Topic: Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief - page 3. (Read 9585 times)

Doesn't everybody know that in order to do business on bitcointalk.org you have to send your KYC to JollyGood first?

If something so trivial such as the length of a post or something so unnecessary such as quoting a post already visible for full visibility made you LOL, then I am very happy for you.

Most of the post was related to replying to mv1986 who has made excellent contributions to this thread and I look forward to his replies to my comments.

Back on the issue at hand, especially this part:

- Does anybody know what the percentage of the Bitlucy company given to Royse777 was?
- Does anybody know if there was any paperwork signed between Royse777 and the Bitkucy CEO transferring that percentage over?
- Does anybody know the full name of the Bitlucy company with LLC, LTD etc?
- Does anybody know the current legal status of the company and the legal jurisdiction the company falls under?

280 words and one emoji for the response you left for me.

"deliberately" X 3
"diversion" X 1
"ramble"/"rambling" (words) X 2
"nonsense" X 2
"misdirection" X 2
"panic-posting" X 1
Questioning my "temperament"
Accusing me for my "own purposes"

Bitch your brain is not in the right position. You are attacking and ignoring arguments of users who do not feed your wall of nonsense texts.
You are the one who is overlooking. Your motive is questionable.

This is irony, I will still trust Royse777 for a large trade but with you I will have huge hesitation if this is over $500.

Edit:
I was almost posting this and saw your reply. It's clear from your comments that you did not read the entire story but creating wall of text asking sources from others.

Yes I merely asked about a link to read for myself if a dinner with the CEO took place since that was quoted by members earlier.

First of all thank you for the link (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60055562) because I was not really interested in that thread and probably never visited it until I clicked your provided link.

Secondly, the words written by the user in question with those overzealous and over-protective remarks towards Bitlucy and then including the comment that gave Bitlucy far more of a seal of approval than it deserved by mentioning (words to effect of) Royse777 would not manage a scam campaign. That part is hugely problematic because it in essence means three important things:

i) asking users to put their trust in a certain newly created website by sending funds to them on the basis a particular forum member is promoting them

ii) shutting down any form of dissent, concern or claim in earlier manifestations before they became widespread - again, on the basis a particular forum member is promoting a certain newly created website

iii) it allows the particular forum member to either buy time to try to fix any issues by liaising with the website (since their reputation is on the line if a scam takes place) or it allows that particular forum member to refuse to accept the red flags and with that ignorance fall deeper in to a bigger hole.

The unfortunate side-effect of both is that by not pulling the plug earlier and by not completely disassociating with the website at the first opportunity, that particular forum member has facilitated a mechanism where the number of victims could increase. This was one of the reasons why I stated in my feedback there was negligence on part of Royse777.

As I will mention below again, I have not read in full the 11 day conversation between the user in question with the Bitlucy CEO, I will try to read it to get an understanding.

Maybe Royse777 was gullible. Maybe a combination of being gullible and greedy led to Royse777 getting in to this situation. Maybe something else.

I hope to read it in full within 48 hours, the text in the lines I have read shows a very informal chat from a CEO who is conducting himself as a typical salesman rather than a professional individual but I need to read through it to understand what chat took place over the days they communicated.

The flag was removed by the user that created it therefore regardless of support or opposition, it does not mean much now.

I never knew about this post, I read what Royse777 wrote and once again thank you for the link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.59956927

It was utter stupidity on part of Royse777 to post using words which were probably deliberately used in order to have dual meaning, such as Royse777 stating being "good friends with the CEO for over a year" as well as "hanging out regularly".

What does that mean to a layman when someone says they are "hanging out regularly" with each other and have "build up trust of each other over a year"?

Exactly who could be blamed for putting their trust in a trusted forum member after reading him or her vouching for a business they are part owner of without actually stating "trust me and take my word for it, this is no scam" but never uttering the words?

