To explain what I'm talking about a bit more:
Belarus Premier League match between Shakhtyor Soligorsk and Neman:
Cleobet offers 1.4/4/7.5, which was the bet365 opening line. Bet365 did not have line movement until April 3rd, and they took their snapshot sometime late April 2nd (MST). These are the odds offered by Cleobet, 1xbet and an estimated aggregate line (I have no idea if b2bet actually offers an aggregate and the books they would use if they did) on this match, as of posting. Implied probabilities in brackets.

Book	1	X	2
Cleobet	1.4 (65.08%)	4 (22.78%)	7.5 (12.15%)
1xbet	1.384 (70.45%)	4.94 (19.70%)	9.9 (9.85%)
Estimated Aggregate	1.38 (68.19%)	4.5 (20.91%)	8.64 (10.89%)

The probabilities and odds differ enough to say that Cleobet is not using a b2bet odds feed. A sportsbook using such a feed but with higher margin would still have the same general implied probability (with some rounding errors potentially).

---

I think that Cleobet will end up as a scam, or at the very least, there's going to be lots of complaints against them. bet365 is a very soft book by itself; throw in stale lines, cryptocurrency, a deposit bonus and you've got an arbitrage player or value bettor's new favourite book. Unless Cleobet is really on top of rapidly limiting sharp players, which I think is highly unlikely as I doubt they know what they're doing, they're going to get quite a few players draining them and winning long term. They're definitely going to get into voided bet territory, blocking accounts who 'break' their TOS, cancelled bonuses/withdraws and forced KYC. I have nothing to prove this though, so I'm opposing the flag for now.

You might argue that this reasoning in itself is enough to warrant supporting the flag, but I thought similarly of BitGame.online's sportsbook with soft Unibet lines and odds boosts, and their sportsbook never scammed anyone AFAIK.