Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

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

Apology if that offended you. Being with it from the day 1 does not guarantee you are well informed. Hanging out does not mean that it was a dinner date in person. Bad choice of words to make the situation convincing for your argument. Process information without adding your imagination.

Disclaimer: I had access of some information that I was able to verify.

I see where is the problem. I expect Liverpool to win all their matches. I consider them unbeatable. Only in EPL, in a season they play 38 matches. I expect them to win all. Because I am a crazy fan. The expectation from Liverpool is so high to me that when they lose an ordinary match which is not gonna effect their point table at all, I feel upset. But when they lose an important match that cost them the title race, I feel devastated. I feel good by blaming each of the players on the ground to everyone relating to the club. Do I consider the pain that the players feel? They give their blood and sweat to win a match. Each of them are world class. I don't consider the hours they give to be in a match, I do not see the sacrifice they make to stay fit and be the footballer. All I have the result of the day. I don't know how appropriate this example was but I have a point.

Royse paid many users and worked with many projects. He organized many pools and non-profit events including a charity. None of them seem to go wrong. With the reputation he had, he could have easily collected money from many users with any excuse. Create a fake project, walk away with the funds. He could easily do that. You don't know when was the right time for him to pull the plug, you were not in his shoes. Lower your expectation. It's a person with flesh and blood. No saint.

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they believe that the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.

I don't believe Royse should display a flag of high-risk. The system does not fit the explanation. I am opposing the flag.

[1715056131]

1715056131

[1715056131]

1715056131

[1715056131]

1715056131

[1715056131]

1715056131

[saxydev]

Why not just say: me and my friend, we wanted to do an online business, it seems the bonus money offer was way too much, someone won big, we couldn't afford to pay so now I am saving whatever is left to be saved from our reputation. You are not the only one who tried to create a business and failed, rest assure, without failure you can't prospère. I mean of course you had to pay the users with your own money, you were part of the project, part of the team. Do you want us to make a pool to reimburse on your mistake?
Acting like a victim is lame.  

[PaperWallet]

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.

Well, you must understand, another day another scam from the « trusted » members of this forum. Verdict: you can scam people here and keep your job, your trust score is still ok. Not the first time. I myself got a taste of this yet the scammer is still going perfectly fine on this forum, trust score untouched.  When someone is caught in a lie and a scam is involved, the trust score founder will tell you « this doesn’t change anything, you must understand there’s 2 sides of the story: the scammer’s side and the victim’s side, so let’s stay neutral and continue our scam business » So lying is ok, scamming a bit less but it’s ok since you didn’t mean to do it right? Of course not. Poor scammer.

But until some of the responsibles here or their bosses get to pay the real price of their criminal activities, some way or the other, nothing will change.

[JollyGood]

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..

This is a tricky decision to make because even if Royse777 covers the losses will her reputation ever recover?

If salvaging reputation is the driving factors behind the decision to make victims whole again then Royse777 might have to make decisions which could impact her financially for a very long time as she tried to make victims whole again but even with that noble thought pattern does it negate the negligence that occurred in the bitlucy scam?

I think Royse777 should think very carefully about whether she is doing the right thing by trying to make victims whole but that decision is for her to make and she should be ready for the fact that her reputation will probably take years to recover regardless of the course of action she employs.

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.

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.

Thankfully the number of victims does not seem to be huge otherwise the amounts being mentioned by victims would be running at astronomical levels.

All those that support the retraction of the flag or support the revision of negative tags to neutral (or even having them removed) are well within their right to feel so but those that think the flag should be supported (and that negative trust should be applied) are also within their right to do what they think and follow the course of action they feel is the best way forward in this situation.

By not pulling the plug earlier or by allowing users to deposit funds when the warning signs were bright red is not a small issue, it is a very big issue and by using previous conduct by Royse777 as mitigation is something I am not allowing to cloud my perspective.

I have taken a decision to keep support for the flag and also to not revise nor remove the negative feedback I left. The way I see things are that Royse777 has been grossly negligent on several fronts and in the capacity of being a campaign manager there is added responsibility that comes with the job.

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

Well... Not bad

It must hurt Royse777 financially though to lose incoming funds when trying to make victims whole again but it is understandable for Unijoin to have taken that stance, it is hard to fault them to associate with Royse777 as their own reputation is at stake.

[NotATether]

You probably already know this by now, from this experience, but to everyone else, I will tell you from my own experience, Do Not Attempt To Launch A Casino By Yourself!

Casinos must be ran similar to responsible companies. Contrary to popular thinking, casinos have thin margins of profit, because their entire revenue depends on people losing the games in the long run!

So, if enough users do not use the site, or the crypto prices suddenly crash (it can be mitigated somewhat by converting the cold wallet storage to USDT, or USD in a bank, but the hot wallet must always be replenished at all times), you will run out of cash to pay users.

