BC.Game – Bonus Winnings Voided, Inconsistent Rules

[rigs3130]

BC.Game – Bonus Winnings Voided, Inconsistent Rules, and Unsafe “Manual Deposit” Direction via Telegram

Casino: BC.Game
Website: bc.game (and related domains)
Category: Online Casino / Crypto Gambling
Status: Ongoing dispute, unresolved
Third-party mediator: Casino.Guru (active case)

SUMMARY
I am reporting BC.Game for voiding accumulated bonus winnings without clear disclosure, providing inconsistent explanations across Live Support and third-party mediation, and directing me via Telegram toward unsafe “manual deposit” procedures involving unverified accounts, which BC.Game’s own website flags as NOT official representatives.

KEY ISSUES
1) Bonus winnings were voided despite no visible or explicit maximum win / forfeiture condition shown at the time of in-app VIP promotion redemption.
2) Live Support statements conflict with:
   - In-app VIP / Prime Mission promotion terms
   - Casino.Guru’s independent assessment
3) Telegram admins/bots (“Coco”, others) instructed me to make a manual deposit via accounts later flagged by BC.Game’s own verification page as NOT official representatives.
4) Users are muted or blocked when questioning these inconsistencies.
5) No single, clear rule reference has been provided explaining the forfeiture decision.

CHRONOLOGY (CONDENSED)
- I participated in VIP / Prime Mission in-app promotions (Level ≥40 / VIP-only).
- Prime Mission Activity Terms shown in-app specify:
  • 40x turnover requirement
  • Withdrawal up to 100% of the bonus amount after completion
  • No explicit max win cap or “excess winnings forfeiture” language visible at redemption
- After wagering, accumulated winnings were removed/voided.
- Live Support claimed “general bonus rules apply unless specified”, but could not point to where a max win or forfeiture rule was disclosed prior to redemption.
- Casino.Guru Complaint Specialist noted casino responses appear inconsistent and requested BC.Game to clarify:
  • sequence of events
  • rules in force at the time
  • how those rules were disclosed
- On Telegram (BC.Game Sports Group):
  • An admin/bot (“Coco”) stated a manual deposit was required via a named representative
  • BC.Game’s official verification page later flagged those accounts as:
    “NOT the official representative of BC.GAME. Do not trust this account.”
  • Shortly after raising this issue, I was muted for “flooding”.

WHY THIS MATTERS
- Industry standard requires any max win or forfeiture condition to be clearly disclosed before wagering.
- Directing users to manual deposits via unverified Telegram accounts presents a serious security risk.
- Conflicting answers across Live Support, Telegram, and Casino.Guru suggest systemic inconsistency or concealment.

EVIDENCE AVAILABLE
- Screenshots of Prime Mission Activity Terms (in-app)
- Live Support transcripts
- Telegram chat screenshots (manual deposit instruction + mute)
- BC.Game verification page screenshots flagging those accounts as NOT official
- Casino.Guru complaint correspondence

Casino.Guru case:
https://casino.guru/complaints/bc-game-casino-player-s-bonus-winnings-have-been-voided

REQUEST
1) A specific rule citation showing where the alleged max win / forfeiture was disclosed prior to redemption.
2) An explanation for directing users toward unsafe manual deposit flows.
3) Restoration of legitimately wagered winnings, or a documented rule basis justifying forfeiture.

BC.Game representatives are invited to respond here with clear, verifiable references.

[rigs3130]

Addendum:
The Prime Mission (VIP) promotion omits any reference to forfeiture of accumulated winnings, while a separate bonus rules page includes such a clause. BC.Game is attempting to apply the harsher rule retroactively despite it not being disclosed within the promotion itself. This disclosure gap is the central issue.

[holydarkness]

This part of the forum runs on evidence, please substantiate your narrative with supporting evidence in form of screenshots of conversation with their live support or VIP host, email, or the likes. Upload them to talkimg.

[rigs3130]

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/rhhvt09jjzuj0brpwye0e/Screen_Recording_20260125_205745_BCgame.mp4?rlkey=uz9jhdste2kpaed0ry1qgvv95&st=mbp8p2pr&dl=0

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/01/25/UN8ChJ.png
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/01/25/UN86DH.jpeg
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/01/25/UN8mVv.jpeg
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/01/25/UN8Mmb.jpeg
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/01/25/UN8QlC.jpeg
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/01/25/UN8TkI.jpeg
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/01/25/UN8RZg.jpeg

BC.Game is relying on the general bonus forfeiture clause to void winnings, despite that clause being absent from the VIP Prime Mission terms shown at the time of participation.

A forfeiture condition is a material term and must be clearly disclosed within the specific promotion. Applying it from a different page after wagering is inconsistent and unfair

[rigs3130]

BC.Game token precision discrepancy (technical concern)

BC.Game treats its own native token (BC) differently from other cryptocurrencies in a way that materially affects wagering outcomes and settlement.

