Topic: Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief - page 6. (Read 9492 times)

I'd say 50%. Owner was going to launch with a reserve of just $10K in USDT, it was all he could muster. I was also going to contribute about $2K to the bankroll until my finances were hit with a really bad and completely unrelated scam last October [which I have since recovered from]. I was also managing $300/month worth of servers arranged in a K8s cluster that was supposed to host the backend.

This corresponded to a quite ugly (at the time) drop of the BTC price, and with the slow progress being made, it simply did not make sense to continue throwing bankroll money at infrastructure, and that's when I decided to pull the plug - at first by delaying the launch, as I genuinely thought the markets would recover. They did not, as we can all see, and actually since I withdrew they've gotten even worse.

And although I wasn't paid for my work - which is something I specifically negotiated with him to avoid straining the finances, and that I'd get a large share of the casino revenue - the owner ultimately could not pay for additional developers to save the project. Everyone was basically going to get a share of the revenue at launch, so no salaries bogging down the bankroll here. I get the impression that the owner was not wealthy (he told me this project was specifically to generate some wealth for him).


Sure, I was the main driving force of the project, but I was also the last one to leave it (not including the owner). I'm not Superman - there's only so much that I can do by myself. So that's why the project became crippled when developers suddenly started disappearing.


Thank you, I appreciate it.

The Michael Jordan quote about failure is relevant here. (And also for Royse as well.)

---

Anyway, Royse, I think that it is sufficient to publish excepts of your Telegram convos with the owner (screenshots are sufficient - no photo attachments, blockchain transactions, personal info etc - your username can be blacked out for privacy) to silence the critics here. That's what I'd do if people started accusing me about my gig. Of course, I also had blockchain transactions in the convo (I was not too close & comfortable with him - our business was strictly professional). Besides, trolls could claim that the blockchain transactions do not prove anything.

At least ask some of the users who worked with the owner. Even some of them already told in public that it was not me. I don't understand how you missed it if you are so much involved in the case or al least you feel you are.

Please don't. I am not asking for it to have your sympathy. Haven't you done your part yet?

Don't lecture me blockchain. I know very well how it works. When I connect an address known to me which I don't want in public then I don't. The moment I tell an address is mine know to everyone that it's mine.

Let's start with blockchain transactions. I could care less about any address you might have had money sent to or sent from. Sounds like an excuse to me, but the blockchain is public, not private just in case you weren't aware. Regardless I have never asked for an address I don't believe. I'm also not asking for your home address( another thing I do not care to know).

What is being asked for is you to prove you are not the owner of the casino(which most of us do not believe you are), prove via conversations with this mystery person whom you are so good of friends with that you are innocent. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't want to prove that.

BTW I'm using no strategy here. 1 company contacted me due to your rep for a 1 week campaign. Don't get yourself in a mess and companies wouldn't wanna stop associating with you. I did not cause your mess so don't try to blame me for your mistakes.

You called yourself a partner, people lost money, I think you are lucky you aren't painted red by 50 users at this point. Most of us are trying to give you a chance to clear your name, but IMO you are letting anger get the best of you and not solving much of anything.

Dear bitcointalk friends, colleague, competitors (sorry if this sounds bad but it is an unfold truth!)
I really find it stressful when a few are thinking what things I have to hide, why not I bring everything in public?

Yes, I have many reasons to conduct private. If this is not possible then limit it to a circle at least. It is very important for me not to publicize the blockchain transactions which will easily lead to the online services I use or the wallets I use frequently which even could take back to the main storage I have. Isn't all risky for me?

I didn't want other bitcointalk users to be in trouble who were as helpless as me in this situation. The faces a few of you already showed me, makes me think that sharing them even in private with some of you would be riskier for me, forget about being them in public. If I really need to black out or censor some sections then what is the point to share it at all.

Dear Yahoo and JollyGood, maybe privacy does not mean much to you but it matters for me. Looking at how you conduct your business, the theory and strategy you are applying to justify the case, it's not very good for someone to share private info to you, at-least not me.

It's dirty when you pretend to be a friend to benefit your business.

Sorry, I wanted to digest all blames on me but some of you were taking the opportunity to overdo it.

Of course Royse777 was the CEO, maybe the same share as his friend but he is not as innocent as he is trying to make everybody believe him.
I do not care at all about those so called DT members, everybody knows the DT trust system is a big joke and that sportsbet.io owns the forum. All these so called DT members are just some annoying trolls and they should have put back in the whole were they came out from.
Yes, I can say that the bitcointalk staff is also corrupt as they were trying to steal 0.5 BTC from me with a scam email!
Back to Royse the muppet.
If his interest in this project was so small, he would never made the ANN with his account. Does not make any sense.
The only reason he made the post is because it is his project, only then you could efford yourself to make the post, hoping it will generate a lot of money.
All his conversations were just simply photoshopped, as it is his last try to save his "reputation". Yes, if somebody made the post he is 100 liable, that is with every site.
Royse must solve all the accusations and make sure everybody gets paid.

