Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief

[bislom]

AnotherAlt = Royse777 and LoyceV+Notether are probably Royse or a friend as well.

You just blew what little credibility you had.

That you were right that the Bitlucy story was going to end badly is probably due to pure chance, like the monkey throwing darts and hitting the stock market. You probably can't see Royse777 because he tagged you for being a bounty cheather or member of 1xCrap on your other account, and everything you have said so far was wishful thinking, which in the case of Bitlucy, by chance has coincided with what has happened in the end.

I dont need any credits on this forum. i am here to warn people about Royse777 that he is a scammer and that the forum DT is a big joke with conspiracy.
Still a lot of talking, but right now the ony thing that royse is doing is trying to get away with his scam project, while he is liable for the losses and he should pay the victims.
If another person would have made the posts, he would surely already received -20 at least. And because royse is a fake DT member people spare him. JOKE
Time to pay the victims, you fucking scammer royse

[JollyGood]

Dear bitcointalk friends, colleague, competitors (sorry if this sounds bad but it is an unfold truth!)
I really find it stressful when a few are thinking what things I have to hide, why not I bring everything in public?

Yes that has been raised several times by members but I doubt the intended effect was to cause you stress.

Yes, I have many reasons to conduct private. If this is not possible then limit it to a circle at least. It is very important for me not to publicize the blockchain transactions which will easily lead to the online services I use or the wallets I use frequently which even could take back to the main storage I have. Isn't all risky for me?

Probably yes, it could be risky for you to publicise various addresses you use if the intended aim is to maintain privacy. You stating it is important for you to not publicise the blockchain transactions for reasons you stated, though understandable from a certain perspective related to your privacy, it does not satisfy or bring closure to all interested parties.

I didn't want other bitcointalk users to be in trouble who were as helpless as me in this situation. The faces a few of you already showed me, makes me think that sharing them even in private with some of you would be riskier for me, forget about being them in public. If I really need to black out or censor some sections then what is the point to share it at all.

But it appears you did share information related to Bitlucy and your relationship with it, within a closed circle but did not share widely in public threads. Whether your PMs included blockchain transactional details is not known to those excluded from the PM circle but what brings confusion is you wanting to not publicise blockchain transactions yet you stating if you really needed to censor sections there would be no point to share in the first place. Strange contradiction.

Dear Yahoo and JollyGood, maybe privacy does not mean much to you but it matters for me. Looking at how you conduct your business, the theory and strategy you are applying to justify the case, it's not very good for someone to share private info to you, at-least not me.

I think the accusations you made against myself (and yahoo62278) are absurd because privacy by default does mean a lot to everybody.

As for the PMs, it is not a problem for me because I was not looking forward to receiving anything otherwise I would have analysed it and interpreted it in a manner you probably would not have appreciated and it would have been counter-productive to your reasons for sending it in the first place, therefore I understand your reasons for not including me in your PM circle since I am not known for having too much sympathy for those that should know better and of course I have been on occasion called 'harsh' too.

I still fail to understand your real motives for wanting to send PMs to any circle you selected. If you included non-retracted blockchain transactions then you defeated the object of your earlier stated goals of keeping that private. If you included retracted information then you also defeated the object when you stating there would be no point in sending it. Furthermore, if your PMs contained anything else, once again your motives for sending them to a selected circle make no sense unless you state your intentions for sending them.

It's dirty when you pretend to be a friend to benefit your business.

Who is this directed at? Well, yahoo62278 is a signature campaign manager, not me therefore one has to assume it is towards him. Again, the notion that yahoo62278 or any other campaign manager would use the opportunity of your business failures and your misguided conduct in order to benefit their own business is unacceptable.

It seems you are alluding with you out of the way other campaign managers will get more business yet fail to understand the questions and concerns of not only a fellow member but also a fellow campaign manager.

Sorry, I wanted to digest all blames on me but some of you were taking the opportunity to overdo it.

And rightfully so, you should accept the blame for your part in the Bitlucy debacle because who else is to blame apart fro yourself and Bitlucy?

