[...] we sent proof that they contacted us to @holydarkness.[...]
I sent proof to @holydarkness
Yes, I can confirm that I've received both of your screenshots proving that you both are telling the truth. That two doesn't necessarily mutually exclusive. Both can happen and both can still be true at the same time.
To make it clear from what I can infer from both evidences, OP, you sent an email to GC, and GC replied to you, asking you to fill the form and other requirement they stated on their reply, while at the same time also wrote to betcoin, to let them know there is a case against them and to give them a chance to prove themselves while waiting for you to provide the information from your side.
I'll boldly assume they asked for this on just-in-case basis, they'll need those data to cross-check them [the documents you provided] with betcoin's explanation, to see if betcoin tell the truth or they found something is amiss with betcoin's explanation, of which they'll then use your information to get to the bottom of the case.
From what I know, licensor's procedure from an end-user perspective goes: a user raises dispute, they describe the situation and provide supporting evidences, and the licensor will investigate things themselves, asked as many rebuttal from the casino as they deemed necessary.
They're not going to have an investigation like AG or CG where things are kept for public consumption. They read the situation in private, they asked for proof if necessary, and when they get what they needed, they pass their judgment.
Given they no longer require your data [I infer correctly that you haven't send them up to this day?] it opens to a possibility that they find betcoin's explanation to be reasonable and betcoin's supporting evidence is indisputable. Otherwise, I believe, GC will send you an email, demanding those data.