Bennett

10 weeks ago we were accused of stealing $7m from a player through a rigged game. That accusation is false. The game wasn't rigged, nothing was taken, and an independent body has since confirmed it. A lot of people have asked why we said nothing for ten weeks. Fair question. The honest answer is that our lawyers told us not to respond publicly while this was in formal proceedings, and we listened. In hindsight, staying silent was a mistake. Silence looked like we had something to hide, which we didn’t. There was a reason for the advice. The thread you all saw was written in the first person, as the player. But it wasn't posted by the player. It was posted by a former affiliate partner of ours, who has unresolved legal matters with Winna and is the subject of separate legal proceedings. He has since disclosed that to the regulator himself and also publicly. That's a serious conflict of interest, and it made a public back-and-forth impossible at the time. What changed: the complaint went to an independent dispute-resolution body. Based on the full data presented to them, they ruled in Winna's favour. The separate legal proceedings are being filed. Both are where they belong, so now we can talk. Our CTO Ollie has answered the technical claims in detail, with a GitHub repo holding the full data and evidence. Anyone can check it themselves. Nobody has to trust either side. I still want to address a few of the accusations made over the last weeks. 1. “Produce a valid pre-bet commitment and your server-generation logs.” They asked for this several times. It's now public, for every round. They could have had it months ago: in the private exchange they asked for three rounds and received three. They never asked for the rest. Maybe that was a communication error. Either way, they have it now. 2. The whole implementation was visible before a single bet was placed. Every part of the provable-fairness setup described above was shown in the fairness panel before any gameplay. The affiliate has said the player is his best friend. If he didn't like that implementation, why not tell his best friend not to play? And why was the complaint raised more than two months after the session? I can tell you why. - He was the player's affiliate and received affiliate commission on his play. - He only started making these claims after we ended his affiliate relationship and asked him to resolve other, unrelated disputes between him and Winna, the matters now going to court. None of them have anything to do with provable fairness. - And we have it in writing that he is doing this because the player promised him money if he gets something back. Based on the above, I think everyone should question the motives behind these claims. 3. The fixed client seed. They also raised a second point: the client seed was a fixed Bitcoin block hash and couldn’t be rotated. As above, that was visible before any gameplay, and nobody asked for a rotation or complained about it before playing. Besides that, the player still controlled one input: when to bet. Ollie’s thread replays the player’s main session against the real results of the game, starting at different times. Had he started that same session 5 minutes later, he would have won 4 of 13 rounds and been up $3.5m. One hour later: 6 of 13 rounds, up $4m. 5 hours earlier: all 13 rounds lost, worse than what actually happened. Every seed in that table was already committed before he played. Nothing was aimed at him. 4. Even if you take the fixed client seed as an argument (we don’t), it can’t be a reason to claim losses back. If it were, I could point at several top-20 competitors running the exact same setup right now: BetFury, Toshibet and others. Thrill had the same setup in its first two months, and the player played a similar VIP Slide there. Does that mean every Thrill player from those two months can ask for their money back? 5. “The odds of that run were 1 in 5,000.” Not correct. The thread above walks through it. The odds were about 1 in 100. Every gambler sees runs like that. Pocket aces in poker: 1 in 221. The dealer hitting blackjack twice in a row: about 1 in 440. Red seven times in a row on a roulette wheel: about 1 in 150. 6. Betting limits We took his high-stakes action knowing he plays an extreme style that has historically given a lot of profit back. On top of that we had paid him $1m for exclusivity, so we weren’t worried about him losing it elsewhere; we knew it would come back to us eventually. The extra cashback came from a separate issue he had a few days earlier, which they know about. We could afford it because on our own Originals we no longer had to pay bankroll provider fees. They also point to the limits: right after the switch to the public Slide, the limits were lower than before. True. What’s missing is that we set limits player by player, based on VIP deal, history and exposure. The claim that we would never take $100k+ bets is simply wrong. Since launch we have taken casino and sports action well above our public limits many times. Since that Slide session on 16 May we have taken 837 single bets above $100k. 101 of them were above $500k, well above his average Slide bet. All of them visible in our public bet feed, some of them here on X. Looking forward As I said above, not responding and letting false claims circulate in the community was a mistake. But we are confident that the evidence that has been published gives anyone looking at this without bias a clear view: the game was NOT rigged. And we are proud that despite those false claims, our active player base has grown to record levels. They know they can trust us: instant withdrawals, fair games and strong bonusing. This case, and a few others across the community, has shown us that provable fairness is still not widely understood. So over the past weeks we have been working on the next version of our provably fair system, which launches this year. The goal: set a new standard for the industry and make provable fairness easier for everyone to understand.