OPDuel knowingly let a scammer gamble my 83.52 LTC

[PrimeStack]

Scammer's profile link: @OPDuel
Amount scammed: 83.52 LTC (~$3,600 at time of writing)
Discord ID + Unique Discord ID: kamitnta / Cheez4ch - 1434439819672686592
Proof that it's their Discord: Screen capture - 7e664e76a083ffb80595a3f67bba3c71 - Gyazo

Explanation of the trade:
I am the developer and cashier for the RuneLuck Discord. On 08/07/2026, the user Cheez4ch (Discord: kamitnta, ID 1434439819672686592) opened a cashout ticket to withdraw his balance. The bot log in the ticket shows the legitimate cashout: 522,000,000 GP, worth $83, which came to 1.92 LTC. He provided his LTC address (ltc1qvrpg0te0l7ryj4eypr4s4aajnwxhxldrsfn9cc) and I went to pay him.

This is where I made my mistake, which I fully own: instead of sending only the 1.92 LTC he was owed, I accidentally also sent him 83.52 LTC - I fat-fingered the dollar amount ($83) as the LTC amount. Both transactions are visible on the blockchain (litecoinspace screenshot in the ticket): 83.52000000 LTC and 1.92773316 LTC, both sent to his address on 08/07/2026.
I noticed within a minute and immediately told him in the ticket ("Omg I just accidentally sent you 83.52 ltc") with a screenshot of the blockchain explorer as proof. He acknowledged it ("oh my god? u sure") and replied, in writing, "ill send it back" with a heart emoji. I have the full ticket transcript showing all of this.

How they scammed:
1) Cheez4ch took the money straight to OPDuel. Instead of returning the 83.52 LTC he had just promised in writing to return, he immediately deposited BOTH transactions - the 83.52 LTC and the 1.92 LTC - into OPDuel. I know this with certainty because he posted his own screenshot in the ticket showing OPDuel "Deposit Pending" notifications for exactly LTC 83.52000000 and LTC 1.92773316 (screenshot attached).

2) OPDuel were made fully aware within roughly 10 minutes, while the money was still in his account. This is the core of this report. The moment I saw his deposit screenshot I contacted OPDuel directly. This was not a case of a casino finding out days later once the money was long gone - I reached them within about 10 minutes of it happening, and I gave them everything up front, the ticket transcript, the blockchain transactions, and his own deposit screenshot. I am also friends with some of the OPDuel team, so there was never any suspicion that I was making it up - they knew from the first message that this was a legitimate scam.

3) This went all the way to ownership, and every owner knew. This was not one support agent making a snap call in a busy inbox. The owners discussed my case among themselves at length. There is zero question that OPDuel, at ownership level, with the proof in front of them, understood that the funds sitting in Cheez4ch's account were scammed from me.

4) The money was still there and they had every tool to stop it. By their own admission, roughly 50% of the funds were still in his account when they read my messages - around 40 LTC they could have secured on the spot. They could have frozen his wallet. They could have held the remaining balance pending a look at the evidence. They could have simply paused his account and spoken to him for ten minutes. Any of those actions costs them nothing. They did none of them, and knowingly let a scammer keep gambling with my money in real time while I watched.

5) Their refusal was about image, not evidence. At no point did they dispute that I was scammed - they couldn't, the proof was conclusive and they knew the situation was real. Their exact words to me for refusing to hold the funds were: "We can only do approved antiscams", and that holding the funds "would do a shit tonne of damage to our reputation" / "to essentially go and scam a customer". Read that back: with the victim's evidence in hand and the stolen money still on their platform, they described holding it as "scamming a customer", and decided their reputation was worth more than doing the obviously right thing.