I did not see a single post in this thread where any member has taken the opportunity to add more blame on you than you deserve, on the contrary I see more compassion than I think it deserves but each to their own.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I've read through all that happened as explained by Royse777, and what I have to say is that, from this incident, we all have learnt that our reputation on this forum is everything, and that not all that glitters are not always gold, it is said that when something sound too good to be true, it is likely not true, I am sure this Lucy man gave Royse777 what seemed to him to be a good offer which he couldn't easily resist, unknown to Royse777 what the true motive of this Lucy scammers was.
The deed is done, and I hope Royse777 is able to gain back he's reputation, and as for as many of us here, there is a lot of lessons to learn from this, most especially, the managers, not every big offers and truly big, some of them is an exchange for your reputation, we all must be very careful.

[AB de Royse777]

once again your motives for sending them to a selected circle make no sense unless you state your intentions for sending them.

You did what you had to do. I owe you nothing and I feel nothing to make you understand too.

Edit: I will close this thread after 24 hours from now.

PS: @Everyone, If I owe anything to anyone then it's the group of people who are still putting trust on me. I had a rough time but I hope you understand that I have given my best for it.

Cheers,

[DireWolfM14]

once again your motives for sending them to a selected circle make no sense unless you state your intentions for sending them.

It's fair to point out that I was among the circle invited by Royse777 to review the evidence.  Unfortunately I didn't have to time to follow through, so I have nothing to add regarding the messages.  But, his invitation does say something considering I was the first DT member to red-tag him.  The circle of individuals he selected included those who were critical of his behavior.

[PaperWallet]

once again your motives for sending them to a selected circle make no sense unless you state your intentions for sending them.

It's fair to point out that I was among the circle invited by Royse777 to review the evidence.  Unfortunately I didn't have to time to follow through, so I have nothing to add regarding the messages.  But, his invitation does say something considering I was the first DT member to red-tag him.  The circle of individuals he selected included those who were critical of his behavior.

So what? you've already said it was ridiculous to red tag this scammer. You've already given your opinion, so what are you trying to imply here? Your post means nothing and doesn't level you up to be a honourable person, it's just professional nonesense talk from a person who can't be better at anything else.

Some people here are right about wanting to make a difference between honest and scam promoters, and rightly so tagging the scammer Royse777.

[P2PECS]

Some people here are right about wanting to make a difference between honest and scam promoters, and rightly so tagging the scammer Royse777.

Seeing your trust, it doesn't seem to me that you are to give moral lessons to anyone.

[JollyGood]

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.

Was this ever actually addressed by Royse777? Was a straight answer ever posted addressing this issue about the dinner? If so, can anybody provide a link before Royse777 locks this thread.

Was there an actual in-person dinner between Royse777 and Bitlucy where they met or was it an online chat only. I am confused, did they ever meet in real life to discuss Bitlucy as a business? Were they actually friends in real life or was this specifically a cyber friendship where the two main protagonists never met in real life?

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.

Hard-push advertising is common everywhere in all walks of daily life but subtle influences most definitely would have an impact too especially in a community such as this forum because some members are more likely to send funds to an unknown website if they trust the person promoting that agenda. That is simple to understand.

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.

Again you raised another valid point.... based on who is recommending the casino or betting website, it is likely to influence the decision made by either experienced or novice individuals.

If a forum member had -20 feedback was recommending this-is-a-great-casino-website.com I doubt it was gain much traction beyond zero but if a member with some sort of reputation was to recommend or vouch for this-is-a-great-website-i-can-vouch-for-it-because-i-am-promoting-it-and-maybe-am-a-part-owner-look-at-my-forum-reputation-and-do-not-miss-out.com then even if was not blatant promoting rather it was subtle, it can have an affect on any member ranging from gullible to experienced covering all in between.

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.

Some say that incident was akin to Royse777 being fooled/duped by a scammer in Bitlucy whereas others say it was mismanagement and negligence.

I never thought about it the way the you described it as leveraging their own reputation on a single deal for their own benefit. Come to think of it, there is nothing wrong with that assumption because from a particular vantage point it seems to be true.

It seems Royse777 hedged all bets (no pun intended) on Bitlucy but lost and in the process a small number of users became victims. Not pulling the plug and not disassociating herself from Bitlucy earlier when red flags were visible was negligent on part of Royse777.

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.

Such as a football manager having to go (be sacked) even though he is not on the field kicking the ball but has to carry the consequences of the outfield players because he is responsible or part responsible for their actions? I see part of the analogy.

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.

