Topic: Royse777 is Casino Critique - page 7. (Read 3924 times)

Lol.  Is that the account he used in his ban appeal thread?  I remember making comments there, but for the life of me I cannot recall the name of the account he used, though I recognize the Dic3L0v3r name.

I supported naim027 in that appeal, as I thought he was making decent contributions to the forum--and that was well before I heard about Casino Critique.  He didn't get a lot of supporters, and I understand why his name doesn't immediately instill trust in someone seeing it attached to the project.  But as far as the CC slogan goes, it would be kinda-sorta awkward to write "The brainchild of a group of reputable Bitcointalk members, except for one or two whose trustworthiness is disputed.".

I've stated that I believe that the team behind Casino Critique isn't looking to scam anyone, and I'll hold that belief until I see evidence that suggests otherwise.  I am not, repeat not, giving it my personal seal of approval, as I haven't been a part of the creation of the project aside from making sure the copy on the CC website is legible.  

The team members (I'm assuming) are communicating and planning on Telegram or wherever, and I haven't been privy to any of those communications, so unless I knew what was going on behind the scenes I'd never state with confidence that anyone should invest with them.  On the other hand, I find it unlikely that all of those members are colluding to scam the chip buyers.  There are some I do trust, like Hhampuz for example, and collectively they'd be ruining a bunch of reputations that took a long time to earn if they were doing something untoward, and strictly from a practical viewpoint it doesn't seem like it'd be worth it--unless they did raise 7 or 9BTC or what have you.  Those charity abusers from a while back proved that big sums of bitcoin can be tempting and cause reps to be ruined.

Whatever happened to those guys, anyway?

In any case, I've disclosed my involvement and the extent of my endorsement (which is to weigh the risks vs. the potential profits and is essentially neutral) of CC.  Hopefully if anything bad did go down, people wouldn't think that I profited or that I caused anyone to get scammed.  And seriously, if any members here do think I'm promoting CC or doing something wrong, let it be known and we'll discuss it.  I'm an anonymous username on a discussion forum, so my reputation is all I've got.

There isn't one person behind the Casino Critique project; it's a team, and those team members (aside from the one member writing from the CC official account) are listed on their website.  If you think it's Royse777 behind the Casino Critique forum account and don't trust him, act accordingly.  But also realize that he wouldn't have complete control over any funds the team has, so IMO it's really a moot point.

Oh, wow!  I remember that debacle (though fuzzily) and also that aTriz was fairly trusted prior to his public disgrace and shaming.  However, everything he did he did on his own and not with a team of forum members assembled.  I'll have to go back and re-read that thread to refresh my memory.

Poor you.  You remind me of that other nutter Hippie Tech who's also earned just one merit more than you on zero ...

Try again: PRIVACY. Until I see a reason not to, I respect people's privacy.
You of all people should appreciate that, given that you're hiding behind an alt account. Feel free to PM me who's alt you are, and I'll respect your privacy too.

I'm going to make my last comment on the subject, and I'll probably stop using this alt as well.

What is clear is that many of you here know who is behind this alt, and you hide it for a very simple reason: MONEY.

You are involved in one way or another with the project and you know that if you say who is behind it, potential investors will not like it.

The answers I have seen here have made me change my mind about many of you.


Creating an alt to raise 7BTC without saying which disreputable person is behind it doesn't seem like an abuse to you?

OK, so I should have clarified my statement:  if you assume that what's in the T&C section is true and that the members of CC aren't trying to pull off a scam here, then the risk is basically the same as investing in any business that hasn't gotten off the ground yet.  You believe it's a scam, and I've given my opinion on that and I'm not going to strenuously argue that point, since I can't read the minds of the people behind CC and I don't have any more knowledge of how they're going to operate than you do.

I disclosed my participation because I don't want my reputation tarnished in any way should something bad happen, and it's later discovered that I had something to do with the project.  I'm not, in fact, part of it; I just did the editing, since the website is in English and they needed someone proficient in that language.  I wasn't even in control of what went up on the site.  I just made suggestions, which may or may not have been accepted.

This is the first time I've ever been involved in a crypto project in any way, and even though I had reservations about jumping in (because I'd be putting my reputation at risk by being associated with a gambling website, which is way outside my area of expertise), I figured it was a small role and YOLO, right?  