6) They CAN act on balances when they want to - the $550. I voice-called Cheez4ch himself, and he told me OPDuel had taken $550 off his balance for a PREVIOUS antiscam case. If that's true, it dismantles their entire excuse: (a) "we can't do anything" is simply false - they can and do deduct customer balances when they decide a case qualifies, they just decided mine didn't; (b) they already knew Cheez4ch was a known scammer with a prior antiscam against his name, and still let him gamble freely with a fresh deposit of provably stolen money; and (c) if that $550 came out of the deposit he made that day, they effectively helped themselves to a cut of MY stolen LTC to settle someone else's case while telling me there was nothing they could do for mine.
7) What any legitimate service would have done. Flip the situation around. If OPDuel messaged me and said "we got scammed $5,000 by this customer, please hold these funds and don't let him spend them", I would freeze that balance straight away, speak with the customer, and get the proof in order before letting him touch anything. That is the absolute baseline of how services in this community are supposed to protect each other. OPDuel had every chance to do exactly that - proof in hand, money still in the account, every owner aware - and made a deliberate, discussed decision to do nothing.
8) For completeness - Cheez4ch was stringing me along the whole time. Hours later, long after OPDuel had already been made aware and refused to act, he came back to the ticket and said "send me 3b balance ill send it back". Desperate to recover the 83.52 LTC, I agreed and credited 3B GP to his RuneLuck balance (visible in the bot log), then DMed him a fresh LTC address as he asked. He still sent nothing back. That balance was on our own platform so we have since recovered it - it is not part of the amount claimed here - but it confirms he never had any intention of returning the money.
I want to be completely upfront: the oversend was my mistake, and I've never pretended otherwise. But this report is about what happened after. Cheez4ch knowingly kept 83.52 LTC that wasn't his, promised in writing to return it, and returned nothing. And OPDuel were told within minutes, with conclusive proof, while half the money was still sitting in his account. Every owner was fully aware. They had the ability to freeze the wallet, hold the balance, or even just talk to the customer - and they deliberately chose to protect their image instead, while (by Cheez4ch's own account) having already taken $550 off him for a previous antiscam. They didn't fail to help me; they decided not to.

Other relevant trade screenshots:
Full ticket transcript (ticket was closed, so this is the transcript): https://i.ibb.co/WvNFtLvP/discord-ticket-part-1.png
Ticket screenshot - me telling him I accidentally sent 83.52 LTC, with blockchain proof of both transactions: https://i.ibb.co/Jjnbd9Mh/discord-ticket-part-2.jpg
Ticket screenshot - him saying "ill send it back" (he never did): https://i.ibb.co/NbkkG3b/discord-ticket-part-3.jpg
How I know it went to OPDuel - his own screenshot of the OPDuel deposit-pending notifications for 83.52 LTC and 1.92 LTC: https://i.ibb.co/5yxp4Qk/deposit-to-opduel.jpg

My Discord: primestacks - 797268822956441640

If I am to believe them that there was only half left at the time of checking, I would request they pay me 40 LTC since they could have stopped this from happening

Note for mods: I have not posted my full conversation with the OPDuel owners here, but I will happily DM the complete message history to any moderator, or they can add me on Discord and I will share everything. If there is any doubt about anything I've said above, I will provide the messages.

 

[PrimeStack]

TLDR:
I have sent a wrong amount to customer that went OPD wallet
OPD refused to refund me but seized some of his wallet for previous scamming (Which was my stolen funds)

I warned them straight away and asked them to return the money, they refused, and decided to let the scammer play with my funds or it could hurt their reputation (Or in my opinion their profits)

Many people have since expressed to me he is a known scammer, OPDuel knew that too that's why they took back money off him and then just decided to let him play the rest of the scammed funds as that didn't affect them

 

@OPDuel care to reply?

 

[OPDuel]

Hello,

We would like to address this report clearly and set out the facts from our side.

From OPDuel's perspective, this was an ordinary deposit. A customer withdrew LTC from another platform and deposited those funds with us. The funds are not sanctioned, carry no on-chain red flags, and are indistinguishable from any other deposit we process.
We maintain standard compliance and risk-monitoring on all incoming funds, including blockchain analytics such as Chainalysis, which is standard practice across cryptocurrency gambling platforms. Nothing about these funds flagged, because there was nothing to flag. They originated from a legitimate withdrawal from another service.

The only basis for treating this deposit as anything other than routine is an off-platform account of events between two parties who have no affiliation with OPDuel. Neither the reporter nor the customer was an active Sythe user at the time.
This is an outside dispute that we were never a part of, and we do not freeze or seize a paying customer's balance on the say-so of an unaffiliated party. Doing so would mean wrongfully depriving our own customer of their funds over a matter we had no involvement in.

It is also worth being clear about the nature of the underlying event. By the reporter's own account, this was an accidental overpayment that both parties initially treated as something to be resolved between themselves. OPDuel was not a party to that transaction, did not cause it, and was in no position to prevent one platform from over-sending to a customer.
There is also no Sythe rule requiring a platform to anti-scam on behalf of a third party, whether approved or not. It is entirely voluntary, and many established members and services on Sythe decline to carry out discretionary third-party anti-scams as a matter of course.