Thank you. I try to remain impartial, I try to not let sentiment sway me and I am glad to be on board because this community means a lot to me  

For clarity sake I should express I am surprised at the amount of good faith, pity, sympathy and compassion shown here by members towards Royse777. After looking at the facts as I saw them much earlier, I had a degree of sympathy too but that has subsided because of the way Royse777 has posted with an offensive aggressive stance which resulted in alienating herself from several members including myself but my red tag was given impartially before that happened.

As a forum member, my trust list (included and excluded) is there for all to see but that does not mean I would literally trust all of them beyond this forum and even within this forum we all define "trust" according to our interpretations rather than how theymos wanted it to be defined. We all apply the trust and exclusion and feedback system in ways some others would find incorrect. Even those that added me and others to their trust list would probably not really trust me and others outside this forum... a continuation of trust from inside the forum to outside it, is something not afforded easily.

Even some of those staunchest of trust-advocates that have not added me to their trust list or excluded me (some citing I am too hasty leaving negative tags as their reason, others have their own reasons or agendas) have themselves left highly dubious or factually incorrect negative tags for others thus contradicting themselves but I have tried to remain focused on the responsibility I have in conducting myself as a responsible member of this community. Others conduct their own responsibilities in the forum how they deem appropriate, there are no wrongs or rights, it is about interpretation.

Having said that, I would personally outside this forum trust just 3-4 members at maximum on my list literally and again I would define trust in the way I interpret. Regardless, I would not be influenced at all by reputations nor be bothered about falling foul of certain cliques, I would say what has to be said because I believe it to be the right thing... maybe that was part of the reason you made that comment about me using words such as strict, consistent and integrity.

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.

Can you define what you mean by Royse777 lied about the dinner and provide a link?

[P2PECS]

Can you define what you mean by Royse77 lied about the dinner and provide a link?

I believe he is referring to this:

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.

[decodx]

Was this ever actually addressed by Royse777? Was a straight answer ever posted addressing this issue about the dinner? If so, can anybody provide a link before Royse777 locks this thread.

Was there an actual in-person dinner between Royse777 and Bitlucy where they met or was it an online chat only. I am confused, did they ever meet in real life to discuss Bitlucy as a business? Were they actually friends in real life or was this specifically a cyber friendship where the two main protagonists never met in real life?

I highly doubt it since Royse claims they started communicating again shortly before the BitLucy casino launched. Considering the time period and that they apparently live on different continents, it is highly unlikely that they ever met in person. Royse mentioned that he participated in some meetings with potential partners, but these could very well have been virtual meetings only.

[AB de Royse777]

For clarity sake I should express I am surprised at the amount of good faith, pity, sympathy and compassion shown here by members towards Royse777. After looking at the facts as I saw them much earlier, I had a degree of sympathy too but that has subsided because of the way Royse777 has posted with an offensive aggressive stance which resulted in alienating herself from several members including myself.

So the moment I was offensive aggressive to you, you prioritize your emotion over facts and whatever you are trying now is to feel better for yourself? It's amazing how you are suggesting others to join you. Learn from my experience. A single slip will take away everything from you.

Others conduct their own responsibilities in the forum how they deem appropriate, there are no wrongs or rights, it is about interpretation.

Yeah when I say hangout then you interpret it dinner date in person. Bud! you have not even looked at the details I have posted publicly (forget about private) yet you are here arguing BS to establish your thoughts.

I will keep this thread alive.

[DireWolfM14]

~

JollyGood would be more aptly named JackBootedThug.  I find it amusing that he's been ignoring me for months, and refuses to engage in a dialogue about his abusive use of the trust system.  His silence speaks volumes.

Yet, he'll write walls of texts to harass people, demands they capitulate to his whims, even going so far as insisting they breach their own privacy or the privacy of others just so he can get his fix of drama.  All while holding them hostage with his red-tags.

[AnotherAlt]

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.

Can you define what you mean by Royse777 lied about the dinner and provide a link?

I also would like to see where Royse777 said he was dining with the CEO in person. Would you mind sharing the link to that post or at least the archive?

[decodx]

I also would like to see where Royse777 said he was dining with the CEO in person. Would you mind sharing the link to that post or at least the archive?

Why don't you ask the person who mentioned it first? What does JollyGood have to do with this?
Apparently, there are some forum members who got special treatment and got a glimpse of Royse's private conversations with Lucy. The rest of us can only speculate on what went on.

Yeah when I say hangout then you interpret it dinner date in person. Bud! you have not even looked at the details I have posted publicly (forget about private) yet you are here arguing BS to establish your thoughts.

