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.
Yes I merely asked about a link to read for myself if a dinner with the CEO took place since that was quoted by members earlier.
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...).
First of all thank you for the link (
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg60055562#msg60055562) because I was not really interested in that thread and probably never visited it until I clicked your provided link.
Secondly, the words written by the user in question with those overzealous and over-protective remarks towards Bitlucy and then including the comment that gave Bitlucy far more of a seal of approval than it deserved by mentioning (words to effect of) Royse777 would not manage a scam campaign. That part is hugely problematic because it in essence means three important things:
i) asking users to put their trust in a certain newly created website by sending funds to them on the basis a particular forum member is promoting them
ii) shutting down any form of dissent, concern or claim in earlier manifestations before they became widespread - again, on the basis a particular forum member is promoting a certain newly created website
iii) it allows the particular forum member to either buy time to try to fix any issues by liaising with the website (since their reputation is on the line if a scam takes place) or it allows that particular forum member to refuse to accept the red flags and with that ignorance fall deeper in to a bigger hole.
The unfortunate side-effect of both is that by not pulling the plug earlier and by not completely disassociating with the website at the first opportunity, that particular forum member has facilitated a mechanism where the number of victims could increase. This was one of the reasons why I stated in my feedback there was negligence on part of Royse777.
As I will mention below again, I have not read in full the 11 day conversation between the user in question with the Bitlucy CEO, I will try to read it to get an understanding.
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?
Maybe Royse777 was gullible. Maybe a combination of being gullible and greedy led to Royse777 getting in to this situation. Maybe something else.
I hope to read it in full within 48 hours, the text in the lines I have read shows a very informal chat from a CEO who is conducting himself as a typical salesman rather than a professional individual but I need to read through it to understand what chat took place over the days they communicated.
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.The flag was removed by the user that created it therefore regardless of support or opposition, it does not mean much now.
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#msg59956927I 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!
I never knew about this post, I read what Royse777 wrote and once again thank you for the link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5395791.msg59956927#msg59956927It was utter stupidity on part of Royse777 to post using words which were probably deliberately used in order to have dual meaning, such as Royse777 stating being "good friends with the CEO for over a year" as well as "hanging out regularly".
What does that mean to a layman when someone says they are "hanging out regularly" with each other and have "build up trust of each other over a year"?
Exactly who could be blamed for putting their trust in a trusted forum member after reading him or her vouching for a business they are part owner of without
actually stating "
trust me and take my word for it, this is no scam" but never uttering the words?
By simply using the reputation attached as to be taken as a seal of approval to those unfortunate to believe it, Royse777 is in this situation today. I would not surprised at all if using her own reputation was part of the leverage Royse777 employed in negotiations with the Bitlucy CEO to become part owner maybe with a promise of adding her name to the casino for the sake of showing it as legitimate and it being not-a-scam... but then again until or unless a full transcript of their chats is made public we do not know what prompted the Bitlucy CEO to not only employ Royse777 as a campaign manager but also to give a percentage of the company in lieu of being awarded the title of
Co-Partner & Marketing DirectorWho would not believe a campaign manager with green trust when they state they are part owner of a casino or when that same member effectively says "
Hey, trust this website because I am staking my reputation on it after all I am part-owner and because the CEO and I have built up a massive amount of trust over a period of a year. For your information we are very close and we are hanging out regularly. On top that, between us we both understand the gambling industry inside out because we have phenomenal experience in this field and we shared a common interest in starting a casino therefore we simply decided because we are the best people who can create a new casino which will become the largest crypto casino/sportsbook ever, we will do it"
To answer the question: Me. I would not believe it.
As a continuation of the answer: Many people and many forum members will not believe it either.
As a further continuation of the answer, it is safe to say: some people and some forum members
will believe it and the reason for that misguided belief would not be because a newbie account created 30 minutes ago was vouching for a newly created casino... on the contrary the reason why some people including forum members would believe it is because someone highly trusted and in a position of trust and in good standing with peers (operating an account with several years history) has basically stated they own part of the very same business they are vouching for.
Previous good character or previous good conduct or previous good standing along previous contributions cannot negate the utterly appalling decision making process taken by Royse777 related to Bitlucy, nor should the facts about the Royse777/Bitlucy relationship be watered down because there is no evidence Royse777 intended to scam from the beginning but there those that expressed opposing views and that is their right.
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.
We have had or almost had zero contact before corresponding in this thread. I cannot recall interacting with you but I enjoyed reading your posts for the quality and time taken to write them presenting them with links providing background information with evidence. You have also shown the correct attitude when standing up and taking a stand in what you believe in such as the high quality posts in this thread even in the face of opposing views.
It is slightly off-topic but to be fair my time for clamping down on scam after scam, almost day after day of doing it are behind me now though I do try to take an interest and post intermittently in the Reputation and Scam Accusation boards. Thankfully there are many forum members contributing positively in the Scam Accusations board on a regular basis and I am grateful to them.
Anyway, moving onwards and back to the issue on hand regarding this particular thread:
- Does anybody know what the percentage of the Bitlucy company given to Royse777 was?
- Does anybody know if there was any paperwork signed between Royse777 and the Bitkucy CEO transferring
that percentage over?
- Does anybody know the full name of the Bitlucy company with LLC, LTD etc?
- Does anybody know the current legal status of the company and the legal jurisdiction the company falls under?
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?
Well if you are correct then what do you think drove Royse777 to get in to a partnership in what was a doomed relationship from the very beginning? I do agree with you, megalomania seems the correct word because the way Royse777 was posting about her relationship with the Bitlucy CEO and the part-ownership of Bitlucy shows telltale signs of it.
My opinion on the tiny bit that seems to have sparked the "attack between a few reputable members" which is "The proof of Royse's conversations with Lucy", in my humble opinion such proof has little to no value, at least, it shouldn't be the backbone of any conclusion someone arrives at. Royse could easily fake a few conversations dating back to any date they chose, even the blockchain transactions could have been set up, there is no way in hell to know for sure if there was another person with the name of Lucy who is/was not actually Royse777.
I agree, the alleged proof does not bring closure in this situation at all.
What somewhat compounds the issue of the alleged conversations is what motives Royse777 had for releasing them to a select few as well as why that particular select few were chosen. The latter (if I recall correctly) was recently addressed by Royse777 in a semi-rant of a mostly incoherent post but the motives for wanting to share in the first place were never addressed. It remains unknown what Royse777 wanted to gain from it.
So that leaves us with only one option and that's what Royse claims, it's either you take Royse's for it or you don't, if you think Royse was Lucy all along and then a few "screenshots" would change your mind -- I think there is something seriously wrong with your judgment.
I agree.
Personally, I believe Royse is a genuine person, maybe she got a bit greedy and saw a "huge opportunity" which she didn't want to lose, which led her to ignore all the obvious red flags which then resulted in a loss for everyone who was involved, one might say that her judgment is not to be trusted and that would make sense, but again, I don't think she had any intention to cause damage.
I broadly agree because you have summed it up in an apt manner. I think greed played a huge part in the mindset of Royse777 in that period and I think the degree to which she leveraged her reputation as a campaign manager and trusted forum member in order to deepen the relationship with Bitlucy to become an unknown percentage owner of the company remains unknown.