Regarding the $550, which is being used to imply that we act selectively: that was an entirely separate, first-party matter.
This same customer had previously scammed OPDuel directly. We confronted him, he admitted it, and he agreed to the recovery amicably.
It is also worth noting that this customer is not a Sythe user and has raised no report against us.
That was us resolving a matter directly with our own customer over funds that had been taken from us, which bears no resemblance to seizing a customer's balance on behalf of an outside party based on their own claims.

Recovering your own funds from a user who has scammed you is well established on Sythe, as reflected in prior rulings such as these:
- i am a filthy imposter scammer
- I reported someone when I was the scammer all along

In summary, OPDuel was not a party to the original transaction, did not cause the mistaken transfer, and had no ability to prevent another platform from over-sending to a customer.
The funds that reached us were clean by every check available to us.
We act on our own standard procedures and what we can verify, not on outside disputes that we were never part of, because the alternative would be placing our own customers' funds at risk whenever an outside party chooses to file a report.

Kind regards,
OPDuel Team

 

[PrimeStack]

Thank you for replying - because your response confirms nearly everything in my report.

1) You've just admitted the key facts. By your own words: this customer previously scammed OPDuel directly, you knew it, and you recovered $550 from his balance. So when I contacted you, you weren't dealing with an ordinary "paying customer" - you were knowingly holding fresh funds for an admitted scammer, minutes after being shown proof he'd done it again.

2) I never claimed on-chain analytics should have flagged the deposit. You had something far better than a blockchain scan: the victim, within ~10 minutes, with the ticket transcript, transactions matching to the exact amount (83.52000000 LTC), and the customer's OWN screenshot of the deposit to you. Automated screening is irrelevant once you have actual knowledge.

3) "Indistinguishable from any other deposit" - yet you checked his balance for me. You told me roughly 50% was left when you read my messages. You identified the exact account and the exact funds. You cannot claim the deposit was indistinguishable while also reporting its remaining balance to me.

4) It was never "say-so". The evidence included his own written acknowledgment ("ill send it back") and his own deposit screenshot. And at the time, you never once disputed that the scam was real - your stated reasons for refusing were "we can only do approved antiscams" and that it "would do a shit tonne of damage to our reputation". The "unverifiable outside dispute" argument appears for the first time in this thread. My full DM history with your team is available to any moderator and will show exactly this.

5) Nobody asked you to anti-scam or seize anything. I asked you to HOLD the funds while it got worked out. A hold is temporary and fully reversible - if my proof didn't stand up, you unfreeze and your customer has lost nothing. You could have spoken to the customer. You could have returned the crypto to the wallet it came from if you were unsure. You were the custodian of the funds with multiple zero-risk options, and you chose instead to let a known scammer play and cash out in real time.

6) Your first-party/third-party distinction concedes the point. It admits you can and do act on a customer's balance when you decide it's justified - you just only do it when the money is yours. And a fair question for the mods reading: when was the $550 recovered, and from which deposit? If it came out of the funds he deposited that day, you took a cut of my stolen LTC while telling me nothing could be done.

7) "Not a Sythe user" is irrelevant. Whether I had an account here doesn't change what happened - and you resolved your own dispute with this same non-Sythe customer with no forum process at all. A scam doesn't stop being a scam because the victim registered afterwards.

8) "An accidental overpayment to be resolved between themselves" - an overpayment becomes theft the moment the recipient acknowledges in writing that it isn't his and keeps it. That is the exact principle behind the rulings you linked.

There's nothing more I need to add. The facts are not in dispute - your own reply confirms them. You knew he was a scammer, you knew the funds were mine, you were holding them, and you had reversible options: hold the balance, talk to the customer, or refund to the originating wallet. You chose to let him gamble it away instead. Being a casino doesn't make you exempt from acting on a scam happening on your own platform - I'll leave it to Sythe to judge.

 

Hello,

We would like to address this report clearly and set out the facts from our side.

From OPDuel's perspective, this was an ordinary deposit. A customer withdrew LTC from another platform and deposited those funds with us. The funds are not sanctioned, carry no on-chain red flags, and are indistinguishable from any other deposit we process.
We maintain standard compliance and risk-monitoring on all incoming funds, including blockchain analytics such as Chainalysis, which is standard practice across cryptocurrency gambling platforms. Nothing about these funds flagged, because there was nothing to flag. They originated from a legitimate withdrawal from another service.