Casino's and other businesses like to hire reputable members to post an announcement thread for them. They think it will help them, but in the long run, running a business legitimately is the only thing that really helps a casino or other. Usually I would advise a person to post a disclaimer if they are contacted for such a service, but even if they don't, they are not personally liable if the casino or other project scams participants. If a person is aware that a project is a scam, they should make an announcement and close the thread if they posted it.

The only thing that makes me feel Royse is responsible was announcing he/she was a partner. Taking that away and I would say Royse has 0 responsibility here. Bad judgement for sure. Even with saying hey I'm a partner, i'm still confused as to what level. Was royse responsible for making the day to day decisions? Was royse only being paid a small salary for their name to be attached? Was royse under the pretenses that they would get a portion of the profits monthly?

Now getting to all this pm business. Why wouldn't you want to post everything you have and make the story clear? Why wouldn't you want the opportunity to make your name clear? I don't agree with pm's being private at all in this situation. They can black out any info that they may deem personal or would have them doxxed.

It's all confusing to me as to why this is happening the way it is.

Is that how it works? Lmao..

I know a LOT of people that owe a LOT of coin then..

Lot of bullshit has been written bij Royse777. We should stay only to the facts.
Royse777 made the ANN post, which made him 100% liable. He must pay all the people that are scammed. Other information is not relevant.

1. You could say if their is a good reason not to publicly release them, such as if they include doxes of the innocent or also private information..

2. I know you are extremely strict and “analyze small details”..
Their would be a lot to tell from your understanding of the events..
If you came out with an unchanged opinion I could tell that their is nothing damning in there, though I also wouldn’t expect you to get the feels for their struggle much..
On the other hand if it improved your opinion it would mean quite a lot, because I believe that would be quite the achievement.. You are obviously not biased in their favor..

I trust your judgement quite well, but at the same time think your overly harsh at times..

And I like Royse quite a lot for some of their other traits that have nothing to do with handling money or conducting business, other than their ethics their of..


Well, that doesn’t completely resolve it for me..
I’m not trying to decide to tag them or not, I’m trying to decide if my opinion of Royse should change or not..

Royse has impressed me a couple times in the past and they are one of my favorites.. If that should change I would much like to be aware..


Yes..
Good eye..

What would I say and what impact would my say-so have on the current situation?

To be honest with you eddie, there is an unhelpful movement within the forum where some members who find themselves in certain situations decide to use the PM route for their own particular agenda. I am unsure what Royse777 would gain from showing PMs to certain members in order to demonstrate (using an unknown barometer), that she was not a scammer amongst other things. For example, if several forum members registered to play at a website that I was promoting and things went completely pear-shaped, what good would it do to the community if you and several others stated you had seen various PMs from me and were advocating I was not a scammer? Likewise, what good would it do to the community if after receiving the PMs you and several other members decided to not comment at all or to state the PMs were doctored?

Royse777 would probably not even consider sending me the PMs probably because I am one to extensively analyse various bits of information and maybe because I am known to have very little sympathy towards those who should know better. Keeping that aside, we have not always seen eye to eye and have had issues in the past. I recently removed her from my exclusion list only to re-add her a short time later because of the Bitlucy drama.

Even now to this point there is some degree of sympathy for her because of the situation she finds herself in but after reading the scam allegation thread and the come clean thread, has everything really been said and done? It seems as though several facts and vital bits of information are not being put in the public domain by Royse777.

Returning to what you said about me being sent the PMs... I doubt I will be sent any of the private correspondence (between Bitlucy and Royse777) to peruse.

I think we should agree to disagree on the issue of you saying not having evidence can suffice in almost every case. In general, some evidence is needed before a serious conclusion can be made but I am inclined to partly agree with you when you say that Royse777 did know users were likely to get scammed and nothing for a period of time. In my own opinion that period of time (the interim of being aware users would most probably lose financially and her actually saying so and taking action) cannot be mitigated at all...  but others disagree with my view and they have just as much right to their opinion as I have a right to mine.

As for the trade-risk comment you made, I broadly agree with it but with my own perspective added for consideration that is why I left the negative tag. In my opinion the flag should have stayed, I supported it along with others yet on the other hand others opposed it. The one who created the flag decided to withdraw it (as he was well within his rights to do so) but each member has their opinion how to conduct themselves in this highly unusual set of circumstances: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366632;page=iflags

Your final comment about PMs should not be specific to Royse777 but could be applied generally to any form of issue where evidence or communication was presented. From what I understand the situation to be (based on what I have read), I am fairly certain you are wrong because Royse777 was not sending PMs to herself using multiple accounts in order to use as a defence if/when a scam was to ever take place. On the contrary, it seems fairly clear she was duped in to participating in the Bitlucy facade but questions about the full extent of her involvement in the business and the extent of the relationship between her and the Bitlucy owner - are open to debate because she has not made all the details public.

Out of curiosity, how much of the decision to pull the plug on the project was down to there being dwindling finances?

Well, I have to say from what I recall you seem very talented in your code related tips, advice, comments and contributions in the forum therefore how much of the project not proceeding was simply a side effect because you were no longer a part of it? I would not be surprised if you were carrying the bulk of the workload which resulted in you being the main catalyst therefore that probably played a massive part.

