Topic: Royse777, Bitlucy and long story in brief - page 9. (Read 9492 times)

Well, there are two points I don't get here @LoyceV:

1) Why then would someone mention the dinner with the CEO in person if not for the sake of engendering trust in a certain person/audience?

Was it an important meeting? Like "Last night at dinner with the CEO we talked about optimizing the payout ratio for Bitlucy and improvements for UI/UX".

Or was it like "Guys, I was at dinner with the CEO in person and, you know, I am a well trusted member of this community with over 2.3k merits and I wouldn't promote a scammer"?

And even the first sentence could be incredibly smart and subtile in terms of placing an advertisement and engendering trust.

2) Really? We all know how subtile advertising works. Some of us are more aware of the mechanics and don't let ourselves convince by it, while others are not and base their decisions on, let's say, secondary trust relationships. That's how the whole influence game works. People buy products from companies that are advertised by people they follow and trust.

Also, let's say I would like to gamble a bit but I don't know which casino to choose. How would I go about it? Well, I'd probably prefer a casino promoted by someone I trust over a casino I have no idea about. Especially, when the person I trust is even actively involved with the casino service itself.

Ultimately, someone with Royse' experience and reputation should have been much more careful, especially when he decided to get himself involved in a conflict of interest. He knew that his most valuable asset actually is the constantly growing community following and trusting him, working with him. But then there came a point where he thought about leveraging it against a deal with a SINGLE other person to his own benefit.

This is by no means to say that Royse ever intended to scam the community, I emphasize this with several !!! But there are many situations in life where, for instance, a manager isn't directly to blame for certain events and yet has to go. Since I belong to the category of people who dislike outrageous hate against people who unintentionally *** fuck up once, I would also agree there must be a way back for him. It is not up to me to decide whether a red tag should remain, but I can and want to tell that I am very happy this whole community has JollyGood on board. He is upright, strict, and does what he does with integrity and consistency. Hence, I do support his decision to leave the red tag.

Edit: Ah, Royse even lied about the dinner. Missed that part.  Well, I leave there what I said, but lying about it is nasty. Even if some of us agree that it might not have influenced everyone with their decisions, but why the heck lie about it? Clearly malicious intent then... Even if a lie were not to lead to the desired outcome, the intention associated with it says a lot. A bad plan that fails doesn't make it a negligible action by that person because of that failure.

I think that right thing for you would be to consider changing your opinion about red flag you created against Royse.
Up until now I didn't want to give my opinion, but now I opposed this allegations against him.
I really don't understand some people who are acting like judge and executioner in this case, and continue to blame Royse for everything...
in real life they would probably cause someone to commit suicide or do something crazy  
Flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=366632

I can't wait to hear some of those stories... maybe you should write a book titled What would happen if I was a manager in bitcotintalk forum.  

It reminds me of the case where someone was scammed $50,000 while using the most trusted escrow on the forum. Nobody tagged the escrow, and he didn't refund the victim.

Even if that's true, it doubt it influenced someone's decision to deposit Bitcoin to the scam site.

But he also paid campaigns out of his own pocket, and it seems like he's going the extra mile to pay back victims.

This I can agree with. Sometimes being paranoid pays off. That's why I've rejected most of the campaign offers I've received. I'm pretty sure some of them would have turned into a scam.

He lied about going on a dinner date with the CEO in person; I believe he was aware that the company was broke, but who cares? He was only concerned with his own selfish interests; he was paid and he failed to conduct basic research; I regard him as a person who is easily manipulated. That's where the line should be drawn.

And yes, they lost it all thanks to Royse777, who assured them that the site was safe and that the owner had been his boyhood friend for a long time! We can't tell if he paid out of his own pocket because there have been so many lies that we don't know what to believe any longer. The flag is valid.

I reconsidered my tag not because I was wrong but because I've never seen him in such a chaotic situation before; he can be trusted, but he lacks management skills; I will not hire or recommend him.

Well... Not bad

I need to look into this more before I make a complete decision, but I’m not seeing Royce as a scammer here..

When you get an opportunity to work for a crypto business like this you take it.. It doesn’t always work out, most startups don’t work out, you never know if they are going to be honest until they prove themselves one way or another..

Royce, don’t go broke paying people back who were scammed by them..
Maybe the signature payments if you really feel bad about it, but not the deposits..
They knew they were taking risks themselves..

Does this mean neutral tag alone is enough for a warning?

I don't think this is correct:
The people who lost money, lost it when dealing with a casino website, not by dealing with Royse777 directly. It looks like Royse777 lost money too, while he did pay the people who joined his campaign.

The question that remains for me now is the support for the flag.

Most of us have given Royse777 the benefit of the doubt and changed the feedback from negative to neutral.

Also, many of us are still supporting the flag, and I think that is correct as there has been some sloppiness in Royse777's performance and it should be reflected in some way for a while as yahoo62278 said.

The only thing that seems a bit paradoxical, delete the negative feedback and continue supporting the flag.

You really don't know if something is a scam until it happens, but you can certainly have red flags and suspicions.
I would like to know if Royse signed any written contracts with this scamming owner, because trusting someone's word is just not enough when they give you a title of partner and co-owner.
If it was only a verbal deal, than I would ask for written confirmation and proof of funds, because I am by nature a little suspicious, but I don't know what other people would do.
As for campaign managers, I don't think Royse was the first or the last one to manage a scam project, but I hope he learns something from this.

