Hello larryhay10,
I am Michal, and I have taken responsibility for addressing your complaint. I have thoroughly examined your situation and will reach out to the casino to explore how I can assist you. In the meantime, I advise against making any additional deposits, as this could potentially lead to your losses. The casino's approach regarding your initial deposits does not align with the standard practices observed in reputable casinos. I completely understand your excitement about significant winnings, and I can imagine that even the additional deposit would not pose a significant issue if it were sure you would receive the winnings; however, we have encountered similar instances where newer casinos, lacking a solid track record of successful payouts and with quite questionable licensing, have regrettably proven to be fraudulent. While I am not suggesting that, at the moment, Lunarwin Casino falls into this category, it is prudent to exercise caution.
We would like to invite Lunarwin Casino to join the conversation.
Dear Lunarwin Casino,
I appreciate your responses regarding the recent transaction. While I acknowledge that your finance team noted a receipt of 297.82656 USDT, which falls short of the minimum requirement of 300 USDT, it is important to highlight that the player completed a payment of 0.00333 BTC which reflected to 300USDT without any associated fees from the payment provider, Moonpay. Consequently, the player should not be held accountable for any potential discrepancies in the exchange rate that may have arisen. It seems unjust to withhold the player's winnings based on this situation and to request an additional 300 USDT payment.
Furthermore, the player's balance increased from $50001 to $50305 immediately following the initial deposit, indicating that the total amount deposited exceeded the minimum threshold of $300. We understand the player's hesitation to make further deposits into your casino. Given that, most likely, the primary purpose of this verification payment was to confirm the payment method, the minor discrepancy in the final amount should not be a significant concern, because the payment method verification was done. What advantages would this situation with the minor lower deposit present for the player? Your present approach appears to diverge from the equitable standards we anticipate from casinos. I would appreciate your thoughtful reconsideration of this matter. If there are any other factors that contribute to the situation that cannot be shared publicly, please forward them to me at michal.k@casino.guru
Hello larryhay10,
I am Michal, and I have taken responsibility for addressing your complaint. I have thoroughly examined your situation and will reach out to the casino to explore how I can assist you. In the meantime, I advise against making any additional deposits, as this could potentially lead to your losses. The casino's approach regarding your initial deposits does not align with the standard practices observed in reputable casinos. I completely understand your excitement about significant winnings, and I can imagine that even the additional deposit would not pose a significant issue if it were sure you would receive the winnings; however, we have encountered similar instances where newer casinos, lacking a solid track record of successful payouts and with quite questionable licensing, have regrettably proven to be fraudulent. While I am not suggesting that, at the moment, Lunarwin Casino falls into this category, it is prudent to exercise caution.
We would like to invite Lunarwin Casino to join the conversation.
Dear Lunarwin Casino,
I appreciate your responses regarding the recent transaction. While I acknowledge that your finance team noted a receipt of 297.82656 USDT, which falls short of the minimum requirement of 300 USDT, it is important to highlight that the player completed a payment of 0.00333 BTC which reflected to 300USDT without any associated fees from the payment provider, Moonpay. Consequently, the player should not be held accountable for any potential discrepancies in the exchange rate that may have arisen. It seems unjust to withhold the player's winnings based on this situation and to request an additional 300 USDT payment.
Furthermore, the player's balance increased from $50001 to $50305 immediately following the initial deposit, indicating that the total amount deposited exceeded the minimum threshold of $300. We understand the player's hesitation to make further deposits into your casino. Given that, most likely, the primary purpose of this verification payment was to confirm the payment method, the minor discrepancy in the final amount should not be a significant concern, because the payment method verification was done. What advantages would this situation with the minor lower deposit present for the player? Your present approach appears to diverge from the equitable standards we anticipate from casinos. I would appreciate your thoughtful reconsideration of this matter. If there are any other factors that contribute to the situation that cannot be shared publicly, please forward them to me at michal.k@casino.guru
Edited by a Casino Guru admin