The only basis for treating this deposit as anything other than routine is an off-platform account of events between two parties who have no affiliation with OPDuel. Neither the reporter nor the customer was an active Sythe user at the time.
This is an outside dispute that we were never a part of, and we do not freeze or seize a paying customer's balance on the say-so of an unaffiliated party. Doing so would mean wrongfully depriving our own customer of their funds over a matter we had no involvement in.

It is also worth being clear about the nature of the underlying event. By the reporter's own account, this was an accidental overpayment that both parties initially treated as something to be resolved between themselves. OPDuel was not a party to that transaction, did not cause it, and was in no position to prevent one platform from over-sending to a customer.
There is also no Sythe rule requiring a platform to anti-scam on behalf of a third party, whether approved or not. It is entirely voluntary, and many established members and services on Sythe decline to carry out discretionary third-party anti-scams as a matter of course.

Regarding the $550, which is being used to imply that we act selectively: that was an entirely separate, first-party matter.
This same customer had previously scammed OPDuel directly. We confronted him, he admitted it, and he agreed to the recovery amicably.
It is also worth noting that this customer is not a Sythe user and has raised no report against us.
That was us resolving a matter directly with our own customer over funds that had been taken from us, which bears no resemblance to seizing a customer's balance on behalf of an outside party based on their own claims.

Recovering your own funds from a user who has scammed you is well established on Sythe, as reflected in prior rulings such as these:
- i am a filthy imposter scammer
- I reported someone when I was the scammer all along

In summary, OPDuel was not a party to the original transaction, did not cause the mistaken transfer, and had no ability to prevent another platform from over-sending to a customer.
The funds that reached us were clean by every check available to us.
We act on our own standard procedures and what we can verify, not on outside disputes that we were never part of, because the alternative would be placing our own customers' funds at risk whenever an outside party chooses to file a report.

Kind regards,
OPDuel Team

What are your standard procedures? Please provide your end of the chat logs and anything relating to your procedures. I'm mostly interested in what is your procedure when receiving notice of allegedly stolen funds.

 

[OPDuel]

Our policy is that we do not freeze or seize a customer's balance based on third party claims.
We are not a party to disputes that happen off our platform, and we do not take a paying customer's funds on someone else's account of events.
There has never been a rule on Sythe requiring anyone to anti scam on behalf of another person.

On the compliance side, we run the same automated checks as major gambling platforms and financial services such as Stake, Coinbase, Binance, etc.
Incoming deposits are screened through blockchain analytics (Chainalysis) and are automatically blocked where they are flagged as sanctioned or of illicit origin.
Nothing was flagged here.

We tested how other platforms handle this. We put a materially identical scenario to Shuffle (a gambling platform) and to Coinbase (a regulated exchange), in both cases stating that the recipient held an account with them and offering to provide evidence.

Shuffle declined to assist and told the sender they were responsible for their own funds:
shuffle

Coinbase declined as well and advised to contact the recipient directly:
coinbase1
coinbase2
coinbase3

This is the standard position across the industry. It is also ours.

Kind regards,
OPDuel Team

 

[PrimeStack]

@Techie asked for two things: the procedure when you receive notice of allegedly stolen funds, and your end of the chat logs. The reply above contains neither.

1) No procedure for notice was given. Chainalysis screens deposits automatically when they arrive. The question was what happens when a human victim notifies you directly, with evidence. Going by the reply, the answer is: nothing - no temporary hold, no review of the evidence, no conversation with the customer. The only procedure described is one where a report from a victim has zero effect.

2) The chat logs were not provided. I repeat my offer: any moderator can have my full conversation with the OPDuel team. Those logs will show that at the time, nobody on their side questioned whether my claim was genuine - the reasons given for refusing were "we can only do approved antiscams" and reputation damage. The "unverifiable outside dispute" position appeared only after this report was filed.

3) Shuffle and Coinbase are not comparable:
- Both are full KYC platforms. Every customer is identity-verified, so a victim still has real recourse against a named individual. OPDuel's customers are anonymous Discord users - a hold on the balance was the only protection that existed.
- Coinbase is a regulated exchange that is legally restricted from freezing accounts on an unverified stranger's email. OPDuel is a Sythe service answering a Sythe report. The standard being applied here is this community's, not Coinbase's compliance department.
- The test scenario was not "materially identical". Shuffle and Coinbase were cold-contacted by a total stranger about a customer they knew nothing about. OPDuel was contacted by someone their team knew, with a ticket transcript, matching on-chain transactions, and the customer's own deposit screenshot - about a customer they knew had already scammed them directly and admitted it (their words, post #4).

