Topic: PM from betnomi. (Read 1198 times)

Its good to hear that you guys have enough patience to accept criticism for your past doings and it should be. Already many community users have shared their suggestion and i hope you will accept all their guidelines which may help you to develop your profile in the future. Personally i don't wanna add much with others but don't be so quick to erase all your mistakes. Hopefully that's not gonna bring good result for you.

Yahoo62278 have already described a lot of things about your unsuccessful ICO project. One thing looks good to me which is you had opportunity to come with new platform, domain and team but you didn't do that. Obviously its good sign to recover lost reputation with honesty but its need much time than you are expecting. Already there is open accusation against your platform and its that clear fake team members profile used by your team during ICO time. After an unsuccessful ICO tokensale you want to keep your platform forward with your own and If i am not wrong then you have mentioned that currently your platform have no relation with old team members. Yeah that's okay but do you think you can withdraw flag support and red tags from your account just by running a signature campaign or other promotional activities here. I don't think its gonna help you in real where its need a good amount of time to observe your behavior and activities.

After launching signature campaign you just start to give PM to all of them who have supported the opened flag against you or tagged you. I don't think you have done something which will influence us to judge that you are not going to commit scam with your platform users. I think it was something like that " We are paying to signature participants and we are trusted now " You can't achieve someones trust by giving pressure or something similar. Its a matter of time and honesty which can only bring your reputation back.

Hope you will keep your promises and DT members will consider your issue in the future. For now i can only say that you have got someone like "yahoo62278" on your side and by abiding his guidelines you will be able to bring best outcomes for your platform.  

Calculator is working fine for me, both from the link you provided and from the link at the website. I'm adding a screenshot from a game that has been played today on the Roll Hunt Contest as an example.



To get that hash, the site uses the server seed and the first 3 bettors' seed and combines it. For the example I've provided, you can check it by yourself in this SHA-512 Generator (for example)


Putting that together we get


And the output of that is


See that the output matches the one that the platform provides to verify the roll

Thanks for taking time to address my query, but I just couldn't find a way to verify the results from the generated SHA512 hash as https://blast.bcintegration.com/calculator/ page is not working. I'm getting '404 not found' error. I guess betnomi has to fix the probably fairness calculator page, so that I could check it 
Or just explain how the results are obtained from the hash.

I think you are late for this discussion and please, I will kindly request you read the previous comments and review the evidence before you proceed to express your opinion. That's the responsible thing to do.
At this point, no one is saying we had or have a fake team. We have provided enough evidence contrary to the accusations that were made. The original post alleging this issue has been deleted. The creator, I assumed saw the evidence. I am sure you are unaware of that. The team that was in place last year are no longer part of the project since the ICO was canceled. The current project is a self-funded and private business. Again, we will go a step further and ask you to point out just one person who claims, forget about a claim. Who even thinks we scammed him or her. There is no such person. Everything that was ever said or being said about us is solely based on Conjecture.

Moving forward, we will remain active and address any questions or concerns that are directed to us. At the same time, we welcome, any suggestions and or recommendations.

Maybe you should be asking the one who have tagged your project and supported the flag to what you can do in order to remove those tags rather than make it positive. I know that you have used a fake team and some of them are from other people without them knowing that they are part of the team so maybe you can come out clean by showing off who your real team members are? Maybe if you showed Bitcointalk a video of your team discussing a little bit about your gambling site will make things work for them other than that you should show that your gambling site is working properly without any reports of scams will also get you off the hook. Don't get me wrong and this tags won't be remove from your instantly as this will be a long process and it all depends on the people who have left you tags.

Your open-mindedness and objectivity is greatly respected. The only thing we are asking is, for people to be fair and balance in their judgment against us.
We have started this project and our intention is to grow it into something successful and worthwhile. As far as am concern, we will be operating, improving and increasing the brand name of Betnomi for many years to come.
Our hope is to have a mutualistic relationship with the community and not a parasitic one. The support, feedback and sometimes the criticism is immensely invaluable to us. We are learning, adapting and growing as a by-product of the stated characteristics.

Regarding being active in the forum, there are countless products and ideas that are in the works and we will keep the community updated every step of the way.
You will see us around and expect more from Betnomi.