By simply using the reputation attached as to be taken as a seal of approval to those unfortunate to believe it, Royse777 is in this situation today. I would not surprised at all if using her own reputation was part of the leverage Royse777 employed in negotiations with the Bitlucy CEO to become part owner maybe with a promise of adding her name to the casino for the sake of showing it as legitimate and it being not-a-scam... but then again until or unless a full transcript of their chats is made public we do not know what prompted the Bitlucy CEO to not only employ Royse777 as a campaign manager but also to give a percentage of the company in lieu of being awarded the title of Co-Partner & Marketing Director

Who would not believe a campaign manager with green trust when they state they are part owner of a casino or when that same member effectively says "Hey, trust this website because I am staking my reputation on it after all I am part-owner and because the CEO and I have built up a massive amount of trust over a period of a year. For your information we are very close and we are hanging out regularly. On top that, between us we both understand the gambling industry inside out because we have phenomenal experience in this field and we shared a common interest in starting a casino therefore we simply decided because we are the best people who can create a new casino which will become the largest crypto casino/sportsbook ever, we will do it"

To answer the question: Me. I would not believe it.

As a continuation of the answer: Many people and many forum members will not believe it either.

As a further continuation of the answer, it is safe to say: some people and some forum members will believe it and the reason for that misguided belief would not be because a newbie account created 30 minutes ago was vouching for a newly created casino... on the contrary the reason why some people including forum members would believe it is because someone highly trusted and in a position of trust and in good standing with peers (operating an account with several years history) has basically stated they own part of the very same business they are vouching for.

Previous good character or previous good conduct or previous good standing along previous contributions cannot negate the utterly appalling decision making process taken by Royse777 related to Bitlucy, nor should the facts about the Royse777/Bitlucy relationship be watered down because there is no evidence Royse777 intended to scam from the beginning but there those that expressed opposing views and that is their right.

We have had or almost had zero contact before corresponding in this thread. I cannot recall interacting with you but I enjoyed reading your posts for the quality and time taken to write them presenting them with links providing background information with evidence. You have also shown the correct attitude when standing up and taking a stand in what you believe in such as the high quality posts in this thread even in the face of opposing views.

It is slightly off-topic but to be fair my time for clamping down on scam after scam, almost day after day of doing it are behind me now though I do try to take an interest and post intermittently in the Reputation and Scam Accusation boards. Thankfully there are many forum members contributing positively in the Scam Accusations board on a regular basis and I am grateful to them.

Anyway, moving onwards and back to the issue on hand regarding this particular thread:

- Does anybody know what the percentage of the Bitlucy company given to Royse777 was?
- Does anybody know if there was any paperwork signed between Royse777 and the Bitkucy CEO transferring that percentage over?
- Does anybody know the full name of the Bitlucy company with LLC, LTD etc?
- Does anybody know the current legal status of the company and the legal jurisdiction the company falls under?

Well if you are correct then what do you think drove Royse777 to get in to a partnership in what was a doomed relationship from the very beginning? I do agree with you, megalomania seems the correct word because the way Royse777 was posting about her relationship with the Bitlucy CEO and the part-ownership of Bitlucy shows telltale signs of it.

I agree, the alleged proof does not bring closure in this situation at all.

What somewhat compounds the issue of the alleged conversations is what motives Royse777 had for releasing them to a select few as well as why that particular select few were chosen. The latter (if I recall correctly) was recently addressed by Royse777 in a semi-rant of a mostly incoherent post but the motives for wanting to share in the first place were never addressed. It remains unknown what Royse777 wanted to gain from it.

I agree.

I broadly agree because you have summed it up in an apt manner. I think greed played a huge part in the mindset of Royse777 in that period and I think the degree to which she leveraged her reputation as a campaign manager and trusted forum member in order to deepen the relationship with Bitlucy to become an unknown percentage owner of the company remains unknown.

You know, and I wouldn't even want to be so harsh about Royse. I do indeed concur with the fraction of people here who say there was no intent. I truly and deeply believe there was no intent. But the problem is: the numbers! What you described nails it perfectly! Roulette is probably the best example in this situation! If I offer a game and can't serve the odds that are against me, I am actually a scammer! The word is hard, but it is what it is. Very true point.