4) The known-scammer point remains unanswered. OPDuel has confirmed this customer previously scammed them and that they recovered $550 from his balance. So at the moment I gave notice, they already knew he was an admitted scammer and already knew balance recovery was possible. Neither of those facts was part of their Shuffle/Coinbase test, and neither has been addressed.

5) I was not a stranger making a bare claim. I run a service they knew, I was known to members of their team, and I provided full evidence within minutes while roughly half the funds (by their own statement to me) were still in the account.
So the procedure, as actually described across their two replies, is: software screens deposits on arrival, direct notice from a victim with evidence changes nothing, and a customer's balance is only ever touched when the money owed is OPDuel's own.

 

[PrimeStack]

They knew it was my funds, they knew it was a known scammer and decided to just seize $550 of my funds (For when they got scammed by the same person) before letting him play

Coinbase or any other place would have placed KYC (ID Checks) on the user or locked his funds on which OPDuel do none of that

 

Our policy is that we do not freeze or seize a customer's balance based on third party claims.
We are not a party to disputes that happen off our platform, and we do not take a paying customer's funds on someone else's account of events.
There has never been a rule on Sythe requiring anyone to anti scam on behalf of another person.

On the compliance side, we run the same automated checks as major gambling platforms and financial services such as Stake, Coinbase, Binance, etc.
Incoming deposits are screened through blockchain analytics (Chainalysis) and are automatically blocked where they are flagged as sanctioned or of illicit origin.
Nothing was flagged here.

We tested how other platforms handle this. We put a materially identical scenario to Shuffle (a gambling platform) and to Coinbase (a regulated exchange), in both cases stating that the recipient held an account with them and offering to provide evidence.

Shuffle declined to assist and told the sender they were responsible for their own funds:
shuffle

Coinbase declined as well and advised to contact the recipient directly:
coinbase1
coinbase2
coinbase3

This is the standard position across the industry. It is also ours.

Kind regards,
OPDuel Team

You're misunderstanding this report as a failure to perform an anti-scam. Sythe doesn't require anyone to anti-scam, however, we do hold the stance that you are not allowed to knowingly deal with stolen goods. This has been the stance for a long time on Sythe.
In this dispute -
@PrimeStack reached out to their connection with you/your team. Your team declines to assist, which is 100% up to you in regards of anti-scamming. However, there's clear evidence your team was aware of who they were dealing with and had enough to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that these were stolen funds. You were willing to accept the stolen funds not only to profit but repay yourself from stolen funds.
The options on your end would have been to reject the transaction once you learned it was stolen funds or if you were inclined to, reach out to Sythe staff to coordinate an anti-scam.
This was not an everyday support chat making hasty claims but rather two parties you and your team are connected to closely enough to raise flags.
Please provide the balance history so we can come to a resolution.

 

[PrimeStack]

I consider Techie's last post to have settled the substance of this report, so I'll keep this brief. Since then, additional information has come to light that I believe should be on record. I hold evidence for everything below and will provide the complete logs privately to Techie or any admin on request — I'm not posting it all publicly.

1. OPDuel knew exactly who I was. Internally, ownership described me as a "15 year veteran." This directly contradicts the position taken in this thread — that I was an unaffiliated stranger making an unverifiable claim. They knew who I was from the first message, which is exactly what I said in my original report.

2. Their private attitude toward this report. Before Techie's ruling, ownership was celebrating internally — "god is great" — laughing that I was "crying" and saying I wouldn't win. After the ruling went against them, the tone flipped to "f*** Sythe," that they don't need it, and hoping they "don't get DNTed." At no point in private have they shown any intention of doing the right thing — only confidence they'd get away with it, then contempt when they didn't. The measured tone of their replies in this thread does not reflect how they have discussed it privately.

3. When they lost, they fired their staff. After Techie's ruling, ownership responded by firing staff — including the developer who had originally told me roughly 50% of the funds were still in the scammer's account. To be clear: that developer was never advocating for me. He told me himself he thought this report would go nowhere. He was fired anyway over his connection to me. I know the timing first-hand — I was in contact with him on WhatsApp when it happened, today. So their reaction to losing this case was not to comply with the ruling, but to purge anyone with a link to me.

4. Conflict of interest. A current Sythe moderator works for OPDuel and has had visibility into these internal discussions throughout this report. I won't name them here — that's for staff to handle — but it needs to be on record.

