Hello,
I created this topic for the purpose of reviewing LuckyCoin.com and the 5 platforms connected to their license. I would like to hear your opinions and feedback about them.
This thread is not intended as a direct accusation or defamation but rather to highlight some points that need clarification from the community.1-
luckycoin.com |
URLSCAN2-
betmode.io |
URLSCAN3-
feinbet.com |
URLSCAN4-
wildead.com |
URLSCAN5-
wagmicasino.com |
URLSCAN6-
rollchain.io |
URLSCANFirst,[1] The bounty manager
@julerz12 stated in their official announcement thread that he verified their license number ALSI-202411002, which belongs to ONCHAIN Technologies. It appears that all the platforms linked to this license are connected under it.
He also pointed out that one of the sub-licensed platforms, Betmode, has scam accusations against it, and its official announcement thread has been locked.
This was the same company/operator that owns Betmode.io, Rollchain.io, wagmicasino.com, Wildead.com yes?
Checked those other sites, and they are still online.
Why do you have so many casino platforms? Whitelabel? Or you're purposely launching new ones ever so often to widen your scope and catch all gamblers.
Betmode has some scam accusations
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5552991.0And its official announcement thread is now locked:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5511974.0
[2] Also, when
@julerz12 attempted to confront the operator behind the scenes regarding their shared multi-casino infrastructure, the operator added a Telegram Stars requirement on Telegram, charging 1,000 Telegram Stars (~$20 USD) just to receive a direct message.
Had a chat with the "owner" and it seems these guys are not that happy to answer questions.
Upon asking about their various casino platforms, he switched to charging 1,000 stars ($20) to send him a message on Telegram.
As you can see, he confirms they own those other casinos.
[3] At the same time, while they claim that management and player funds are completely separated, as shown in the following quote:
LuckyCoin is a separate casino brand with its own management team, commercial setup, product direction and community strategy. The fact that other brands may operate under the same licensed entity does not mean they share the same management, funding, player balances, roadmap or operational standards.
The member
@panjul07 also pointed out an interesting discovery:
(Shared House Bankroll)At the same time, Tomas, who operates under the account
@LuckyCoin_ on the forum, allegedly admitted:
Hey panjul07,
Sorry for late reply.
Just to clarify — Lucky Coin is run through a completely separate company and raised its own funding independently.
And yeah, the reward/payout wallets are shared across sites on the same license setup. It keeps the operation lean, improves liquidity, and makes sure payouts are always flowing smoothly.
Thanks, Tomas
This might suggest shared liquidity risk where liquidity shared across platforms might be affected if one of the entities experiences operational failure.
[4] It also appears from their financial documents, as I mentioned, that there is significant technical negligence on their part, along with clause 14.2, which refers to the source of funds and limits user compensation to only $500. They also ignored responding to my post in their thread..
They seem to be written in a copy-paste format; they didn’t even replace the placeholder name and just left (website). This doesn’t reflect professionalism at all.
Also, the
Anjouan license doesn’t mean anything for international users, as it doesn’t provide any real assistance in recovering funds in case of a dispute. So it is essentially just a paper license.
Take a look at Article
14.2 as well: in these General Terms & Conditions, they state that the maximum amount they can pay in case of an error on their side is only $500. Limiting liability to such an amount is a red flag, as it may effectively give these platforms the right to confiscate your funds, even if you win millions and only compensate you with $500.
14.2. in the event that we are held liable for any event under these terms, our total aggregate liability to you under or in connection with these terms shall not exceed
(a) the value of the bets and or wagers you placed via your account in respect of the relevant bet/wager or product that gave rise to the relevant liability, or
(b) eur $500 in aggregate, whichever is lower.
[5] They were publicly promoting the statement: [No KYC for wins under $10k,] but at the same time, clause 8.3 in their general terms states that they reserve the absolute right to request identity verification documents before approving any withdrawal, regardless of how small the amount is (ANY withdrawal).
@Upgrade00 and
@mitchr4 also pointed this out in their announcement thread in the following quotes:
Welcome to Bitcointalk.
In your manifesto it says that there is no KYC for wins under $10k, but the general terms (8.3) says otherwise; that you reserve the right to request documents before egrantung ANY withdrawals. Which is it?
There's also a small type in 8.2 you will want to check out.
It would be good if the LuckyCoin team fixed their terms and conditions, especially the KYC part and the incomplete sentence in section 8.2. The manifesto and the Terms say different things and that is confusing for new users. This community has seen many projects come in with big promises but little transparency, so a new casino looking to build trust here should make sure everything is clear from the beginning.
When questioned by users, the operator LuckyCoin_ (Tomas) noted a difference between their marketing claims and their official terms in his post, stating:
Hi folks,
We’ve recently updated the information on our website. Since our Terms & Conditions always give us the right to request KYC when necessary, we felt it was misleading — as several people here also pointed out — to continue using “No KYC under $10k” as a selling point.
Because of that, we’ve decided to remove that wording. Thanks for feedback on that
LuckyCoin
[6] Based on DevTools network inspection logs across all 6 sites: Feinbet, Rollchain, Wagmicasino, Wildead, Betmode, and LuckyCoin. [/i].
- Each of the examined sites shows a network request fetching the same tracking script:
https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-48VCYCY57B
A closer look at the static asset names across these domains appears to show repeated reuse and near-identical build outputs. .
-
Shared CSS Hashes: d2a0f67239a2d920.css, d120d122346fd61f.css, f05e194b7a41ff44.css
- Shared Webpack Core JS Hashes: webpack-7aa46f05faa2ddb4.js, main-app-d181f6cacbf2cc92.js
- Betmode links appear hardcoded inside LuckyCoin's GTM Container Script: [ARCHIVED]
https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id=GTM-MZ5D82MB
There is evidence of shared GTM container usage and the same script that was used to run their previous platforms (Betmode, Flipcoin, etc.), and injected it into the new LuckyCoin website without fully updating previous platform references from links and paths related to the old platforms.
What do you think these patterns could indicate about how the platforms are actually operated?