It wasn't a puzzle, because you could exchange January 22nd for any other date, and in my opinion he'd still be an important asset to the Bitcointalk Community. Back at the time you would have probably seen him with different eyes. That was the point I was trying to get across.

My opinion to put the little doubt myself/anyone else could be having about the slightest idea that Royse could have been Lucy all along without anyone knowing, Yes! that's very possible, but I guess that'd have made it much more easier for him to pull the plugged way very early at the first set of issues, since he'd have known there wasn't going to be an easier way forward for him if he was the one bankrolling the casino, he could have falsely called Lucy(himself) out and not so many people if at all anyone would have thought of the possibilities of him being the same person right ?


I slightly agree with greed notion, but I guess the benefit of the doubt from him could have been for a fact that the casino is very new and needs a bit of time to be fully functional and with the time Royse said he's been in contact with Lucy would have been slightly unfair to call him out at the slightest of issue and as Royse claimed he wasn't fully aware of every issue at the very instant might be part of what actually happened but I strongly doubt it was solely greed that got the better of him, going by the little conversation I've had with (minimal) and it was much about gambling pools and stuffs like the Covid-19 raffle which participated him.

What I find very ironic is that most of the users bashing him (not the sock puppets) would still finding comfortable with trading him without the fear of getting scammed ? Why then would they want new projects or to be wary of him, despite having admitted and owned up to his mistake, almost 8 years in the forum and what he's contributed so far should all count for nothing ?

If you can't cover the largest bet payout, then you are a scammer, or at worse in deep financial trouble.

If for example "roulette" with its highest payout of 35:1 and you don't have $35 to cover a $1 bet, then you are probably a scammer.

Thanks for the maths!

It's a scam bound to happen when the casino doesn't have a safeguard against winning more than the bankroll. If the maximum profit per bet is $30, you can have a casino with $3000 bankroll. By the time users have won $1000 in total, the maximum profit should be reduced to $20. That way, you'll never run out of money and never have to scam. You may run out of users but at least you'll be honest.

LoyceV/JollyGood,

if I start a casino with 3000 in the bank, am I a scammer? If I start with 2000 in the bank, am I a scammer? 1000? At what point am I a scammer? When I don't process withdrawals anymore without proven history of doing so?

Edited: to correct the quotation stuff.

At what point am I a scammer? Let's assume I am a scammer, but demand to be called a "newcomer"? What then? @JollyGood is applying his rules. Nobody here has to agree with them, because we are what we are, a free forum, but frankly, I will listen to him anytime! Hate me or love me, and anything in between.

You are right I did not make the statement, I merely asked about the situation.

Correct again, I merely asked if there were any links provided to show the effect and asked if the event actually took place.

Do not be surprised at some of the comments being made here. Some members have taken a line or two from a long post only to take it out of context or misquote me to deliberately cause misdirection in a thread that is supposed to be about Royse777 and Bitlucy (not about me, you or any other member).

You are factually incorrect because according to the bold part it is incoherent unless the full sentence is taken in to provide context but it seems you possibly took my post and deliberately linked it towards words I simply did not write. Having said that if you want to copy and paste the comment (you either failed to understand or deliberately are trying to create diversion tactics) by all means open a new thread in any board you want to discuss it.

Again, you are factually incorrect. I stated nothing of the sort, you can ramble on with your nonsense as much as you like. Furthermore, I have no interest in what you claim happened between yourself and Royse777  

I do not have one

And?

You said "If" and there is no "if" therefore you are wrong, again. I have zero problems but you are overlooking in to this too much. You are panic-posting in similar fashion to Royse777 with ramblings and misdirections. Try to relax, it might help with your temperament.

In my opinion the drama was started when Royse777 and Bitlucy became associates but keeping that aside feel free to agree with who want and likewise feel free to disagree with who you want but afford the same luxury or courtesy to others to make their own decisions too.

Even though your post is full of nonsense, I replied as a courtesy. Even though you have been overtly and most probably deliberately incorrect when quoting me and you have been creating your own misdirection here for your own purposes, I entertained it for a while but expect no more replies if you continue to create your own drama.

