If memory serves correct, their campaign manager stated somewhere that the campaign had ended and was on an invite-only basis. If that is the case, it could be a way to state they have not left the forum entirely yet have given up on signature campaigns.

Their two-tier campaigns by having the established campaign with $90 per week (that I was part of) to run concurrently with another manager called V2 paying $100 per week was a silly idea. I decided to leave the campaign I was participating in before it ended. Then to use the V2 campaign as the sole campaign but reducing payments to $75 per week and then ending it entirely, it does raise questions about the team that are operating the casino.

Their legal issues surrounding cases against them as well as refusing to fight the bankruptcy ruling in Curacao was also a strange decision therefore you are not the only one that suspects there is something more going on in the background. They claimed an old rule in law (that was not fit for the modern day allowing a plaintiff to enforce a bankruptcy) was used to exploit the system in Curacao. If that was the case, they should have challenged via an appeal rather go and set up their licence elsewhere.

Now it appears they are entering the African market with a deal with authorities in Kenya.

If memory serves correct, their campaign manager stated somewhere that the campaign had ended and was on an invite-only basis. If that is the case, it could be a way to state they have not left the forum entirely yet have given up on signature campaigns. Their two-tier campaigns by having the established campaign with $90 per week (that I was part of) to run concurrently with another manager called V2 paying $100 per week was a silly idea. Then to use the V2 campaign as the sole campaign but reducing payments to $75 per week and then ending it entirely, it does raise questions about the team that are operating the casino.

Their legal issues surrounding cases against them as well as refusing to fight the bankruptcy ruling in Curacao was also a strange decision therefore you are not the one that suspects there is something more going on in the background. They claimed an old rule in law (that was not fit for the modern day allowing a plaintiff to enforce a bankruptcy) was used to exploit the system. If that was the case, they should challenged via an appeal rather go and set up their licence elsewhere.

Now it appears they are entering the African market with a deal with authorities in Kenya.