I want to be clear: I didn't want any of this. I asked OPDuel to do the right thing while roughly half of my funds were still sitting in the scammer's account, and everything since has been them going to increasing lengths to avoid it. If OPDuel disputes a single claim above, I will hand the full message history to an admin immediately. Otherwise, I have nothing further to add and will await staff's resolution.

OpDuel know this is all true so I don't need to give the evidence here as there is no dispute in what I'm saying

But I will happily give the evidence to an admin of Sythe if they are saying it's not true

 

[OPDuel]

We’ll start by apologizing for the lengthy response, but there is a significant amount of context that needs to be covered. There is also additional context that we have intentionally left out in order to keep this response more concise.

Please take the time to read through everything carefully, as each point is relevant to understanding the full situation and the reasoning behind our actions.

Based on the clarification provided, we have addressed the additional points raised below. Given the complexity of this report and the new information introduced in this response, we respectfully request that these matters be reviewed and discussed internally by the Sythe staff before a decision is made.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We will start by responding to Primestack's reply above.
Primestack has been making false claims throughout his report. We chose not to respond to those earlier misrepresentations, but we will address the false claims made in his latest reply.

[1] This is false. The user claiming ownership said he was called a "15-year veteran," but that is not what was actually stated. An administrator said the individual is a 15-year veteran scammer, not simply a "15-year veteran."
[Redacted 1]
A user whose friend tried leaking stuff as he got fired, only could come up with lies to put us in a bad light, that truly goes to show how legitimate OPDuel operates, not only externally but also internally.

[2] More lies, stuff taken out of context, and stuff never mentioned.
[Redacted 2]

[3] We terminated a staff member who leaked internal chats despite being bound by a contract that explicitly prohibited doing so.

Furthermore, the fact that the only alleged "leaks" he has produced have been demonstrated to be false further reinforces our position. Rather than exposing any genuine misconduct, they consisted of misinformation and fabricated claims. This underscores the legitimacy of our operations and reflects the integrity with which we conduct our activities.

[4] Many vendors on Sythe have Sythe moderators working with their businesses, and there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about that. We operate transparently and conduct our business legitimately.

It is difficult to understand how one individual can make so many false claims, particularly when they can be readily disproven. This pattern of conduct demonstrates a lack of regard for the time and efforts of everyone involved. It also reinforces the concerns and evidence presented throughout the remainder of this report.

A user making such blatant false claims, despite knowing they could be easily disproven, only strengthens our position and validates our judgment. It appears he assumed we would continue ignoring his accusations, as we had done in the past. This time, however, we took the time to address them with evidence and demonstrate that they were false.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We would like to present several points that we believe should be taken into consideration during the review of this report.

[1] More extreme cases being allowed.

As mentioned here “however, we do hold the stance that you are not allowed to knowingly deal with stolen goods” which could be rephrased in other words = You cannot knowingly conduct business with someone using funds obtained through scamming, as those funds constitute stolen goods.

We could review a large number of vendors active on Sythe, join their associated Discord communities, and identify numerous cases where individuals with confirmed histories of scam activity continue to be recognized as paying customers. This strongly suggests that the funds used for these purchases are likely derived from proceeds obtained through fraudulent or stolen assets.

Additionally, there are cases where active Sythe members have maintained partnerships with individuals involved in scams and have benefited financially from funds obtained through those scamming activities.

Some examples are provided below, with identifying details redacted, as our intention is not to engage in name-shaming.
[Redacted 3]

[2] Edge Cases

Another important consideration is that the blockchain is entirely public. Anyone can monitor incoming transaction IDs to the wallets of casinos or other businesses. If the current reasoning in this report were to stand, it would effectively allow anyone to monitor a business's incoming transactions and compel it to freeze or withhold customer funds until evidence is provided. In other words, this can damage a platform’s relationships with its customers and, on a broader scale, negatively impact the reputation and credibility of the entire operation.

As previously mentioned in our initial response, we contacted several of the largest centralized exchanges and cryptocurrency platforms to understand how they would handle a situation of this nature. The responses and procedures provided by these platforms were consistent with the approach we took in this matter.

Relevant Coinbase Documentation Regarding Suspicious Funds, Asset Restrictions, and Transaction Recovery
- https://www.coinbase.com/en-nl/legal/prohibited_use
- https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/other-topics/other/does-coinbase-freeze-accounts
- https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/other-topics/other/does-coinbase-freeze-accounts

We all know Coinbase is the most compliant exchange out there, the importance of this is that it goes to show, Coinbase does not involve in third-party-disputes, but only on confirmed cases.

