I have to admit that I did not scrutinize the whole deposit and bets flow, so I can't determine it myself [nor that it stated anywhere here, that I know of] but you're betting your whole balance on that match?
How does any of this have any grounds. [...]
I was just trying to determine how justified and in line Stake's decision was. If you bet everything you have, the whole balance, into that match and they confiscate them for the reason of rigged game [we'll disregard whether you know about this or just following a trend for a moment], then it is understandable. You bet x amount of balance, the game was sketchy, so they confiscate that x amount of fund from you. That x just unluckily happened to be your entire balance.
But if you bet [let's say] USD 5,000 on that match and you have USD 2,000 left on your account, and they confiscate this too, then this is arguably unethical. That 2,000 has no involvement with the whole situation and shouldn't be "collateral" damage. That action, if that's what they did, was wrong in my opinion.
Also holydarkness what do you mean by "fortunately" they don have other kyc issues. IF you look at any complaint site thats the majority of their issues ?
I said, "
and fortunately, currently there are not new ones", and I mean it. Fortunately currently there are not new cases against them regarding KYC. Don't you agree it will be a very bitter and unfortunate event to happen to someone else? Weren't two cases already enough?
Read again [as I believe you read my statement wrongly] I am talking about future case --explained by the wording "currently there are not new ones", referring to the absence of new case in the present time-- to try to determine if Stake has turned into a KYC nightmare. I am not talking about cases that's already happened and still in the need of mediation
and how is it hard to believe when you yourself on this thread said that level 2 should suffice in answering and returning of funds but now its a different story?[...]
I believe what you're referring to what I said is this?
[...]
Nonetheless, I have to agree that their request to OP is a bit excessive. OP already performed KYC level 1 and 2, which should be enough to prove his identity and help casino flag the user if they abuse the ToS, I don't see the necessity of level 3 and 4 KYC if it's simply to investigate a bet.
[...]
Please read again, I am saying that level 1 and 2 should be enough to
identify and help casino flag a user, not to return the fund. How logical is it for any platform to return a fund when someone fulfill the highest KYC level and disregarding the abuse they might or might not do?
just say you are an advocate for stake. Ive complied with everything from these people and its still hard for you to believe? i dont know what more i have to prove to a person like you but you obviously are one of those guys thaat refuse think a casino cant defraud their customers. Honestly dont know why you keep frequenting this thread giving stake every benefit of the doubt and throwing words like "fortunately" they dont have any other kyc complaints
[...]
Interesting notion. I noticed, that you have a tendency
to be offensive when someone said something that is against your narrative or what you want or whatever it is that's on the slightest degree against you, regardless the purpose of those question or statement.
So I am abiding your wish.
I previously tried to disregard your spiteful accusation [that I am here only to take benefit of the casinos, working for them, wishing to be offered to work for them by dong this, and so on, while I am here purely for the community] and try to keep actively overseeing this one. I understand correctly that you see me as someone very partial, perhaps even corrupt, as I am benefitted from those cases and looking forward to be employed by them?
I am withdrawing myself from this one and taking the back seat.
Don't blame you.
Holydarkness doesn't work for anyone. It's the go to statement for a lot of people in the wrong. Although I understand your frustration, if you want help then be courteous with people trying to help.
I still think you should be paid on this one. Seems obvious you weren't in on the fix since as stated before, you jumped in on the bet, you didn't start the wave, you rode the wave.