I hope in the near future your skills will be put to good use in a different project where your talents will be showcased to their maximum potential.

Im not going to defend one Sid ein this conflict since I am not really that educated about all the details. But I have seen many campaigns of Royse777 and if you start to assume that he knew of the scam, than you have to also ask the question: What is the benefit for Royse777 in this whole situation?
-It is possible that he was payed an amount of money that was so high that he decided to just do it (unlikely, since then he would just leave the forum/create a new account)

And what is the negative impact on him if he intentionally scammed?
-His reputation would be completely destroyed
-He would not be able to have a steady source of income in this forum again, only maybe the one time benefit of a high payment for the scam
-Possibly legal actions against him

If you consider this it is not very likely that he was aware of the scam, since he had way more to loose than to win. Still with his reputation he should have chosen a better advertising partner or at least have enough funds as escrow to pay for the campaign. With this in mind I think I will have a lot less trust in him as a campaign manager but not any less trust in him as a person on the forum.

It's been cancelled since January even though I only locked that thread last week, not only because of the developers but I had to leave the project for personal reasons (I was not the owner, only a former associate of him).

It looked as though we were very busy last year - and we were - with many aspects such as support and advertising, but ultimately the project was running late and could not be finished, so everything just fizzled out.

There are a lot of issues with this statement:
1-You don't have to have evidence for everything, except maybe for when sending someone to prison or death penalty. Some things you'll just have to assume. It is very clear, at best, that Royse777 knew that those who trusted him were very much likely to get scammed, and he did not do anything because he also knew that this wouldn't affect his job on this forum.

2-The trust score, as it is being advertised, is supposed to evaluate the trade risk, not if the person is intentionally scamming or not. So this must also include if someone is stupid enough to get you scammed.

3-PM are not proof of anything. He could have prepared this beforehand and was conversing with himself just to show it after the scam.


So if this was a place that is supposed to not encourage scams, there shouldn't be any need to keep people like Royse777 and let them ride with a high trust score.


He doesn't have to. His trust score is already restored and he's continuing business as usual.
By the way, are you also @SatSnatcher? You both finish sentences with 2 points

Give the PMs to Jolly..

Let’s see what he says..

I think what you said is particularly effective when the word reputation comes in to play as it does in this case: Royse777 reputation

If any member of the forum was in a situation such as this, they should try to post as much evidence as possible to show they were innocent (or post enough evidence to demonstrate they were at the very least culpable by minimal involvement because they were not involved in the technical, financial decision making and business side of running the website).

What breach of what code takes place when a scam is involved? Once a scam has taken place there is no need for anybody to withhold PMs unless there is sensitive information stated within them but still can be redacted before making it public. If I was scammed by someone in this forum which resulted in losses to third parties that put their trust in me, I would do exactly what you just stated FatFork, I would publish the PMs trying to explain to the wider forum what happened because it would not be unethical to post them in those circumstances.

Regarding other comments here about PMs, I do not know why Royse777 or any other member in her situation would release PMs to a select few members and not the whole forum after such a big debacle but there might be important factors behind it. Having said that, when it comes to things such as these, personally I am highly sceptical by nature and am not easily convinced nor impressed. As I said, maybe there were important thing Royse77 wanted to keep away from a wider audience but why show it to a select few and what was to gain from hiding it from the rest of the community?

I can see several members here that have been highly critical of Royse777 and have very little sympathy for her because of the manner in which she conducted herself in this Bitlucy drama therefore what was the reason she decided to not send identical PMs to those members? Or better still, why not post identical information openly in the forum?

As for those that seem to be claiming the Royse777 and Bitlucy relationship was far more than has been stated, I would say that I still have seen zero evidence to suggest that Royse777 intended to scam therefore I disagree with the conspiracy theorists who probably have their own agenda to make those claims against her... but by making certain members privy to certain information is something that makes this drama look even more of a mess than it already is and that sort of behaviour something I would never advocate.

Attention.  It's how trolls get their nourishment.  Just ignore him, and he'll wither away eventually and become forgotten like the many before him.  Besides, responding to him here is just driving this thread further and further off topic.

I doubt you. Your history does not tell that you have raised in a good family not at least when I find you are overzealous towards others. You are not helping anyone but trying to satisfy your dump brain with baseless shitposting. You did not raise well, sorry.

What is your fight here?
Trust system, some members you do not like, wanted to exploit a casino but it did not work. Which one?

And who paid for that mistake?

There's really no reason not to believe you. I did say that I might be missing something here. Apparently, I was unaware that he had private communications with some DT members and that he shared more information with you. I apologize if it was mentioned somewhere and I overlooked it.

I find it ironic that Royse777 is still more trustworthy than the members who's red-tags remains on his trust wall.  I would have no reservations about engaging in a trade deal with him.

It's also strange that this is still an issue for some; the guy made a mistake and admitted it.  We all make mistakes, and I'm far more likely to trust those who take accountability than those who keep bashing someone after admitting his mistake.