The reason why companies do not involve in third party claims is because there are too many relevant edge cases that can occur.

We will be show-casing some edge cases, we are not saying that these edge-cases occurred, but are arguing that they could have occurred, and what the damages in these scenarios would be.

Edge Case Example: Fraudulent Claims Resulting in Loss of Goods and Payment

[User 1] purchases something from [User 2].

[User 1] recognizes that the wallet address provided by [User 2] is an [Casino/Shop] deposit address.

[User 1] then fabricates a conversation with an alt account or someone they know, sends the funds themselves, receives the goods, and subsequently contacts us claiming they over-sent funds or that they got scammed with a fake conversation he set-up. They could delete the genuine conversation with [User 2] or use a messaging platform where conversations can be erased through for instance a groupchat on Discord that got deleted, leaving only the fabricated evidence.

In that scenario, what would have happened? [User 2] would have been scammed out of both their goods and the payment. They would not blame [User 1] for exploiting the situation; they would blame the platform for intervening based on unreliable or manipulated evidence.

How can we verify that the above scenario has not occurred? If we had followed the procedure outlined in our previous reply and an edge case like this had taken place, it could have resulted in a customer being scammed out of 3K+.

Additionally, a user could potentially set up this scenario between two of their own accounts, creating a method to exploit the system and steal funds from both platform and customers.

An example of what someone with malicious intent could do would be to create two fabricated chat histories: one appearing to be a genuine conversation between two of their own accounts, and another that presents a false version of events between one account used for the genuine version, and one another new account.

In this scenario, consider that you are using a vendor's deposit address and only sending a single transaction to that wallet, while having two different versions of the chat history that present conflicting accounts of what occurred.

One possible scenario would involve a user creating a Discord group chat while controlling two separate Discord accounts and using them to conduct a transaction.

For example, Discord Account [1] is purchasing $1,000 worth of cryptocurrency from Discord Account [2] in exchange for $1,000 via PayPal. Discord Account [1] sends the cryptocurrency, and Discord Account [2] sends the PayPal payment. The transaction proceeds normally, with no issues occurring during the exchange.

Once the transaction is completed, Discord Account [1] removes Discord Account [2] from the group chat, causing Discord Account [2] to lose access to the conversation history.

While the first conversation is taking place, the same user creates a separate conversation involving one of the original accounts, Discord Account [1], and a new account, Discord Account [3].

In this second conversation, Discord Account [1] either fabricates a chat showing that they sent $1,000 instead of $100 to Discord Account [3], or creates a false conversation claiming that Discord Account [1] was scammed by Discord Account [3].

If we were to follow the verdict outlined in this report, we would be required to return the funds to the wallet address that originally sent the transaction, which would be associated with Discord Account [1]. However, the account that actually provided the payment would be Discord Account [2], which sent the $1,000 via PayPal.

Discord Account [2] could then dispute the outcome, request the relevant group chat logs from Discord, and provide evidence showing that they legitimately paid for the cryptocurrency while Discord Account [1] had fabricated a separate conversation. Ultimately, Discord Accounts [1], [2], and [3] would all belong to the same individual.

This would result in us incorrectly returning the $1,000 to Discord Account [1] while also potentially being required to compensate Discord Account [2] for their legitimate payment.

This creates the following liabilities:
- Users could exploit this process to scam customers who use vendors operating under Sythe guidelines.
- Users could exploit this process to scam businesses that use Sythe Guidelines.

Edge Case Example: Abuse of the Dispute Process to Freeze Funds and Delay Access

[User 1] completes a legitimate transaction with [User 2] and receives the agreed goods or services. Afterward, [User 1] submits a claim to the platform alleging that the payment was unauthorized or connected to an unrelated issue.

To support the claim, [User 1] could provide manipulated or fabricated evidence, such as edited screenshots, altered conversations, or selectively presented information that creates a misleading representation of the situation. Based solely on the submitted claim, the platform temporarily restricts [User 2]'s access to the funds while the matter is reviewed.

In this scenario, the dispute process could be used not as a legitimate recovery mechanism, but as a method to delay access to funds and create unnecessary disruption. If platforms were required to freeze funds solely based on unverified claims and potentially manipulated evidence, malicious users could exploit the process to inconvenience others and place an unnecessary burden on both users and platform staff.

This creates the following liabilities:
- Users could exploit this process to intentionally delay access to funds belonging to legitimate customers by submitting false or misleading claims, potentially causing businesses to lose customers and reducing customer trust in the platform.
- Users could abuse the dispute process as a method of disrupting vendors and businesses, creating unnecessary investigations and operational burdens.