I also received PM from betnomi because I support flag against them. If I properly understand, here is a zero-tolerance for plagiarism (though there are opposite cases, it can't be named "zero") I will withdraw my flag support, but the payout for one test bounty is not enough. It would be like buying a trust rating here. They need to be more active here and the patient. they have to convince the community that everything was just a beginner mistake.
I must agree with @yahoo62278 they did not take a new domain, a new name, new account which is much simpler for them, which is a sign that they still want to prove themselves. very few here get away from the negative into the positive, and everyone deserves a chance.

On this, we agree but with a small difference. The reasons to create and suppoort the flag back then, and the reasons to support it right now are completely different.

If I got the whole story right, the flag was created because:

a) There were discrepancies with 2 team members
b) One of said members stated that he had not authorized his image/profile to be posted as part of the team
C) The owner did not answer back then.

But now, the team has replied and provided some evidence (I agree that the contract would be something compulsory to end this, as it would bring an explanation to point B). Without that contrat, tough, point A and C are still covered, and point B is looking like a disagreement between two parties because of monetary reasons.

Even more, you are saying that it is high risk to trade with the user (flag type 1), but you yourself said that "we don't know who will scam but we can't raise flag to any companies without any clue". You are using a flag that was created for different reasons, to support a hunch about a completely new situation. If you still believe that there is reason enough for a flag about the casino (new businness), then I'd suggest you created a new type 1 flag, and provided the neccessary evidence to back your claim.

Each forum member should be able to judge the situation based on the evidence provided, be them DT or not DT.


That is a fair and valid point

If they were asking for money, then I would jump on the red flag train with you. It's quite the opposite here and you making a flag just to look good, is defamation honestly. I appreciate you trying to look out for a community but creating a flag cause you can is shit.

Why we hadn't heard from you when I have raised the flag? Answer would simple, the team hadn't contacted you and didn't explained about the situations. Same thing, there wasn't any kind of explanation to defend them and when I have seen their new announcement thread then I felt it's quite important to raise flag in order to warn peoples. They use same domain because it's already old and obviously I appreciated that in my previous post. You have your own opinion and you are open to support or oppose flag its depend on your beliefs, I won't argue in that nor I will.

Have you noticed anyone raised flag for a new gambling site without any clue? Even we don't know who will scam but we can't raise flag to any companies without any clue. This is flag type one since there is still possibility of happen scam. I am not saying they will scam, but they could or could not,  who know? I don't think its appropriate to turn feedback neutral for now since I believe still there is risk (I believe), ofcourse all DT members opinion couldn't same. If they prove themselves trustworthy in future, likely I could revise feedback or not it depends on situation.

I really don't understand how you worked during that time  Contracts are extremely important and must be published whenever necessary. This allegation was made a year ago, why haven't you published this since then? If you are a business, you need to understand the importance of contracts, why are you putting it in a place where you have to look? All contracts must be stored carefully and can be searched within seconds or minutes. I really really don't understand how your business work, it's a minus for you.

I could ask the owner to respond here as to the reason. Account was a newbie then and could have likely gotten pissed off at the accusations and red tags and just left the forum. Who knows, I don't really want to speculate much on that particular issue when I can just ask the operator of the site. **EDIT** Looks like the operator responded above.

I also feel like the flag against them is a little overboard. Maybe I'm biased since I have been working a little with them, but no money was taken in their ICO, they've shown proof that the team or some members were real(not sure if all members were proven real), the original scam accusation was deleted, and the owner came back to promote on his tagged account.

He could have just made a new account, got a new domain name, and started all over. For now i'm going to oppose the tag until better proof is presented. I think coolcryptovator jumped the gun here.

Any site can scam at any point. we have no idea of knowing when or why a site ends up scamming. Having a neutral in their trust here is good enough for now. Tossing out flags when nothing was stolen is a bit much though.

I have to correct a small detail here; he demanded more money before the ICO had even started. We had already signed a contract with him, so we refused to pay him that extra he was asking for. Since the contract had been signed, and he had authorized us to add him to the team, we added his photo and profile. User Csmiami has suggested we search for the contract, and we are actively doing so. In the meantime, the PDF with screenshots of the conversation I had with him is the only hard evidence I can provide.




We're actively searching for the contract, and are confident that it will be enough evidence/documentation to clear all this situation. We have already provided all the information we considered necessary to prove that Abdul Rehman was indeed a real person and working for us. If there are any more concerns about him, I think we'll be able to bring more papers to prove that.

We didn't reply in the original topic, because as Csmiami pointed out yesterday, I was busy creating the platform, and forum politics were unclear to me; they still are. We are also curious about the reason to modify the OP, but thank you for finding an archived version of it.  

