Quote from: virasog on Today at 03:05:30 PM

Quote from: Royse777isCasinoCritique on September 18, 2022, 08:28:52 PM

Royse777 has been caught, no matter how hard his buddies try to hide him.

After Bitlucy777 fiasco, he is now back with Casino Critique trying to raise 10 BTC, in collusion with his DT friends.

Let's hope no one is foolish enough to throw their money away.

I have just one query from OP or anyone else is that lets's suppose Royse777 start a setup for Casino Critique and is raising 10 btc or 100 btc for his start up? What is the problem with it ?
Isn't it everyone's right to raise any money for their project and if anyone is a popular member of bitcointalk doing it, then what is wrong with it?
I just fail to understand the concern here Huh

The OP should answer this but I probably speak for most when saying in essence every member operating a legitimate project should freely be allowed to try to fundraise.

Maybe the OP was a victim of the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam therefore he is holding grudges or maybe he does not want a scam to take place but I am curious about why he is convinced Royse777 is a hidden member of this particular project. If Royse777 is not connected to this project then the OP is bringing unnecessary attention here but if Royse777 is connected then by all means the OP can raise concerns because after all the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam did occur.

I hope the OP would clarify his position and post using their real account.

Quote from: Royse777 on Today at 05:05:02 PM

~yawn~

You are wrong. I am not using alt-accounts to either discredit you or to keep highlighting the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam.

Quote from: The Pharmacist on Today at 05:32:24 PM

I wasn't criticising anyone's jadedness by any means, believe me. People have good reason to look on any crypto project with extreme skepticism because of all the BS that went on during the ICO mania and all the crap ideas and outright scams that said mania birthed.

These are virtually my sentiments exactly.

Quote from: The Pharmacist on Today at 05:32:24 PM

There's only one member who's choosing to remain anonymous (at least as far as I know), and personally I don't think that's too big a deal since all the money CC collects isn't being held by just one person, and also because there are some reputable members attached to the CC project. Even if it was just Hhampuz and DireWolfM14 running the show, I'd trust that this isn't some rip-off attempt. But that's just my opinion, and once again I'm remaining neutral. My point is that the member who's behind the official CC account isn't of huge importance; the other members obviously trust him/her, and there's an escrow team in place to safeguard the project's funds.

That said, it would be so much better if that person disclosed their identity. It'd put this discussion to bed at the very least.

You mentioned the names, let me comment. I have a lot of time for Hhampuz but lost any little respect I had left for DireWolfM14 some time back. Even if a reputable member was acting as escrow I would dismiss that as a plus-point for a project because he was not part of the team really and controlled no notion of where the project was going, he would just be collecting his commission on escrows.

If there is just one member remaining anonymous and if that member happened to be associated with a scam casino a few months ago in capacity of Partner and Marketing Director and made bold claims putting their own reputation on the line then it is clear nobody especially well respected members should backing the project.

I understand your perspective when you say the name remaining anonymous is not a big deal because an escrow account collects the funds and there are other reputable members who trust the anonymous one.

Quote from: The Pharmacist on Today at 05:32:24 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 12:38:37 PM

I have a different opinion: if investors want something that the other party doesn't want to give, they shouldn't invest.

Well, that's what it's going to boil down to in any case. I'm not sure if the small amount that's been raised so far is due to this controversy or not, but I bet it's not helping.

That sort of secrecy would not help at all but thus far the balance in their address is still steady at 0.005 BTC, most probably a team member deposited it there.

Quote from: The Pharmacist on Today at 05:32:24 PM

But as I've stated before, aside from the one anonymous member the other team members are known.

Though several members have decided to keep the name quiet, that anonymous member seems to have let the cat out of the bag themselves. Thank you for mentioning it was just one member. Hopefully they will attach their name to the project and provide reasons why they wanted to remain in the shadows.

As the days go by, if I see this project releasing notes and there is merit to it I would be a strong backer but right now I see nothing that makes me see this as a potential business.