Topic: Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief - page 7. (Read 9492 times)

not everyone knows what really happened but I'm sure royse777 is the victim in bitlucy's case. I don't know him but I'm sure someone which spending his personal money (he runs a signature and avatar campaign to spread his services across forums) to enhance the reputation that has been built over the years is a person who can be trusted.

Oh wow, he sent his private conversations? really? So what? Stop defending scammers.

The most laughable part is that his account (@Royse777) is here since 2014, then all of a sudden in 2022 a scam comes out with 7 euros bonus for 777 users, then he lies about meeting the owner of the scam casino Bitlucy, then he ignores all of the warning signs, and of course, we can rest assured that he just didn't pay attention that he was promoting a scam, and 100% certain he's not the owner, and his trust score must stay positive.

This is purely and simply scam activity being encouraged in a scammers place. Just another scam like FortuneJack. Some are less selective than others, but they're all scams.

Hey guys, would you give Royse a break please?
He sent his private chat conversations to me and to few other DT members from forum (including LoyceV), so I don't think he should post all that stuff in public.
From what I saw (and you don't have to believe me), it's obvious that he was having conversations with some people from Bitlucy, but he was not really in charge of anything.
Those fake claims posted by some members saying that he is the owner behind this are just bs.
I am not defending anyone, but give Royse some time to recover from this situation.

I don't see it that way. Sharing PMs and chat logs as evidence in trades that go wrong or disputes between peers has been the norm for some time. ^{[One smart guy even created a bot to publish PMs automatically. ]}  

Anyway, as I said, this is something that I would probably do in such a situation if my reputation were at stake. Royes777 must decide for himself in this situation. Of course, any private information can be easily censored.

Sharing forum PMs is a big no-go, even when it's about bad shit. There's always someone going to complain that it should remain private. I don't see why chat logs would be any different.

He already explained what was happened and how. Please read his full post carefully. I don't know what else do you expect from him? What else can Royse provide? Sharing Lucy's Bank account? Social media account? Conversation screenshots? He already explained his feeling about what happened, and he already promised to pay users out of his own pocket. I am not sure if it will help him restore his reputation. Good Luck Royse777.

Well, this is basically my view on this as well, and I'm probably missing something here... If Royse could shed a little light on it, that would be great. The mystery, as far as I see it, remains: what really happened with BitLucy, and who was behind it?

In all honesty, we have no proof that the person behind Bitlucy is the same person behind Royse777's account. But, if Royse777 was a front for a scam, why is the original scammer still protected by Royse777? In fact, despite Royse claiming to be a victim of Bitlucy, we still haven't seen screenshots or chat logs between him/her and the BitLucy CEO (like the one posted by teyttrs) to prove anything to us.

Anyway, this also makes me believe that there is more to the story than we may realize. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure what exactly happened, but I don't like the way things were handled and all that secrecy. If I were Royse777, I would opt for full disclosure and post all the information I have about BitLucy in the Scam Accusations or Investigations child boards. For the sake of Royse's reputation, I think it's important to hear the reality on the ground in terms of what actually happened, as well as how he feels about it.

Oh, My dear!

A lot of drama already happened with Royse777. This will be a lesson for Royse777 and other campaign managers too. I believe Royse777 doesn't have bad intentions, but he/she was tricked. I don't know if it will be possible to recover his/her reputation. But, As he/she promised to pay the users out of his/her own pockets. I believe DT members have no reason to keep the red tag and flag support. Let's see where it ends up. But, I am feeling sad for Royse777. You were making enough already.

I would love to see an update by her/him (whatever, I didn't know she was a girl and I see that everyone calls her that)
here were some promises to come to partial payment or at least the payment of the deposit for some users. whether there is any shift in these cases?

I also believe that Royse did not embark on all this with the intention of deceiving anyone, but I'm not sure why the "original" starter of Bitlucy is still protected. The apparent fraudster remains unknown to us, or to wait for him in a new business under a new name?

What you say sounds very harsh but to some degree there are aspects which I cannot blame you for wanting to believe but that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Allow others to disagree with it.

If memory serves correct, I recall a thread where you were looking for either partners or investors because you were creating a casino or a casino type of website from scratch. Did you decide to cancel the idea or is it something that is still in the pipeline?

What evidence do you have that Royse777 is the main protagonist here?

I have seen others refer to Royse777 as 'she' therefore I started doing that too. As far as I am aware (and only from what I have read), she was employed as a signature campaign manager but that branched out in to too many aspects of the company/website and far more involved. That was when things went wrong for her. There is nothing to suggest Royse777 set out to scam users.

Indeed, as I very nearly experienced Royse's fate by almost lauching a similar project at someone's request on Telegram last year (it was never finished, because the developers deserted it).
And actually, there was a second casino for which I was recruited for development work via Discord, but as a small group of 3, they did not have any work to give me so I sat idly by watching the development. A few days before its abandonment, the would-be owner compulsive-gambled away the entire bankroll and doomed the project! So this serves to teach you that some casino founders/owners are irresponsible, so watch out for them.
And I'm never going to make that mistake again.

We both know that all the bounty exploiters who got caught have here the opportunity to hit Royse777 while he/she's down.
It's inevitable.