Also, crypto casinos in particular get abused by multi-accounters with no mercy, so if you cannot afford sophisticated, state-of-the-art blockchain fraud detection then you will be robbed by your own users.

In summary, if any of the below are not true:
1) You have incorporated the casino to avoid personal liability of debt payments
2) You have institutional lenders willing to loan your casino money (wealthy individuals do not count)
3) You have already installed blockchain fraud and DDoS/malware protection for your backend
4) You have enough reserves in hand to pay your staff and the hot wallet for at least 6 months in case of an emergency

Then DO NOT LAUNCH A CASINO for your own sanity' sake.

I do not believe that Royse777 had any negligent intentions when associating with the BitLucy owner, so I have opposed the flag (it would be better warranted on BitLucy the owner himself for not having enough funds to run a sustainable financial operation).
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I should probably suppliment the fake investor warning sticky thread in scam accusations to include warnings against this type of scam involving casinos.

[Poker Player]

I imagine that with the flourishing gambling industry in the world of cryptocurrencies and as can be seen in this forum, there are those who think that setting up a casino is relatively easy.

You probably already know this by now, from this experience, but to everyone else, I will tell you from my own experience, Do Not Attempt To Launch A Casino By Yourself!

Casinos must be ran similar to responsible companies. Contrary to popular thinking, casinos have thin margins of profit, because their entire revenue depends on people losing the games in the long run!

So, if enough users do not use the site, or the crypto prices suddenly crash (it can be mitigated somewhat by converting the cold wallet storage to USDT, or USD in a bank, but the hot wallet must always be replenished at all times), you will run out of cash to pay users.

Also, crypto casinos in particular get abused by multi-accounters with no mercy, so if you cannot afford sophisticated, state-of-the-art blockchain fraud detection then you will be robbed by your own users.

In summary, if any of the below are not true:
1) You have incorporated the casino to avoid personal liability of debt payments
2) You have institutional lenders willing to loan your casino money (wealthy individuals do not count)
3) You have already installed blockchain fraud and DDoS/malware protection for your backend
4) You have enough reserves in hand to pay your staff and the hot wallet for at least 6 months in case of an emergency

Then DO NOT LAUNCH A CASINO for your own sanity' sake.

I do not believe that Royse777 had any negligent intentions when associating with the BitLucy owner, so I have opposed the flag (it would be better warranted on BitLucy the owner himself for not having enough funds to run a sustainable financial operation).
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I should probably suppliment the fake investor warning sticky thread in scam accusations to include warnings against this type of scam involving casinos.

Interesting. I would add some betting limit so that a Whale doesn't break the bank, although I don't know if they all do it by default.

The thing is that once launched, if you manage to operate avoiding the mentioned problems, online casinos are money making machines.

So, we could think that in the case of Bitlucy the owner had no idea of scam from the beginning, but that what happened was due to bad management and unprofessionalism? I remember that Royse777 mentioned the abuse of the no deposit bonus and that the events coincided with the recent drop in the price of Bitcoin.

Anyway, the owner is also liable for negligence.

[LoyceV]

I remember that Royse777 mentioned the abuse of the no deposit bonus and that the events coincided with the recent drop in the price of Bitcoin.

The bonus was 7 euro free bet for 777 users. That's 5439 euro, minus the house edge because of wagering requirements. Even if it's abused, a few thousand euro shouldn't be a problem for any casino. Unless there's literally no money.

[NotATether]

Interesting. I would add some betting limit so that a Whale doesn't break the bank, although I don't know if they all do it by default.

Most of them have around a $10000 betting limit and maximum winning caps in 5 digits for each cryptocurrency. The issues come when the casinos only have a backroll in 6 digits, or even worse, in 5 digits only.

At minimum you need $1 million dollars inside your bankroll at all times (sites with thousands of active users should have at least $10 million) , whether it comes from investors, or old coins which have suddenly become valuable.

[Poker Player]

The bonus was 7 euro free bet for 777 users. That's 5439 euro, minus the house edge because of wagering requirements. Even if it's abused, a few thousand euro shouldn't be a problem for any casino. Unless there's literally no money.

So what I think is that the excuse was bullshit, because with the wagering requirements, I think it would be less than few thousand euros, no matter how much abuse there was, and if you make a promotion like that you have to have it backed with funds.

Surely they were very short of bankroll, seeing the amounts that NotATether mentions, who seems to know well how the subject goes.

[bislom]

Why not just say: me and my friend, we wanted to do an online business, it seems the bonus money offer was way too much, someone won big, we couldn't afford to pay so now I am saving whatever is left to be saved from our reputation. You are not the only one who tried to create a business and failed, rest assure, without failure you can't prospère. I mean of course you had to pay the users with your own money, you were part of the project, part of the team. Do you want us to make a pool to reimburse on your mistake?
Acting like a victim is lame.  