I should have been clearer: "Some say that incident was akin to Royse777 being fooled/duped by a scammer in Bitlucy whereas others say it was mismanagement and negligence on part of Royse777 (to get in to that situation)."

You are right, it is not clear if Bitlucy even intended to scam from the very beginning and it is also not clear if Bitlucy was created with the specific intention of an exit scam. If the latter was even true the amounts involved would not be worth the hassle in the first place.

It seems you are right again because they probably did not have the funds to actually start a casino in the first place and they hoped to make an income to cover any potential payouts based on initial and early customer losses. I agree, had they succeeded then it would never have been made public that Bitlucy was on the verge of collapse from day one of their operation and subsequent history could have been different but here we are.

Yes, shares the risk of crashing. Thanks for getting the point.

Let me ask the community here: going from where Royse is and we say she is NOT to be red tagged, how many percentage points of her current reputation score should we deduct to come to general consensus that a red tag DOES apply?

Minus 10%? 20? 30? 40? 50? 60? 70? 80? 90?

And then, based on what reasons? So, 30% sounds fine? Cool! Let's go with that!

For those in "defense" of Royse, I am also in defense of Royse. Clearly, as Hhampuz stated, transactions including myself going first are still possible (not sure how much Hhampuz would go for though), but what about the red tag policy? Should we fuck up just anything below "Legendary"? Or is it the merits? But we need to check whether there was merit abuse at play then right? Or is it just the "subjectively perceived" reputation? Well, then give Theymos a call and tell him to get rid of merits.

I am definitely not making a case against Royse, I am making a case against making a case an emotional lottery (or subjective policy). It is and will always be complicated when a highly trusted member of our community gets involved into dubious stuff. Slippery slope, my friends. And a slap in the face for newcomers who try to climb up the forum (political) ladder without any chance whatsoever.

This is not sympathy, compassion, and definitely not good faith. All of this story is making so much fuss because a lot of the members here are scammers like Royse777 and they do not want it to be a habit here on this forum of giving negative trust scores to scammers. Instead, they ask for pity to be paid for by the scam victims + the future victims. They want to dilute themselves between honest businesses, but this shouldn't be allowed.

It's not the same thing to run campaigns for legitimate businesses or to run them for scams. People who run legitimate campaigns should try their best to separate themselves from the scammers and as much as possible exclude others with scam histories. That is why @yahoo62278 and @JollyGood are the only ones doing the right thing here.

But if the passenger is the owner of the car and allows a driver without a licence, it is a problem

Lots of talking, but when is royse going to pay the victims? royse = bitlucy. Use your mind

In that case, the passenger doesn't get punished (but shares the risk of crashing). That seems like a pretty accurate analogy.

Obviously, it's up to you to do whatever you want, but I think it is better not to do so. The only thing it's going to do is make you angry.

Those of us who changed the feedback to neutral already are not going to be affected by what is discussed here and those who maintain it are not likely to change anything based on discussions that only serve to further entrench positions and get angry.

Can I ask everyone to stop quoting me in this thread please. I'm done with the situation and attitude. I would rather not get 5 notifications a day from this thread.

Without being dramatic you could quote it. I am not in a situation to solve puzzles.


Because you are having so much fun so here you go:
- Blockchain transactions that you and yahoo wanted to see
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/f58c549959b0d064e92966475c59d3c25db8f423f7c510f97f8639e72b2d2ba5
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/1bea9d558d80b1e38549f9435d4bc783aaae6c0e8c3dda04c3607990a77678ef
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/b06b24911432d1e9adaa89c6f366ffe3e262bd32f8d312123c9c10cc17ccb67e

I will not provide ownership of any address, make me.


Don't tell me you do not know how auto-suggestion works in our mind. Reality Checked.

Do you still say your emotion was not effected? You edited your post after my response and added the tag thing.
Do you really think I am concern about the tag you left? I am concerned to see your desperate approach to harass others and using the trust system in your favor. If you are doing it to me when I have a long history of the forum, how would I now not be concerned that you are not doing it from years against the weaks.