Actually, it wasn't Jolly who interpreted the dinner date. So, rather than making accusations, you might want to be a little more precise with your arguments.

[AnotherAlt]

I also would like to see where Royse777 said he was dining with the CEO in person. Would you mind sharing the link to that post or at least the archive?

Why don't you ask the person who mentioned it first? What does JollyGood have to do with this?

It didn't mean to ask JollyGood. I quoted JollyGood posts because I agree with him and my question is the same. I asked that guy. Don't you think there is a better way to ask a question? The more day I spend here, The more I am getting surprised by members' behavior. It feels like I am in Korea. LOL

[decodx]

It didn't mean to ask JollyGood. I quoted JollyGood posts because I agree with him and my question is the same. I asked that guy.

My understanding of online discussion forums is that when you quote someone and ask a specific question, you are addressing that person. I could be wrong, though. 

It feels like I am in Korea. LOL

In which one? 
But, let's stick to the topic.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

<snip>
Even some of those staunchest of trust-advocates that have not added me to their trust list or excluded me (some citing I am too hasty leaving negative tags as their reason, others have their own reasons or agendas) have themselves left highly dubious or factually incorrect negative tags for others thus contradicting themselves but I have tried to remain focused on the responsibility I have in conducting myself as a responsible member of this community. Others conduct their own responsibilities in the forum how they deem appropriate, there are no wrongs or rights, it is about interpretation.
<snip>

According to the bold part, you are expecting everyone to add you in their trust list. If they don't then they are staunch? You are now mad at the users who excluded you from their trust list including those did not add you at all.

I asked Royse777 if I can see the details and he/she shared it with me so I was among the circle too. But right now you are accusing us and saying closed circle as it sounds we gave him a friendly pass without justifying the entire situation.

Where is your problem? Royse777 decided to share the information with some of us or he did not share everything in open forum.
If not sharing in open forum is your problem then I can confirm, he didn't do it for his own privacy and security as well as few others too. None of us can protect him if something turn wrong against him.
If sharing the information with us is your problem then it's a strange feeling. 🙄

I kind of agree with DireWolfM14 but would like to add, someone is rightfully concerned about their security while you are being so curious to fix your drama.

[mv1986]

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.

JollyGood didn't claim that there was a physical dinner date. JollyGood asked me to provide the source that I based my comment on. I can't find some piece right now because I cross-read a couple of threads and I don't exactly recall what place it was. I do think thought that @igehhh was the first to claim it at least in this thread.

It didn't mean to ask JollyGood. I quoted JollyGood posts because I agree with him and my question is the same. I asked that guy.

My understanding of online discussion forums is that when you quote someone and ask a specific question, you are addressing that person. I could be wrong, though. 

It feels like I am in Korea. LOL

In which one? 
But, let's stick to the topic.

Lol...

So maybe @igehhh has something to add regarding the dinner date.


On another note, there is a document circulating that really got me baffled. The user @teyttrs uploaded it after having an 11 day conversation with the mysterious CEO about getting paid, was suuuuper patient, and the last couple hundred lines ultimately proved what a scammer the unknown CEO is. Now the problem I have with this is: that user also was asked by others to calm down and there is no way people get scammed because "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60055562#msg60055562" ("handled by Royse, regarding the discussion here about trust and so on...).

The unknown CEO is such a scumbag, even so stupid to have such a conversation with some unknown dude from the Internet, that I can't believe 1) someone like that person to run an Online Casino without 2) getting detected by someone with Royse' experience. She knows how all this stuff works, promotional campaigns, requiring funds for escrow and so on and so forth. She should have puledl the trigger earlier and warn all the community she appreciates, and that appreciates her so much... It is a sad ending and when I see how this unknown CEO communicates, Royse, if it is really true, how did this CEO talk to you without you getting suspicious when this CEO talks that way to everyone in PM?

There you go, I can't quote since the thread is locked:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60052582#msg60052582

That file is removed in that post, but whoever wants to have a look at it can find it in this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60053921#msg60053921


No joke, I really took the time and read it completely... I had the choice between hitting the gym or waste some time and chill. When I found this document while searching for stuff in response to @JollyGood's post, I thought I'll give it a read.

Part of my conclusion is:

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.