This statement is 100% correct. Royse777 is 100% responsible for the consequences. Do not believe all the shit about his friend is the ceo. Royse is the man behind the project.
Pretty strange that some people changed their tag to neutral. The victims must be paid. Not only begin refunded, pay all their innings.

[yahoo62278]

This statement is 100% correct. Royse777 is 100% responsible for the consequences. Do not believe all the shit about his friend is the ceo. Royse is the man behind the project.
Pretty strange that some people changed their tag to neutral. The victims must be paid. Not only begin refunded, pay all their innings.

Can you prove this or is this just bullshit spewing from your mouth? By all means, if you have proof the Royse777 story is bullshit, then share with the rest of us.

I changed my tag to a neutral because I don't think Royse set out to screw anyone, but at the same time I feel they are responsible for some of the players that couldn't withdraw. Everyone doesn't agree with that, and that's ok.

Now, if you really have proof that the story is bullshit and Royse is 100% the owner/operator of the casino then i'm sure some opinions will change for the worse against Royse. If you don't have proof then quit running your mouth and move on to a different thread.

[NeuroticFish]

Can you prove this or is this just bullshit spewing from your mouth? By all means, if you have proof the Royse777 story is bullshit, then share with the rest of us.

We both know that all the bounty exploiters who got caught have here the opportunity to hit Royse777 while he/she's down.
It's inevitable.

Asking them about proof to show they're bullshitting is a good approach. Just make sure you don't find yourself caught in fighting the windmills

[NotATether]

Surely they were very short of bankroll, seeing the amounts that NotATether mentions, who seems to know well how the subject goes.

Indeed, as I very nearly experienced Royse's fate by almost lauching a similar project at someone's request on Telegram last year (it was never finished, because the developers deserted it).
And actually, there was a second casino for which I was recruited for development work via Discord, but as a small group of 3, they did not have any work to give me so I sat idly by watching the development. A few days before its abandonment, the would-be owner compulsive-gambled away the entire bankroll and doomed the project! So this serves to teach you that some casino founders/owners are irresponsible, so watch out for them.
And I'm never going to make that mistake again.

[JollyGood]

Why not just say: me and my friend, we wanted to do an online business, it seems the bonus money offer was way too much, someone won big, we couldn't afford to pay so now I am saving whatever is left to be saved from our reputation. You are not the only one who tried to create a business and failed, rest assure, without failure you can't prospère. I mean of course you had to pay the users with your own money, you were part of the project, part of the team. Do you want us to make a pool to reimburse on your mistake?
Acting like a victim is lame. 

What you say sounds very harsh but to some degree there are aspects which I cannot blame you for wanting to believe but that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Allow others to disagree with it.

You probably already know this by now, from this experience, but to everyone else, I will tell you from my own experience, Do Not Attempt To Launch A Casino By Yourself!

Casinos must be ran similar to responsible companies. Contrary to popular thinking, casinos have thin margins of profit, because their entire revenue depends on people losing the games in the long run!

So, if enough users do not use the site, or the crypto prices suddenly crash (it can be mitigated somewhat by converting the cold wallet storage to USDT, or USD in a bank, but the hot wallet must always be replenished at all times), you will run out of cash to pay users.

Also, crypto casinos in particular get abused by multi-accounters with no mercy, so if you cannot afford sophisticated, state-of-the-art blockchain fraud detection then you will be robbed by your own users.

In summary, if any of the below are not true:
1) You have incorporated the casino to avoid personal liability of debt payments
2) You have institutional lenders willing to loan your casino money (wealthy individuals do not count)
3) You have already installed blockchain fraud and DDoS/malware protection for your backend
4) You have enough reserves in hand to pay your staff and the hot wallet for at least 6 months in case of an emergency

Then DO NOT LAUNCH A CASINO for your own sanity' sake.

If memory serves correct, I recall a thread where you were looking for either partners or investors because you were creating a casino or a casino type of website from scratch. Did you decide to cancel the idea or is it something that is still in the pipeline?

Why not just say: me and my friend, we wanted to do an online business, it seems the bonus money offer was way too much, someone won big, we couldn't afford to pay so now I am saving whatever is left to be saved from our reputation. You are not the only one who tried to create a business and failed, rest assure, without failure you can't prospère. I mean of course you had to pay the users with your own money, you were part of the project, part of the team. Do you want us to make a pool to reimburse on your mistake?
Acting like a victim is lame. 

This statement is 100% correct. Royse777 is 100% responsible for the consequences. Do not believe all the shit about his friend is the ceo. Royse is the man behind the project.
Pretty strange that some people changed their tag to neutral. The victims must be paid. Not only begin refunded, pay all their innings.

