You might be able to claim that you do not have a need to defraud users, or that you've paid millions in deposits - however this looks more like a "near-miss" of bankruptcy than anything else.
And again - you might be solving all public cases, but how about all of the ones who have not gone to seek help from an arbitrator or have not complained with the company, but instead have written off their loss and have since not paid any attention? There are many people who do not use or know of Bitcointalk, but still use Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or casinos.
This is pure misinformation, BC.Game has never been even remotely close to bankruptcy. If you've ever taken the time to open our website, you can see thousands of bets being placed every minute and a fledgling community of chatters. You can have a look through the scam accusations thread and you won't find a single recent thread claiming we don't pay out withdrawals. The open cases were regarding a deposit bonus promotion that failed and sportsbook issues. We regularly pay out six, sometimes seven-figure withdrawals with no hiccups.
Neither you or I can comment officially on the financial status of BC.Game, nor can you comment on the validity of any bets being placed on your website. Your website is not a blockchain, and the validity of these bets can not be verified. It can easily be automated.
If you'd like to prove me wrong, I would recommend that you get your administrator to sign a message of cold reserves. This will shut me up instantly, and I will instantly apologize for my comments. I am only commenting on what I can see, and I see problems with paying users large amounts of money, holding funds for periods of time, and disputes - until this magical appearance of this account.
What role exactly do you play at BC.Game and how can you comment so surely on its solvency if you are just a PR representative, or are you more? What is the difference between you and the original BC.game account?
I do not think that this is a fair outcome, to profit 1.25 BTC and to use fear to force a user to accept the deal. He could have fought, if fear was not a factor.
We have not used fear to force anyone into any decisions. It was a deal accepted by both parties under the mediation of a third party. The case has been settled, and the decisions are to be respected. There is always room for argument for both sides in such cases. What if the price of bitcoin had fallen since the time the user deposited? Would the user still have questioned the decision to receive 124,000 USDT?
The user himself said that him being unsure of BC.Game's solvency is why he took the deal. If he was given the amount of BTC that was taken from his account and complained, then even I would have defended you. However, BC.Game had taken BTC, and was not given BTC back. It's not the same asset, and a hypothetical question like you have given is not necessarily a valid answer to this part of the wrongdoing.