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.
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?
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.
The question that remains for me now is the support for the flag.
I don't think this is correct:
Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Royse777 is at a high risk of losing money
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.
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 thing goes bad after his problem with Bitlucy, his campaign: Unijoin have ended the campaign because of his recent reputation.
Well... Not bad