royse777 or "Lucy" the CEO ?

DT have become a game without ethics.

Opposing the flag, by looking at some biased DTs here who can't even see through a simple situation of an innocent person being trapped.

I really don't understand some people who are acting like judge and executioner in this case, and continue to blame Royse for everything...

That's my point too. With all due respect, a few people are taking it as a chance to proof something from it so it benefits their own interest. After all one is down means several have the opportunity to fill up the empty space (hate it or love it).

Fully agree with you, on users acting as crabs here.

[yahoo62278]

I still support the flag because I feel money is owed.

Owed by whom Royse777 or "Lucy" the CEO ?

DT have become a game without ethics.

Opposing the flag, by looking at some biased DTs here who can't even see through a simple situation of an innocent person being trapped.

I really don't understand some people who are acting like judge and executioner in this case, and continue to blame Royse for everything...

That's my point too. With all due respect, a few people are taking it as a chance to proof something from it so it benefits their own interest. After all one is down means several have the opportunity to fill up the empty space (hate it or love it).

Fully agree with you, on users acting as crabs here.

Go ahead and oppose, that's your choice. I don't see where I am biased? Royse took on a partnership role, not campaign manager. When he does that, he/she is now responsible for the casinos actions IMO. Now, Royse has the choice to make the gamblers who have a complaint whole, or run off. Then, take the CEO to court to be repaid of seek criminal charges.

It's no different then robbing a bank. If we are walking down the road and go into a bank, and I rob it and we go home, if you don't turn me in you are considered an accomplice and guilty according to the law.

As an added note, I have not been managing any campaigns lately and I am not gaining anything here with my opinion. I am not making this a personal attack for my gain.

[eddie13]

1. Royse was told that he would get 10% of the revenue as salary.. What are you all considering the extent of this whole “partner” thing to be?
If the casino was to be sold outright, would Royse have been entitled to 10% of the sale proceeds?
Did Royse have full access to the backend even? Could he have saw bad balance or fishy transactions?

2. Let’s say I go to work for a company that is coming out with a new car..
You can preorder these cars for a deposit..
My job is to advertise these..
The owner/CEO embezzles all the money from the deposits and disappears..
Do I go to jail? No..
Do I get sued personally? No..
The company is what gets sued/liquidated, and only the guilty employee/party goes to jail..


I would like to see this lie about them going out to dinner..

What am I looking for in that long ass chat log where Royse did not refute it being called a scam or something?

. But I also believe you messed up big time by not seeing the red flags. If a campaign can't be paid up-front, and if the campaign manager has to pay for things out of his own pocket, you can bet there's no money in the casino. The moment the campaign couldn't be paid should have been the moment to put the campaign on HOLD.

As an experienced campaign manager, you should have seen the red flags. By continuing the promotion with your forum reputation tied to it, I can imagine that made people believe the site could be trusted.
I think you waited too long to pull the plug, and you waited too long to come clean here. I wish you the best though.

Well, except for Lightlord campaigns.. Some of the longest running on the forum..

[LoyceV]

failing to alert the community

an innocent person being trapped.

Both are valid points. I haven't voted on the Flag because there are arguments for both sides.

When, after the disaster, I asked someone IRL why he didn't tell me about his financial problems instead of creating a web of lies, he said it was because he's ashamed. It gave me a "fake it till you make it" feeling, and I still think that's what "Lucy" was hoping for.

[Solosanz]

I didn't expect this case is more complicated than I thought, many users have different perspective they look into this case. I think right now, it's a best for me to withdraw my support opinion since it's on grey area where it can't be said Royse777 either wrong or right. It doesn't mean I run away from this case, but I give more time for Royse777 to taking care this case especially the refund to 4 customers has been said by him before.

If it's too long and I don't see anything change, I will support the flag. If there's an activity where he already refund to the 4 customers, I would oppose the flag. I think this is the most correct in this situation.