All that aside, I wish CC the best and do hope they prove the naysayers wrong.  It doesn't look like they're raising a lot of money based on how many chips have been sold, so I'm curious as to how they're going to proceed should they not raise anything close to 7, 8, or 10BTC.

To eddie13's point: at least there are bounty/campaign managers making sure participants get paid.  You might think they're contributing to scams or whatever else, but for the most part they handle large amounts of money and can be trusted not to abscond with it.  If you or anyone else acknowledges that campaigns and bounties are an important part of the crypto economy (and important to the forum itself), then you'd be hard-pressed to argue that we'd be better off without them.

Well, Kind of, yeah. I agree that investing in online platforms is not 100% safe. I am not a potential investor. But, I had laughed at Mr. JollyFuck's theory. He asked everyone to look at the project cautiously because he didn't like the team. I would say it's pretty much safe to go with Reputable Bitcointalk escrows than to invest in unknown ICOs. As I already said, I am not a potential investor. So, I am not going to invest. But, If I were to invest, I wouldn't hear Mr. JollyFuck's theory. 

Alt accounts might not be against the forum rules but, there are ways to it that can constitute an abuse. It's one thing to create an account and use it for slander or raising accusations or perhaps act as DT from that single account and its another thing to create an account for every response. Like you can see in OP's user and the response to Yahoo62278 on the first page.
Is that really for the best or a way to go about crating and using alts? We've got so many inactive accounts on the forum and adding to the list by crating accounts with existing user names just with a little addition doesn't look okay to me.

Am not very familiar with the project being referred to but I was aware of the Royse777/BitLucy case and the DT's handled it good due to the facts that were presented. Am sure should the accusation as in OP come by any fact, it would be looked into properly and questions would be asked and answered.

I think the first chip buyers get a discount, and some chips are given away. 7 BTC is still a lot of money though, but nothing compared to the ICOs that collected tens of millions for nothing more than an empty promise.
Eddie13 (click for full context) nicely wrote how the "scam fighting" on Bitcointalk focusses on small things while the big scams get away with it:

I haven't gone through the entire chip allocation structure, but maybe he was referring to this:

https://ibco.casinocritique.com/terms-and-conditions/

There is also a "chips sold" indicator on their website that goes up to 9,499.



It's still not 10 BTC, though. 

I'd say it's wise to always use caution before investing in anything, especially crypto projects!

For the record, this is incorrect:
There are only 7,000 "chips" for sale, at 0.001BTC each. I'll do the math for you: they're looking to raise 7 BTC.

Come on examplens! Are you kidding me? Didn't you see it?

This small group consists of his campaign manager, the people who have him in their trust list (including you), a few others who speak his voice and of course those balls-less trolls who pop up to create conflicts between forum users like OP. Don't you know it? He does not do anything good to contribute to the community but to harass forum users.

Read his post again. Give me a positive sign he was able to notice. He noticed only the people he disliked. And interestingly he has to advise what Hhampuz should do and not. Hey Hhampuz, does it mean everything you do needs approval from JollyGood?

In other words we are doubting DireWolfM14, Hhampuz including others involved in the project has no sense to make a good judgement when they know who is Casino Critique. Very disappointing realization for these well known users.

https://ibco.casinocritique.com/terms-and-conditions/
Ctrl+F and type "return". Two results will highlight.



About more than one address

I don't understand where is your problem. Do you not read before making an accusation?

How about 2 addresses used in same transaction at some point. How about same person posting about their addresses mentioning the 2 participating addresses. It wouldn't be surprising for them to seize funds.
It is just funny and stupid to limit the amount per address, as this could be easily circumvented, with just a bit of intelligence, but of course we're not talking about intelligent people here either way.



It's all about how the potential investor interprets things. Their terms and conditions won't make them successful. The risk is that of being scammed, not whether if it is going to be successful or not. The informed investor will never put a dime in such a thing. It would be smarter to play a rogue slot machine than putting a dime in this thing, at least a rogue slot pays some of the money back.



returning the money lol yes of course, with the reputation they have as you say, they're very much trustworthy in doing that.

Guys, see what the OP did?

He just fired an accusation at our direction and disappeared.

He intends to sow discord between us. So don't fall for his bait.

I am not a potential Investor. But do you still suggest everyone consider the project cautiously after reading Direwolf's statement?


