Let's not start slinging muds, shall we?

---

OP, though you're no longer acceptable to play on Stake, your balance are all withdrawable and successfully landed on your wallet, there is currently no ongoing scam. I'll repeat my previous request to lock this thread and mark the opening title with the word "resolved" to mark it as done.

If you still want to gamble, there are still other sites that accept players.

"If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal", this is not slinging muds?

I would personally said for this case, it's an unfounded and baseless statement that's borderline slander.

On other cases where they have the KYC process stretched too long that made Lucifer himself perhaps nodded in agreement, it's arguably acceptable to say they make things unnecessary. But for this one, they seems to do things by the book.

OP's case is simple. He was asked for three months of salary receipt, he can only provide two as the first month he was paid in cash, he waited until the next payment, submitted the new three months salary, and they immediately approve the KYC.

Is this looks like an attempt to find a reason to steal from OP? I am not praising a book [stake, in this instance], if anyone look backward through my post, I condemned their impossible KYC on past case, and other things on other case. This one simply isn't.

And I don't think I would want to address your very last sentence as it's a can of worm that once opened, worth questions your neutrality on every case you oversee.

I'm not sure if you read my post carefully and understand the point I tried to raise, and this has been a long morning for me, so I don't have much energy for pleasantries and politeness I usually have to reserve to address you. So, I'll be blunt.

Read. I bolded the part for you if that's too hard for you.

If it's still too hard to understand, simply answer this: on which part of this case did Stake attempted to steal OP's fund, that worth the statement, "If you are what they perceive to be a winning gambler, Stake looks for a reason to steal."?

And oh, let's take it a bit further. As I've made myself abundantly and repetitively clear, I can't monitor every cases that's not on Scam Accusations board, the gambling boards and gambling ANN thread are notoriously full of spams that I don't bother spending my time there, so your words quite likely to be right, that I missed some cases. So do us [the forum and the victim of stake] a favor, create a thread, list those cases, I'll review them one by one and we'll see if I stand corrected with Stake and their thieving tendency you proposed.

Ahh, I stand corrected. Libel, not slander.

Is it, though? Too personal and I accuses you of something that is not [libel]? Let's break it down, you start by saying that if Stake perceive someone to be a winning gambler, they will look for a reason to steal, of which I politely asked to refrain from giving baseless statement, as, IMO, this case seems to be a situation where Stake do everything by the book. So again, tell me, which part of this case gave you the impression that Stake tries to steal from OP?

Thank you for your honest opinion, I appreciate it and have put it into my consideration upon the attempt to see the situation from different perspective. I'll say that, seen from different lens, the recent discussion can indeed cast an impression that I try to paint Stake as a good casino while Peeps tries to point out how they cheated their players.

However, if I may offer my perspective and the way I see the development of the case, to clarify, I am not defending Stake in sense of turning my ears deaf and my eyes blind. I don't think I won't do the same for any other random casino if it ever happened to them. I simply don't want someone mudding a situation, especially when addressed to one that tries to go by the book.

Unless I understand things wrongly, OP got his account locked roughly three weeks ago --let's say a month, just to be safe-- he got stuck at level 3 [proof of address] because he can't provide a utility bill under his name, and level 4 [proof of wealth] because they asked him for the latest 3 months of payslip, and OP can only gave the last two.

This situation then remedied as the month changed and OP got his next payslip, enabling him to submit three last payslip, as well as having his credit card statement as proof of address in place of the utility bills.

With these, Stake immediately proceed, investigates his account, and unlocked his withdrawal.

This is not like the neighboring case where they throw impossible reason of rejection, like things being too blurry, all details should be on the same page, etc. This time they play by the book. I don't think it's fair if the casino [any casino, really] rewarded with a statement that they tries to steal.

If Peeps's comment was addressed to other cases, perhaps the one that spanned for about six months, where even I commented once that they crossed a line with their KYC requirement, I wouldn't waste a breath to address statement Peeps gave here.

