Dear Sir or Madam,
I cannot accept the conclusion of your investigation, which is based on a major factual contradiction that your team has failed to resolve.
1. The central inconsistency:
Shuffle invokes clause 3.4 (multiple accounts) to block my withdrawal of 261.72 SOL. Yet, just days after this blockage, Shuffle approved a withdrawal in Shuffle Coin from the same account.
The logical question: If I were truly violating the terms and conditions through association with other accounts, why would Shuffle approve a second withdrawal? A violation does not disappear selectively based on currency type.
This proves that Shuffle had no solid basis for the initial blockage.
2. Regarding the "multiple accounts registered" claim:
You concluded that there is an "association with other accounts" on my IP address. This is factually incorrect:
• My friend has his own separate credentials and account
• He logged in himself on my computer — I do not control his account
• I have never played with the SOL funds I deposited (this is my first point to clarify with Shuffle)
• Multiple users on the same PC/connection is a normal scenario — it is only a violation if I personally control those multiple accounts
Shuffle has provided NO technical evidence (game logs, identical patterns, withdrawals to the same wallets, etc.) demonstrating that I personally played on these other accounts.
3. Request for clarification:
Your conclusions are based on an inference, not verifiable facts. Before closing this case definitively, I require:
• Why did Shuffle approve a withdrawal after invoking a violation?
• What technical evidence (session logs, game patterns, withdrawal addresses) proves that I personally played on other accounts?
• How do you explain that only the SOL withdrawal is blocked, while others are not?
Conclusion:
Your investigation failed to address the major inconsistency. I consider this closure premature and unjustified.
I will escalate this complaint directly to the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) with the entirety of this correspondence.
I strongly request that you reopen this case or formally clarify the evidence upon which Shuffle bases its position.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I cannot accept the conclusion of your investigation, which is based on a major factual contradiction that your team has failed to resolve.
1. The central inconsistency:
Shuffle invokes clause 3.4 (multiple accounts) to block my withdrawal of 261.72 SOL. Yet, just days after this blockage, Shuffle approved a withdrawal in Shuffle Coin from the same account.
The logical question: If I were truly violating the terms and conditions through association with other accounts, why would Shuffle approve a second withdrawal? A violation does not disappear selectively based on currency type.
This proves that Shuffle had no solid basis for the initial blockage.
2. Regarding the "multiple accounts registered" claim:
You concluded that there is an "association with other accounts" on my IP address. This is factually incorrect:
• My friend has his own separate credentials and account
• He logged in himself on my computer — I do not control his account
• I have never played with the SOL funds I deposited (this is my first point to clarify with Shuffle)
• Multiple users on the same PC/connection is a normal scenario — it is only a violation if I personally control those multiple accounts
Shuffle has provided NO technical evidence (game logs, identical patterns, withdrawals to the same wallets, etc.) demonstrating that I personally played on these other accounts.
3. Request for clarification:
Your conclusions are based on an inference, not verifiable facts. Before closing this case definitively, I require:
• Why did Shuffle approve a withdrawal after invoking a violation?
• What technical evidence (session logs, game patterns, withdrawal addresses) proves that I personally played on other accounts?
• How do you explain that only the SOL withdrawal is blocked, while others are not?
Conclusion:
Your investigation failed to address the major inconsistency. I consider this closure premature and unjustified.
I will escalate this complaint directly to the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) with the entirety of this correspondence.
I strongly request that you reopen this case or formally clarify the evidence upon which Shuffle bases its position.