I believe Hhampuz and Direwolf are among the most trusted escrows in this forum. I don't see anything scammy here after reading that. But, I also wouldn't be surprised if you Stick with your statement after understanding what Direwolf said. Because you always see everything with caution and it's become your favorite thing to do. I didn't forget that you Distrust my Judgment Just because I made This and This posts.

A piece of Friendly advice: Don't hunt for ghosts everywhere. LOL

DireWolfM14 is also part of escrow there, I would suggest you read his post in this thread, you probably missed it. He is very clearly explained his position in the whole story (I believe that Hhampuz also has a similar statement)
Check here > https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60969839

Thank you for the information ThePharmacist,  I knew almost nothing about the project though the name might have been mentioned once or twice somewhere.

I had a brief look at the ANN thread and it is something worth examining in detail but this part did make me laugh: "The brainchild of a group of reputable Bitcointalk members. Casino Critique is comprised of a handful of Bitcointalk old-timers. Our ultimate goal is to be one of the leaders in Casino Guide in the year 2027."

So the team leader and probable brains behind the project is Little Mouse?

And reputable naim027 is banned right? I guess better to use that name when seeking funds rather than his alt-account called Dic3L0v3r because that would be a real put-off for investors  

I have had little or no interaction with most of the names on the list therefore am unable to make a judgement call on them all but I see nothing there at all that gives me any confidence in this project. Just by looking at the names of some members listed that I have no time for, I would be inclined to advise all to look at the project with caution.




On a serious note, I think it is clear having someone as reputable and trustworthy as Hhampuz (who is part of a very small group I trust) as an escrow-only gives the group the opportunity to use his name and reputation as a way to entice investors either by design or by default.

Do you not feel maybe by having your name attached to this project (even as an unpaid contributor) you are risking your reputation? I mean if they have a well respected forum member such as yourself saying you are helping out on their website it could in the eyes of investors and newbies be taken as you giving the project a seal of approval-to-invest and I am sure that is not your intention.

So you guys are holding the keys for all funds and coins received on CasinoCritique address?
If this is true than I see no risk for anyone to get tricked or scammed, unless you all collude and ruin your forum reputation forever, that is highly unlikely to happen.
Just don't start any CSW Faketoshi style trust so you could claim that you are the real CasinoCritique later  

I think that Casino Critique even gave some free chips for bitcointalk forum members, they never forced anyone to invest anything, and they didn't made some pink happy promises.

You mean other than he probably doesn't know the thread was created?

I've had the same thing where DT Trolls will aganise over every key stroke I've made and weap that I haven't taken their bait all the while I've been offline for a day or two or just am blissfully unaware of the thread.

---

---

OP as others have said here: grow some balls.

That's a whole lot better than the large majority of the ICOs, Forks, DeFis and NFTs we've seen over the past years. Many of those took millions, all combined they took billions.
I'm not much for investing in any of those, but I do believe a thorough escrow setup is much better than what most others have done.

I can't speak for the team, but participation in the profit sharing (by buying chips) is anonymous, so there's really no way for Casino Critique to know if someone is buying chips using different addresses.  In addition, the rules state that using multiple addresses is prohibited but they didn't specify in writing what would happen if they found out someone was doing that (that I remember, anyway).  

The above really has me wondering where all your bitterness is coming from.  There's certainly a risk in buying chips, and that risk is that there won't ever be any revenue to share.  That should be clear if you read the terms and conditions page and the details of the revenue pool setup, so there's nothing being withheld as far as I know.  

Unless the team really did get together and cook up a scheme with a scam website, scam advertising, and all the rest--which I seriously doubt, given the reputations of the bitcointalk members listed on the CC site--this is simply some people who want to start a business reviewing online casinos.  

So we'll see.  I'm not sure what happens if a small amount of money is raised through the chip sale, i.e., if they're going to go ahead with the plan or return the money or what.  For the life of me, I can't remember if that was covered in the terms & conditions page.

Bah, it's always been like this.  Well maybe not all the time, but I'd say for most of the time I've been a member here there's been plenty of reputation-smearing drama in this section.  I don't mind it at all, as it offers up opportunities to debate issues and establish whether people can be trusted or not.  Sometimes if you don't challenge things or even talk about them, assumptions are made that can be completely wrong.

By the way, have you seen what's popular on Youtube these days?  It's non-stop besmirching of everything, because that's what people watch.