Asking them about proof to show they're bullshitting is a good approach. Just make sure you don't find yourself caught in fighting the windmills

Can you prove this or is this just bullshit spewing from your mouth? By all means, if you have proof the Royse777 story is bullshit, then share with the rest of us.

I changed my tag to a neutral because I don't think Royse set out to screw anyone, but at the same time I feel they are responsible for some of the players that couldn't withdraw. Everyone doesn't agree with that, and that's ok.

Now, if you really have proof that the story is bullshit and Royse is 100% the owner/operator of the casino then i'm sure some opinions will change for the worse against Royse. If you don't have proof then quit running your mouth and move on to a different thread.

This statement is 100% correct. Royse777 is 100% responsible for the consequences. Do not believe all the shit about his friend is the ceo. Royse is the man behind the project.
Pretty strange that some people changed their tag to neutral. The victims must be paid. Not only begin refunded, pay all their innings.

So what I think is that the excuse was bullshit, because with the wagering requirements, I think it would be less than few thousand euros, no matter how much abuse there was, and if you make a promotion like that you have to have it backed with funds.

Surely they were very short of bankroll, seeing the amounts that NotATether mentions, who seems to know well how the subject goes.

Most of them have around a $10000 betting limit and maximum winning caps in 5 digits for each cryptocurrency. The issues come when the casinos only have a backroll in 6 digits, or even worse, in 5 digits only.

At minimum you need $1 million dollars inside your bankroll at all times (sites with thousands of active users should have at least $10 million) , whether it comes from investors, or old coins which have suddenly become valuable.

The bonus was 7 euro free bet for 777 users. That's 5439 euro, minus the house edge because of wagering requirements. Even if it's abused, a few thousand euro shouldn't be a problem for any casino. Unless there's literally no money.

I imagine that with the flourishing gambling industry in the world of cryptocurrencies and as can be seen in this forum, there are those who think that setting up a casino is relatively easy.


Interesting. I would add some betting limit so that a Whale doesn't break the bank, although I don't know if they all do it by default.

The thing is that once launched, if you manage to operate avoiding the mentioned problems, online casinos are money making machines.

So, we could think that in the case of Bitlucy the owner had no idea of scam from the beginning, but that what happened was due to bad management and unprofessionalism? I remember that Royse777 mentioned the abuse of the no deposit bonus and that the events coincided with the recent drop in the price of Bitcoin.

Anyway, the owner is also liable for negligence.

You probably already know this by now, from this experience, but to everyone else, I will tell you from my own experience, Do Not Attempt To Launch A Casino By Yourself!

Casinos must be ran similar to responsible companies. Contrary to popular thinking, casinos have thin margins of profit, because their entire revenue depends on people losing the games in the long run!

So, if enough users do not use the site, or the crypto prices suddenly crash (it can be mitigated somewhat by converting the cold wallet storage to USDT, or USD in a bank, but the hot wallet must always be replenished at all times), you will run out of cash to pay users.

Also, crypto casinos in particular get abused by multi-accounters with no mercy, so if you cannot afford sophisticated, state-of-the-art blockchain fraud detection then you will be robbed by your own users.

In summary, if any of the below are not true:
1) You have incorporated the casino to avoid personal liability of debt payments
2) You have institutional lenders willing to loan your casino money (wealthy individuals do not count)
3) You have already installed blockchain fraud and DDoS/malware protection for your backend
4) You have enough reserves in hand to pay your staff and the hot wallet for at least 6 months in case of an emergency

Then DO NOT LAUNCH A CASINO for your own sanity' sake.

---

I do not believe that Royse777 had any negligent intentions when associating with the BitLucy owner, so I have opposed the flag (it would be better warranted on BitLucy the owner himself for not having enough funds to run a sustainable financial operation).

---

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I should probably suppliment the fake investor warning sticky thread in scam accusations to include warnings against this type of scam involving casinos.

This is a tricky decision to make because even if Royse777 covers the losses will her reputation ever recover?

If salvaging reputation is the driving factors behind the decision to make victims whole again then Royse777 might have to make decisions which could impact her financially for a very long time as she tried to make victims whole again but even with that noble thought pattern does it negate the negligence that occurred in the bitlucy scam?

I think Royse777 should think very carefully about whether she is doing the right thing by trying to make victims whole but that decision is for her to make and she should be ready for the fact that her reputation will probably take years to recover regardless of the course of action she employs.

Thankfully the number of victims does not seem to be huge otherwise the amounts being mentioned by victims would be running at astronomical levels.

All those that support the retraction of the flag or support the revision of negative tags to neutral (or even having them removed) are well within their right to feel so but those that think the flag should be supported (and that negative trust should be applied) are also within their right to do what they think and follow the course of action they feel is the best way forward in this situation.

By not pulling the plug earlier or by allowing users to deposit funds when the warning signs were bright red is not a small issue, it is a very big issue and by using previous conduct by Royse777 as mitigation is something I am not allowing to cloud my perspective.

I have taken a decision to keep support for the flag and also to not revise nor remove the negative feedback I left. The way I see things are that Royse777 has been grossly negligent on several fronts and in the capacity of being a campaign manager there is added responsibility that comes with the job.

It must hurt Royse777 financially though to lose incoming funds when trying to make victims whole again but it is understandable for Unijoin to have taken that stance, it is hard to fault them to associate with Royse777 as their own reputation is at stake.