All we are asking for is fairness, objectivity, and an opportunity to rectify this blunder and make things right.

It was adviser who claimed he was not part of team, but judging that screenshot in scam accusation he was familiar with project. Betnomi said they agreed on price with him, but when ICO started, they claim advisor start extorting them for bigger price. I have no clue what is truth and it is better to have something documented rather than nothing, besides, I don't trust ICO advisers at all.
It is not about forgiving someone something, if something is "going on" I believe it has to be documented. This is not court of judge, it is internet forum, so there was something, it is documented and that's pretty much it, neutral can be just neutral comment, soft negative or soft positive, what is important here is to read feedback and reference and make your own conclusion 

I have no clue why OP of that topic edited topic nor why betnomi didn't respond to scam accusation...

I have to accept this, it was very difficult decision ever for BETNOMI. And yes, they deserve appreciation for that. But you know intelligence of our forum users, believe me! someone could have exposed their previous history which would have lead furthur reputation damage for them. I am quite strict with fake team so there is very low chance to convince me. They had never tried to defend them and provide appropriate explanation on the accusations. Now creating new story doesn't prove their legitimacy. Also running campaign or whatever promotion couldn't erased their fake team accusation.

The only way to build reputation here run their platform for multiple years so they will get positive rating or feedbacks from users same like happen with other gambling platform. No one had built their reputation so quickly especially gambling platforms. I don't have any intentions to remove or revise feedback yet, for future depends on their platform services and forum users reviews (not review from the campaign). I will not prevent anyone to advertise their platform since nothing personal here, its depend on who trust on their platforms. But turned into scam would lead damage everyone's reputation who will promote them on the forum since they had multiple negative feedback and flag (warning) from multiple DT users.

Sorry, it's my bad. I thought that changing your feedback was important, I thought you were ready to forgive them  but nonetheless, a neutral trust is more comfortable than a negative trust 
If they maintain everything stable in the future, I think forgiveness can be granted, right? They have chosen a harder way with their old account instead of using a new account 

I am not sure is it a good sign, I only changed color of that feedback 

I had been talking to the owner of betnomi about a possible job oportunity as their CM here in the forum for the last couple of days; I was not aware of this mess of PMs, and for the whole evening, we've been going over every question raised so far together to try to answer them the best possible way. I'm not currently working for them; I'm doing this for free, mostly because I have spare time during lockdown so I'm not associated with betnomi.

Now that that has been explained, let's go point out the obvious: the owner of betnomi doesn't know how this forum works, let alone the trust/flag system. That has lead to this mess we're seeing right now. I'm not trying to justify the actions that have been taken until now by betnomi; had they hired a CM sooner, none of this would have happened, but they didn't and hare we are now. I'll first address the questions raised in this thread, and will add the explanations to the old thread too. The old thread will also be updated, but only answering the accusations raised there. All the answers I'll give are a copy-paste (with a bit of rewording in some cases) from the conversation I've had with the owner.

Before I start, I'll once again say that I'm not associated or receiving any kind of payment from betnomi; I'm acting as a middleman between a user that does not understand how this forum works and the people that are following this thread.

---

---

First of all, I'd like to apologize on behalf of the owner of betnomi for the PMs you have received. As I have already explained, the owner has little knowledge about how trust related stuff is handled in the forum. Some of you may know think that me acting as a middleman right now is not the best idea, but after everything I've talked about with the owner, I think that's the best (and maybe only) way of addressing every issue that is brought in a calm and straight way. The wording of the PMs was also something far from ideal, but there's nothing that can be done now about that.


The ICO had been cancelled and the project became a self funded one, so there was no need for an ANN. That's why it was "deleted" (edited to just show XXs). Now that the platform is re-launching, the owner wants a fresh start, and that's why he's been reaching out to the people supporting the flag and leaving the negative trust. He didn't reply back in the day because he was busy building the platform, and apart from the lack of knowledge about how the forum works, he didn't have many time to reply to these accusations. It was not the best move, but again, we can't change the past.


