-
I think the issue of alleged multi-accounting is a red herring. Before the issue of possible multi-accounting is addressed, SB needs to articulate how specifically they were harmed by the OP using multiple accounts. They also need to disclose the total deposits, and the total withdrawals they will allow across all of the accounts they are alleging to belong to the OP.
Without the disclosure of the above information, the OP having multiple accounts does not matter, and I would view the situation as SB using a technalicity to arbitrarily confescate user winnings, and as such, SB would be a high risk to trade with.
I reviewed SB's trust page and found this:
<>
Timeline of events
<>
30.03.2017 – The Client was immediately flagged for suspicious gameplay due rapidly changing gameplay dependant on whether the transaction was confirmed in the blockchain or not.
30.03.2017- 02.04.2017 – The Client continues the suspicious gameplay over the course of 4 deposit/withdraw instances.
02.04.2017 – The Client requested a withdrawal in the sum of 20.6 BTC which was declined by the Operator due to suspicious gameplay.
<>
The above is SB saying they decided to ask to verify a customer's KYC due to possible future double spending aginst them. They specifically did not say that their customer even attempted to double spend any of their deposits, but rather that they believed their customer would attempt to double spend a deposit in the future. They ended up confiscating 6.5 BTC (~$50k at the time). I think it is important to note, they did not KYC verify their customer as soon as they discovered the "suspicious" behavior, but rather started KYC verification after their customer was up ~12 BTC.
I thought red notes were only for bad trading experiences?
Red trust is for users who are high-risk in trading. Someone continuing to escalate a dispute after binding mediation - high-risk shithead IMO.
Being a "high risk shithead" is not the same as being "high-risk in trading".
If someone offers to mediate a dispute, and the mediation is unable to offer an explanation that is satisfactory to observers, there is no reason why an observer should be obligated to accept the outcome of said mediation. This is even true for the OP, unless he has explicitly agreed the outcome of the mediation is binding, which I have not seen evidence of. It is not uncommon for parties involved in a dispute to engage in non-binding mediation to try to resolve disputes; sometimes it is successful, but oftentimes it is not.