Edge Case Example: Reputational Damage Through Improper Fund Restrictions

[User 1] submits a claim against [User 2], alleging that funds received by [User 2] are connected to an unauthorized transaction. In an attempt to strengthen the claim, [User 1] may provide fabricated or misleading evidence, such as altered message histories, incomplete transaction records, adjusted pictures, or false representations of events.

If the platform acts on this information without sufficient verification, [User 2]'s account could be restricted or associated with suspicious activity despite the underlying claim being inaccurate. Even if the matter is later resolved in [User 2]'s favor, the temporary restriction or perception that the account was involved in wrongdoing and user(s) funds were frozen, could negatively affect customers' perception of the legitimacy and reliability of the vendor's business.

This highlights the importance of acting solely on unverified claims as this could allow manipulated evidence to cause harm to legitimate users while also reducing trust in the platform.

This creates the following liabilities:
- Users could exploit this process to damage the reputation of legitimate customers or vendors by making false claims that result in their accounts or funds being associated with suspicious activity.
- Businesses and vendors could suffer reputational harm due to enforcement actions being taken based on unverified or manipulated evidence, even if they are later found to have acted correctly.

Overall, intervening in cases of this nature without sufficient verification does not necessarily protect any party involved, not the customer, not the vendor, and not the platform itself. Instead, it can create additional risks, including opportunities for scams, harassment and unnecessary disputes for all parties.

If the platform decides to directly confront a user or attempt to resolve the situation based solely on an initial claim, there is a possibility of taking action against a customer who has done nothing wrong, resulting in unnecessary reputational harm. Additionally, significant time and resources may be required to investigate the circumstances while a potentially legitimate customer is unable to access their funds.

For example, if a customer was relying on those funds for essential expenses such as rent or groceries, an extended investigation period could create serious consequences for an individual who may ultimately be found to have acted appropriately.

A customer's funds are his unless proven otherwise.

One of the reasons why major legitimate businesses generally avoid getting involved in off-platform third-party disputes is the significant potential for manipulation, incomplete information, and unreliable evidence.

[3] Private stuff containing Internal resources
[Redacted 4]

Sythe has established rules that should be followed, but not every situation is straightforward or can be evaluated in a simple black-and-white manner. Some cases involve additional context and circumstances that need to be considered before reaching a conclusion.

If businesses on Sythe are expected to freeze customer(s) funds at any notice by unreputable people claiming funds are stolen, or reject the deposits at any unconfirmed notice, it would simply make it not safe for businesses who are legitimate to be on here.

With the new context provided, edge cases provided, and clear evidence that the reporter has lied about multiple things, we expect this case to be dropped & all false statements in this report to be removed or adjusted to accurate statements.

For every other business owner reading this, would you freeze a customer of yours funds based on an unconfirmed story provided by an unreputable person, in a dispute that has nothing to do with your business, between two people who have nothing to do with you, knowing that you can’t be handling the dispute but would need it to be fought out elsewhere, meaning you could perhaps seize funds unfairly for days or weeks?

Ironically, no DNT was issued initially. However, after the user's reply, which contained numerous false claims and no actual evidence, a DNT was unexpectedly issued. This situation perfectly demonstrates the core issue our entire appeal is based on: the dangers of taking action against someone based on unverified allegations and unsupported claims. When decisions are made without proper evidence or confirmation, it can lead to unfair outcomes and cause unnecessary harm to those involved.

We never cared about the money involved in this case. The user primarily wagered on 1.01x dice and played a small number of games with only a 0.5% house edge, and withdrew most of the funds in OSRS. A business does not meaningfully profit from activity like this.

We could write up hundreds of arguments as to why the recommendation made about how we should have handled it is not an appropriate way to handle this case.

Kind regards,
OPDuel Team

 

Please take the time to read through everything carefully, as each point is relevant to understanding the full situation and the reasoning behind our actions.

Honestly I won't read this fully but from a quick skim it's all irrelevant to this case

Sythe has established rules that should be followed, but not every situation is straightforward or can be evaluated in a simple black-and-white manner. Some cases involve additional context and circumstances that need to be considered before reaching a conclusion.

This is how the resolution was decided in this report.
Due to your lack of cooperation, I'm going to move forward with a 1 year ban and DNT will remain. (3 month base + 3 months per 1000 owed). You'll need to repay the full amount or provide the balance history for staff to determine the amount owed.