What evidence do you have that Royse777 is the main protagonist here?

I have seen others refer to Royse777 as 'she' therefore I started doing that too. As far as I am aware (and only from what I have read), she was employed as a signature campaign manager but that branched out in to too many aspects of the company/website and far more involved. That was when things went wrong for her. There is nothing to suggest Royse777 set out to scam users.

[examplens]

I have seen others refer to Royse777 as 'she' therefore I started doing that too. As far as I am aware (and only from what I have read), she was employed as a signature campaign manager but that branched out in to too many aspects of the company/website and far more involved. That was when things went wrong for her. There is nothing to suggest Royse777 set out to scam users.

I would love to see an update by her/him (whatever, I didn't know she was a girl and I see that everyone calls her that)
here were some promises to come to partial payment or at least the payment of the deposit for some users. whether there is any shift in these cases?

I also believe that Royse did not embark on all this with the intention of deceiving anyone, but I'm not sure why the "original" starter of Bitlucy is still protected. The apparent fraudster remains unknown to us, or to wait for him in a new business under a new name?

[AnotherAlt]

Oh, My dear!

A lot of drama already happened with Royse777. This will be a lesson for Royse777 and other campaign managers too. I believe Royse777 doesn't have bad intentions, but he/she was tricked. I don't know if it will be possible to recover his/her reputation. But, As he/she promised to pay the users out of his/her own pockets. I believe DT members have no reason to keep the red tag and flag support. Let's see where it ends up. But, I am feeling sad for Royse777. You were making enough already.

[FatFork]

I have seen others refer to Royse777 as 'she' therefore I started doing that too. As far as I am aware (and only from what I have read), she was employed as a signature campaign manager but that branched out in to too many aspects of the company/website and far more involved. That was when things went wrong for her. There is nothing to suggest Royse777 set out to scam users.

I would love to see an update by her/him (whatever, I didn't know she was a girl and I see that everyone calls her that)
here were some promises to come to partial payment or at least the payment of the deposit for some users. whether there is any shift in these cases?

I also believe that Royse did not embark on all this with the intention of deceiving anyone, but I'm not sure why the "original" starter of Bitlucy is still protected. The apparent fraudster remains unknown to us, or to wait for him in a new business under a new name?

Well, this is basically my view on this as well, and I'm probably missing something here... If Royse could shed a little light on it, that would be great. The mystery, as far as I see it, remains: what really happened with BitLucy, and who was behind it?

In all honesty, we have no proof that the person behind Bitlucy is the same person behind Royse777's account. But, if Royse777 was a front for a scam, why is the original scammer still protected by Royse777? In fact, despite Royse claiming to be a victim of Bitlucy, we still haven't seen screenshots or chat logs between him/her and the BitLucy CEO (like the one posted by teyttrs) to prove anything to us.

Anyway, this also makes me believe that there is more to the story than we may realize. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure what exactly happened, but I don't like the way things were handled and all that secrecy. If I were Royse777, I would opt for full disclosure and post all the information I have about BitLucy in the Scam Accusations or Investigations child boards. For the sake of Royse's reputation, I think it's important to hear the reality on the ground in terms of what actually happened, as well as how he feels about it.

[AnotherAlt]

Anyway, this also makes me believe that there is more to the story than we may realize. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure what exactly happened, but I don't like the way things were handled and all that secrecy. If I were Royse777, I would opt for full disclosure and post all the information I have about BitLucy in the Scam Accusations or Investigations child boards. For the sake of Royse's reputation, I think it's important to hear the reality on the ground in terms of what actually happened, as well as how he feels about it.

He already explained what was happened and how. Please read his full post carefully. I don't know what else do you expect from him? What else can Royse provide? Sharing Lucy's Bank account? Social media account? Conversation screenshots? He already explained his feeling about what happened, and he already promised to pay users out of his own pocket. I am not sure if it will help him restore his reputation. Good Luck Royse777.

[LoyceV]

we still haven't seen screenshots or chat logs between him/her and the BitLucy CEO

Sharing forum PMs is a big no-go, even when it's about bad shit. There's always someone going to complain that it should remain private. I don't see why chat logs would be any different.

[FatFork]

we still haven't seen screenshots or chat logs between him/her and the BitLucy CEO

Sharing forum PMs is a big no-go, even when it's about bad shit. There's always someone going to complain that it should remain private. I don't see why chat logs would be any different.

I don't see it that way. Sharing PMs and chat logs as evidence in trades that go wrong or disputes between peers has been the norm for some time. ^{[One smart guy even created a bot to publish PMs automatically. ]}  

Anyway, as I said, this is something that I would probably do in such a situation if my reputation were at stake. Royes777 must decide for himself in this situation. Of course, any private information can be easily censored.