And this is where I also wonder whether Royse did any research at all regarding the required skillset, be it technical, social, financial, industry experience etc. This unknown CEO from Bitlucy really had no clue what's going on. Links pointing to Betcoin.ag, wagering requirements totally unclear, no idea what arbitrage bets look like (you can read from the document I suggested above, etc. If I were to start a casino (which I won't unless I would find myself in a circle of proven experts for some weird reason), I would do tons of research. It's kind of a given in that industry. Especially when you partner up and buy shares in the company as Royse publicly said:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg59956927#msg59956927

I mean, how does this all make sense? I know not everyone has partnered up with someone else and set up some contract or even a legal entity, but wouldn't you vest your partners beyond accepting fotos from Disney Land as proof of sufficient personal wealth in order to become the "biggest online Crypto casino and sportsbook on the planet." Quote was also from Royse, and I get all the enthusiasm when one is about to get something off the ground and is dreaming big, but come on...

I initially thought that Royse might have been scammed by a really, really clever person in a very sophisticated way. But after I read the document, and given that it came into existence through a chat with a person completely unknown to the CEO, neither "clever" nor "sophisticated" is likely to apply. Hence: gross negligence would be my judgment.

I stand by my word though that I would also support the possibility for Royse to get back on track. It is very true she doesn't owe any specific information to anyone, but that is her judgment as well. If she thinks that what she needs to protect from being known by others is more valuable, that is to be accepted. Other than that, I would still trust her as a campaign manager and even for some other things. But the harm has been done. When you drive too quickly, you get a red tag in a certain registry unless you have very, very good reason and can PROVE it! Other than that the red tag stands, and if you get caught again, things against you start to accelerate. Same speed but harsher penalty because there is this register that tells the driver to better not repeat what you have done wrong before. That is why I support JollyGood's judgment. Now someone might argue the registry doesn't apply because other drivers can't know whether the one in front of them has a big fat history with red tags.That is true, so we trust the police to do the right thing for us. But in this forum, there is no hidden police. It is the nature of forums like this that things are publicly discussed and publicly available when they involve public interest. If you ask me, the public interest is clearly given here, especially when people were still allowed to deposit while withdrawals weren't already functioning anymore. At let that is what I understand from the walls of text I read about the whole Bitlucy topic. Correct me if I am wrong, but deposits weren't stopped when withdrawals were already on ice. Big no-go!

When it comes @JollyGood, I have no personal relationship with him, never had any transactions with him or anything like that. I just started following him at some point because I liked that he cracked down on scam after scam AND he put effort into it. Not just distributing red tags as is sometimes claimed here by some, but certainly not by many... In my opinion @JollyGood is a real asset to the community. It is good to know that there is someone who really puts puzzle pieces together when there is something suspicious going on. Hardly anyone (if anyone at all?) would take the time and put in the effort. And in all fairness: he might really be on the edge in some cases, I don't know, I haven't studied them all (haha), but has he given away some clearly wrong red tags? Like, plainly wrong and arbitrarily? I'd be very surprised.

[LoyceV]

Some say that incident was akin to Royse777 being fooled/duped by a scammer in Bitlucy whereas others say it was mismanagement and negligence.

I'd say it was a bit of both. I'm not even sure Bitlucy intended to scam from the start, but it's obvious they tried to start a casino without having funds. They must have gambled on the first users losing a lot of money, and if that would have happened, they could have been successful and nobody would have known about the lack of funds.

[mv1986]

Some say that incident was akin to Royse777 being fooled/duped by a scammer in Bitlucy whereas others say it was mismanagement and negligence.

I'd say it was a bit of both. I'm not even sure Bitlucy intended to scam from the start, but it's obvious they tried to start a casino without having funds. They must have gambled on the first users losing a lot of money, and if that would have happened, they could have been successful and nobody would have known about the lack of funds.

Again, if you drive a car without a driver's license, might work out, sure, if nobody detects it. But if it is detected, it is getting pretty rough.

When you read that private conversation between the guy who got scammed and the "CEO", you'll clearly get my point. That is why I said I can't even believe for a second that Royse really thought it could work out with that dude. Then again, Royse might have been the passenger, also without a license. Somewhat in her defense I'd say. It also feels a bit like megalomania on Royse' part when she said it's going to be the biggest online casino on the planet. Well, on what evidence or substance was that based on? Did this CEO sign a message from a wallet with 10,000 Bitcoin?