And the campaign managers of most of the altcoin and ICO scams got away without a scratch! What's the difference here? Royse777 was offered partial ownership, but it doesn't look like he had anything to say in the "company". He couldn't handle withdrawals and didn't have access to funds. Were should we draw the line?

This.

I applied for my first signature campaign after ages and saw people withdrawing their applications in the thread because of the said accusations against the campaign manager and I was skeptical too. The funds were in escrow, and the project being promoted didn't come across as a scam to me. It would have made sense to tag the participants or the campaign manager should they still keep promoting the project knowing it turned out to be dodgy which isn't the case. This thread further clarifies it.

The rule of the thumb is: Stop participating in his campaigns if you don't trust him or do your own due diligence before putting a signature on your profile.

Well thing goes bad after his problem with Bitlucy, his campaign: Unijoin have ended the campaign because of his recent reputation.


Since he's still owe clients money and he isn't sure he can paid it all with his own pocket, I will reconsider to change negative feedback to neutral one because I didn't mean to hurt his reputation. I think the flag is already enough to warn other users with this problem and it's make sense to not leave negative feedback after I read this thread.

It's used for a scammer or high likely to scam, not the genuine user who want to solve his problem because he has been dragged with a scammer.

If I needed a campaign manager I think I would still consider Royse777. Nothing in this debacle indicates that he wouldn't be capable of doing this kind of job.

If I wanted to join a campaign managed by Royse777 I'd probably want to make sure that the funds are in escrow.

I'm just seeing this topic, and after reading the Op and the comments throughout the thread, I believe we can all agree that he was driven by what the CEO offered him, that he failed to conduct a thorough background check, and that the Bitlucy team was so astute that they took advantage of his reputation to get what they wanted.

Money isn't everything, Royse777; always conduct a background check before accepting any contract; your reputation is enormous, and one mistake from you would attract an inordinate number of victims.

I hope this has taught you some valuable lessons! I'm sick of bitlucy nonsense. Off

I've reconsidered my tag

I have taken some time to read through, and It's just so amazing how things turn from good to bad in a matter of hours or days. I was holding back into getting involved in the whole situation because I felt the whole story was not complete, and I am glad you took time to describe to us what happened.

IMO, I feel you had some genuine intentions and ended up getting duped like all other players awaiting their payments. I mean, if you really didn't care since your reputation had already gotten messed up, you would have just walked away minus paying the signature campaign participants and trying to compensate some scam victims out of your very own pocket.

I hope the saga concludes in the best possible way, and also perhaps a lesson to you that there are a lot of wolves in sheep skin online.

My first impression was that Royse777 was as much a victim as those waiting for their withdrawal, and I believe he's telling us the truth.  I also don't see any contradictions in Royse777's claims, and I must admit there are a few people here on the forum whom I've never met in meatspace, but I consider "friends."  Hell, I have workmates whom I've only met in Teams meetings and also am very friendly with, and this is my analogue job.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that either, as it is more and more the world we live in.


I resemble that remark!  I have never had any issues with Royse777 and don't believe he's a scammer in the slightest bit, but I think I explained myself well enough for the rational behind my (now removed) red-tag.  Since I had been keeping tabs on this fiasco I've been waiting for an opportunity to revise or remove my tag, I never thought it needed to be permanent.  I finally revised my tag yesterday evening before I even saw this thread or read Royse777's post, only because I no longer saw BitLucy as threatening to accumulate more victims.

As for the remaining red-tags, I hope those who've left them will reconsider.

He was charismatic con artist for sure, and I think we saw many like him in altcoin, ICO and gambling space during last few years.
If you didn't watch it yet, check out this Tinder Swindler documentary about a guy called Simon Leviev aka Shimun Hayut, who stole millions from people, served only few months in Israel prison and he still lives a luxury lifestyle.
Speaking in strict terms he didn't stole anything, but his victims sent him all their money because they became ''good friends'' quickly... sounds familiar isn't it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R3LWM_Vt70

Oh and btw he claims (lies) that he purchased Bitcoin back in 2011   well maybe he did, but not with his own money for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dUBPAsrzk0

What are the options for Royse777 now? He has a business in this forum. Looks like he won't get any more business now.

After reading the post, it seems that if anyone is at a loss here, it is none other than him. Everyone is saying that he is not a scammer and again they are giving him red feedback and flags, blaming him for everything. who knows what real situation he had?

I feel now that I have no idea how Trust Feedback, Flag and Trust include / exclude works lol. Everyone made me confused now, fucker 😘!  A 9103 word summary of a more or less 10 month long story is being judged by everyone just like that? It was good. 😉

How many of you have actually done financial transactions with Royse and what were your experiences? I would really like to know.

Knowing someone and being (or thinking that you are) good friends after some chats online is a thing these days. Feels weird to me too, but that's the world we live in. I don't think there is a contradiction in these claims, particularly considering that the "CEO" is likely a charismatic con artist, as good con artists tend to be.

Honestly, Royse777, as I read your testimony above, I find one thing difficult to understand.

As per your timeline, you started communicating with Lucy character on September 4th last year and continued until December 11th last year. Than, after a few months break, you reconnected on April 17th, when he offered you a business partnership.

But, how could you claim something like this just a few days later:


There is clearly some discrepancy here. Either you're so naive that you've trusted someone you've never met before, after just a few online chats, or you actually know the owner of BitLucy and that you're good friends, as you said, and now you're trying to hide the facts in the hopes of saving your reputation. I'm not sure which option to believe based on the current information available. Honestly, I believe you are too smart to be as naive as you are portraying here. Maybe you can help me see the third option, if there is one?