I'm sorry you didn't get a reply on that, it most likely went unnoticed. Here's your answer:

3 client seeds are used to generate the out come of the game and there is the possibility a user can submit his own seed which will be included in the hashing process. If a user needs to verify anything, he can use the provably fair tool on the website. If that is not enough, he can use any SHA512 Hash calculator online and will get the same result. The platform is not provided by us, but by a platform provider that has been in the businness for over 15 years. The games are created, hosted and maintained by them and we do not have access to the source code, so there's no way we can mess around with anything. Besides, the platform provider has multiple RNG certifications and gaming licences. (I've uploaded them into a PDF on Mega, in case someone wants to see them.) The product is white labbeled, and we have signed a NDA, so the numbers that could trace back to them have been redacted.

The platform provider has some default templates, and upon deciding which one you are going to use, they rebrand it for you. That's the reason behind the similarities and even some same terms between Suprabets, as mentioned in the OP.

This is indeed another case of terrible word choice in the PM, same as with

As Lauda did also point out in the other PM. Had I known he was going to be sending PMs to everybody, I'd have tried to stop it, but again, the past can't be changed. Luckily, the owner has realized that this behaviour was more damaging than helping.

---

---

Now let's get started with the old accusation. This part will be copy-pasted with a small introduction and link to this thread, to try to have a single one rather than 2.

For what I've understood, there were 2 things that lead to the scam accusation:
(copy pasted from the Open Scam accusation)

• "Abdul Rehman "UI / UX Designer", he confirmed to me by Linkedin that he did not have any links with the team, it could be a coincidence."
• "Rahul Vyas confirms that its picture and information are used without its consent"

Regarding the Abdul Rehman case:

The owner knew Abdul from past projects, and he was indeed part of the team. He was asked for his ID and a photo to be used in the team tab. There's a contrat signed too. What happened here? The name Abdul Rehman was a nickname; he had another legal name (ID provided). That could have let to a confusion with the linkeding profile; let's note that the OP had found Abdul, rather than getting linked from the website.

Part of the contract and some conversations between Abdul and the owner of betnomi---> PDF at Mega (some information has been redacted). The contract itself cannot be made public, since there is some confidential information.

Regarding the Rahul Vyas case:

As with Abdul, there's a part of the conversation between the owner and Rahul at the PDF at Mega.
As we can read, an agreement was reached, unlike what Rahul stated in the scam accusation screenshots. The owner does also say that they did indeed sign a contract. Since that would be some hard to refute evidence, I've instructed him to search for said contract. Should he find it, I'll update this post/reply on the thread. As requested by the owner, some information has been redacted (payments in this case). No payment was made in the end, because in words of the owner, Rahul asked for a higher payment after his information was published on the website (and after signing the contract). That conversation is unfortunately unavailable, and without the contract to back up the version of the owner, it'll be up to each user following the thread to believe one or the other.
I am aware about the fact that the screen names in the conversation I've uploaded on this PDF doesn't match the one the owner of betnomi has provided, but we are not going to ask for KYC, are we? It's the same person, that I can say.

---

---

I think I've replied to every issue that's been brought up here, if I skipped anything, I'm sorry; it was not my intention. I'll now update the open scam accusation thread too, and feel free to and any more concern you may have here, and I'll try to get it solved.

Edit: I've just seen that OP of the old Open scam accusation has been "deleted" after I replied there. I am puzzled by this action, as that thread served as the main reference for both the flag and the negative trust provided by most users. I've archived it in case it gets deleted.  The only reasonable scenario I can think of, is that seeing that there is a new reputation thread about the same user, OP has decided it made no sense to have both threads open. It could have been moved to the archive, so that it could still be used as a reference; but I guess only the OP,  Hellmouth42 can answer that

I am a forgiving person and i can change my ratings and support for the flag based on what i have seen from their efforts, i have done this kind of thing in the past. What i would like to see is them trying to resolve the issue for example by responding to the Open scam accusation

Just sending a PM is not enough because i may remove my support for the flag but the accusation will still remain open and that will continue taunting them every time a member who wants to use their service does a bit of due diligence.

I see that a lot of trusted members including yourself are now promoting Best Change, a platform that was almost giving no chance for existing at all on the forum and the first reason why they were flagged was simply because they were considered high paying (without using escrow) for a new campaign with many slots, only Royse777 most noticeably and few members were fighting that they deserve a fair (even though you might argue he wasn't being objective because he applied already) and that lead to a lot of backlash which includes you excluding Him from your trust network. So, that brings about my question what if Royse777 and just a very few members then had not voiced that Best Change also need fair chance ? That'd have been one less platform on the forum, right ?


I could not agree less with you. All it would have cost them is a new domain name, why go through this route of redemption then ?



They approach was wrong, the intention maybe not.