From BC.Game’s own Coin Accuracy Limit table:

SOL: 0.000001

BTC: 0.00000001

USDT: 0.0001

BC token: 0.01

Despite BC being built on Solana (6 decimal places), player wallets are restricted to 0.01 precision, while internal balances appear to exist at sub-0.01 levels.

Example observed in-wallet:

Actual balance: ~1.9996094 BC

Displayed / usable balance: 0.01 BC

This creates a disconnect between:

internal accounting

player-visible balances

wager settlement

The token effectively acts as a precision-limited intermediary, not a direct representation of player funds.

This discrepancy becomes critical when BC is used for bonus wagering or BC Originals, which are marketed as “0 house edge”.

In practice:

wagers are completed

balances accumulate internally

but post-wager outcomes can be truncated or forfeited without disclosure

At that point, cryptographic fairness is irrelevant if economic settlement is constrained by precision rules that only apply to BC.

Supporting references:

BC.Game Coin Accuracy Limit table (BC = 0.01)

BC token supply / circulation dashboard

Public Casino Guru thread documenting the wagering outcome
https://casino.guru/complaints/bc-game-casino-player-s-bonus-winnings-have-been-voided

The issue here is not fiat conversion or price volatility — BC.Game explicitly states crypto amounts are authoritative — but how BC itself is represented and settled compared to other assets on the platform.

[rigs3130]

This part of the forum runs on evidence, please substantiate your narrative with supporting evidence in form of screenshots of conversation with their live support or VIP host, email, or the likes. Upload them to talkimg.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/02/05/UE8OMP.png
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/02/05/UE8pqc.png
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/02/05/UE8bc2.png
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/02/05/UE8Wyq.png

[rigs3130]

This part of the forum runs on evidence, please substantiate your narrative with supporting evidence in form of screenshots of conversation with their live support or VIP host, email, or the likes. Upload them to talkimg.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2026/02/05/UE8bc2.png

In the same wallet view, BC and SOL are displayed side-by-side.
SOL shows a balance of 0.0001241, which is sufficient to represent value and map to $0.01.
BC shows an internal balance of ~1.9996, yet the front-facing usable value is constrained to 0.01.

Both assets run on Solana, both are shown in the same UI, and both resolve to the same fiat reference.

This demonstrates that BC’s 0.01 precision limit is not a network or UI constraint, but a token-specific accounting rule applied only to BC.

That distinction matters when BC is used for wagering and settlement.

[holydarkness]

You seemed to bring a lot of issue to be complained, hopefully bctokenbot can clarify all the matters to satisfactory point to you, now that evidences are given, or at least explain why your bonus got voided.

One thing that I think I can help clear from one of your list, though, is about the representative. How sure are we that you're really dealing with "Coco"? Based from your own screenshot, it awfully looks like an impersonator who suggest you to contact "Ethan", given that Coco doesn't have an "admin" label [as seen on the yellow box] and thus the red Coco, the one with admin label, muted that user.

[rigs3130]

Thanks — this is exactly what I was trying to explain. My evidence suggests the “Coco” I interacted with may have been an impersonator (no admin label), and the admin-label account appears to have muted that user.

Request: Can BC.Game / bctokenbot confirm:

Which accounts are the official representatives (including the exact usernames/IDs), and

Whether an impersonator was present in that channel during my interaction, and

Whether my case or any “manual deposit / cooperate with team” instructions were influenced by unverified accounts.

Separately, this highlights a broader control issue: support channels should not allow rep impersonation, and decisions like “bonus voided” should not rely on unverifiable chat instructions. If my bonus was voided, I’m asking for the specific rule, the exact triggering activity, and the audit trail used to reach that decision.

If needed, I can repost the screenshots and timestamps showing the admin label mismatch and the mute action.

[holydarkness]

Thanks — this is exactly what I was trying to explain. My evidence suggests the “Coco” I interacted with may have been an impersonator (no admin label), and the admin-label account appears to have muted that user.

Request: Can BC.Game / bctokenbot confirm:

Which accounts are the official representatives (including the exact usernames/IDs), and

Whether an impersonator was present in that channel during my interaction, and

Whether my case or any “manual deposit / cooperate with team” instructions were influenced by unverified accounts.

Separately, this highlights a broader control issue: support channels should not allow rep impersonation, and decisions like “bonus voided” should not rely on unverifiable chat instructions. If my bonus was voided, I’m asking for the specific rule, the exact triggering activity, and the audit trail used to reach that decision.

If needed, I can repost the screenshots and timestamps showing the admin label mismatch and the mute action.

A tad bit beating a dead horse, is it not? The tg username who instruct you to chat other tg username has no admin label on it, and the other tg they referred, as you checked through their verificator site, said it is not official. The confirmation is already highly implied. And for other point of which accounts are the official representatives, well, you've shown your skill and knowledge to us that you understand how to utilize their verificator site to verify representatives [it also works on verifying mirror site], so you can simply get the answer by clicking the user's picture on telegram that'll bring you to their profile page, and run the username.

[GokuSan]

I hope you can find a solution to that problem you're having, friend.