Stake's KYC cases is something that piqued our curiosity, about how they seemingly tries to weeded out their players by imposing borderline-irritating KYC. I even agreed to an opinion on earlier page on this thread, about how their KYC requirement upon first deposit should be player's decision and not something being enforced to them. But the situation here is different.

I have to agree that their KYC is intrusive, I believe I've made my opinion known on many occasion. As the rest of your post, let's break them down.

Is it? That if OP doesn't come here, he might still have his case going and Stake keep rejecting his documents? Previous case indicates otherwise, that even after a player made his situation public, not much had changed and the process still dragged for months. It would indicate that the speed of cutoguad's case got resolved is independent to the post here, rather, it's more to because he fulfilled what they asked [intrusiveness aside].

If we entertain the other possibility for a while though, that the forum has influence over the speed of resolution players get over Stake [and I would love to hope and believe it's the case here], wouldn't it be unwise to "antagonize" the channel that can help people get their rights faster? If they still expedite cases when it got escalated to the forum, wouldn't it be unwise to talk negatively upon their effort, lest them get tired having their effort unappreciated and choose to leave the forum, which lead to us having no means of communication to help players with their situation?

Attack the books, not the posters? How about attack the scammers? Things are not always black or white, on each and every case, the book is not always the bad actor, nor the posters all the time. How exactly attacking books can stop shady practices when a case is a clear cut of player abuse?

I believe you're not asked to, nor I am saying something about, unnecessarily praising a book. I simply asked to stop slinging muds, to make a statement which is not true, since this case [as repetitively explained] seems not like the other one with long delay. They do things by the book on this one.

And I don't think it's ever needed, unnecessarily praising a book. Simply acknowledge their gesture when they do things right, and call them out when their action is questionable. Though I believe pouring gasoline over an ember [as the "fire" already put off] doesn't bring much benefit, does it?

Let me make it easier, as always, let me try to understand from your POV, what's the point and/or added benefit of saying that they're going to steal from someone they perceive as a winning gambler, on a resolved case?

And how exactly is that achievable? The ones who read this thread [which once again has become a dead horse, like the ones you and I always have] are probably you, me, some bored overseer who do a cursory glance, and probably OP. Oh, and Symphonized, so there's some hope for you there that Stake read your post.

If there is any future or existing player who read this thread, I can hardly imagine that they find your post serves as a warning, because they'll very likely do a "stake scam steal" search and stumbled upon your post when they've already stuck in a situation. And further, the post was made on a case that's resolved, so even if they made an account and a thread here on the forum and made a reference of your post, anyone can easily point out to them that the case they give is actually a resolved situation.

If any, I'd like to think that what you achieve is an encouragement for Stake's representative to distance themselves further from the forum. If there is any consideration from Stake to be once again actively addressing scam accusations section, they'll probably shied themselves away and reconsider the decision now, since an attempt to clear a situation as protocol dictate still gave them bitter and hostile response.

I'm not saying that we need to kiss their ass and overly praising them when they get one thing done properly, simply acknowledging their effort as it is instead of antagonizing it will be a good start.

If you want to help warn users, that's good, I appreciate and welcome the initiative. But that should not be achieved by mudding a resolved case. You previously said about cases that got under my radar since they never arrived on this board. If you want to warn, I suggest you start from there. Build a list, make a thread, so people can read all of the unresolved cases against Stake.

Tag me when you do it.

It is not a dead horse anymore, it has just become HIDALGO (very few will get this one  ).


Stake is likely running billion-dollar operations. It's childish to believe they'll shy away from criticism due to a single post. While Stake eventually paid a legitimate winner after a month (requesting KYC not at the time of deposit but after the withdrawal request, with unnecessary delays), this doesn't warrant praise for 'following the book.' In fact, it's borderline excessive appeasement, not simply acknowledging their actions.

All good.