Hello AskGamblers Team,

I would like to report a payment dispute involving the Reybets Affiliate Program and request an independent review of this case.

The dispute concerns an unpaid affiliate commission for one payment period.

Initially, the affiliate program approved and paid the first commission of $1,200. The following payment period also generated a commission of $1,200, but the payment was withheld during a risk review.

The reasons provided by the affiliate program were:

Same wallet
IP conflict
Inactive players

After receiving these explanations, I requested a detailed clarification for each point and asked the risk team to explain the evidence supporting their decision.

Regarding the "same wallet" claim, transaction hashes were later shared. After reviewing them, I explained that the deposits appeared to originate from Binance hot wallet infrastructure, where multiple users can receive withdrawals from shared wallet addresses. I asked the affiliate program to review this information and provide further clarification.

The affiliate program also referred to IP conflicts and inactive players. I repeatedly requested detailed information explaining these findings and responded to every point raised.

After reviewing the available data and player activity reports, I noticed several inconsistencies:

Inactive players: Several players classified as inactive made additional deposits after their first deposit. The attached reports show continued deposit activity after the initial deposit.

Same wallet: Two players were reported as using the same wallet. The transaction hashes provided appear to originate from Binance hot wallet infrastructure, which was explained during the communication and submitted for further review.

IP conflict: Only two players were identified as having an IP conflict. I requested a detailed explanation and supporting evidence explaining why these players were considered invalid, but no detailed clarification was provided.

Single bet / fake user: One player was classified as a "fake user, one single bet." However, the attached player activity reports indicate that this player continued depositing and placing bets after the initial activity, which appears inconsistent with the "single bet" classification.

Despite multiple follow-up messages over several weeks, I have not received a detailed response from the risk team addressing these specific questions.

The additional evidence also shows that Reybets did not provide clear explanations for the rejected CPA players despite multiple requests. Their reasons referred to VPN IPs, Binance hot wallet addresses, and inactive players. However, the program allows VPN usage, Binance hot wallet addresses can be shared by different users, and several of the players they classified as inactive made additional deposits and continued playing afterwards.
Whenever I requested a detailed explanation or supporting evidence, I did not receive one. I was informed that the Risk Team would review the case, but after weeks without any updates, I only received the same Word document again without any additional evidence or clarification.

I would like to resubmit the complaint with all of the relevant evidence attached so that the case can be reviewed based on the complete documentation.


I am attaching all available documentation, including:

Affiliate statistics
Financial statements
Player activity reports
Microsoft Teams conversations
Screenshots
Transaction hashes
Additional supporting evidence

I respectfully request an independent review of this case based on the available documentation and communication.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Dear Reybets Affiliate Program,

Please let us know if there are any updates regarding this ongoing complaint. Please note that, in case you fail to respond within the given timeframe, we will consider your case unresolved and it will be closed accordingly.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

During our Microsoft Teams conversations, Reybets stated that they would provide all necessary documents and evidence to AskGamblers. After my complaint was accepted, I sent them the AskGamblers complaint link via Microsoft Teams. However, the message remained unread for five days, and no response was submitted within the requested timeframe.

I have presented all available evidence to support my case. I will leave it to AskGamblers and to the readers to review the documentation and draw their own conclusions. Likewise, it is for AskGamblers to decide which affiliate programs they choose to feature and integrate as trusted partners on their platform.

Once this complaint has concluded, I intend to publish a detailed case report on our website, including a link to this AskGamblers complaint, the full timeline of events, Microsoft Teams conversations, affiliate reports, screenshots, transaction hashes, and other supporting documentation, allowing readers to review the complete case and draw their own conclusions.

Just a reminder: AskGamblers has given Reybets Affiliates 21 hours from now to respond to the complaint.

Hello AskGamblers Team,

Thank you for allowing us to respond.

After reviewing the affiliate's complaint, we would like to clarify that the report deliberately omits key facts while attempting to create the impression that valid CPA players were rejected without justification.

This is not the case.

1. "Shared Binance Wallet" is not a credible explanation

The affiliate's primary defense is that Binance uses shared hot wallets.

This statement, in isolation, is technically correct.

However, it completely ignores the actual issue.

Our investigation identified multiple CPA players attributed to this affiliate depositing from exactly the same wallet addresses despite supposedly being unrelated users from different countries.

While Binance hot wallets do exist, suggesting that numerous unrelated CPA players from different jurisdictions would all coincidentally deposit from the exact same wallet addresses is not a credible explanation.

In fact, we would like to make a very simple proposal.

We invite AskGamblers management to conduct an independent test.

Ask five independent Binance users (or any number you consider appropriate) to make deposits.

If all five deposits originate from exactly the same sender wallet addresses in the manner claimed by this affiliate, we will immediately withdraw this concern and accept that our assessment was incorrect.

We are fully confident that this experiment will demonstrate why this explanation is not realistic.

Simply stating "Binance uses shared wallets" does not automatically invalidate a fraud investigation.

The statistical probability of numerous unrelated CPA users from different countries producing this exact pattern is extraordinarily low and requires much stronger evidence than the affiliate has provided.

2. The "Inactive Players" argument is misleading

We found this part of the complaint particularly surprising.

After we shared our internal reports identifying inactive CPA users, several of those same accounts suddenly became active shortly afterwards.

This happened within approximately thirty minutes of the report being disclosed.

Such behaviour naturally raises further concerns rather than resolving them.

Attempting to use activity that occurred only after our investigation as evidence that the users were always genuine is not a convincing argument.

3. IP conflicts were fully documented

The affiliate claims that no explanation was provided.

This is incorrect.

We identified the affected accounts, documented the IP conflicts, and provided the relevant IP information associated with those users.

The report submitted to AskGamblers selectively omits the extent of the evidence we shared during the investigation.

4. We do not wish to continue discussions directly with this affiliate

After numerous discussions, repeated requests, and extensive evidence sharing, it has become clear that continuing direct communication with this affiliate serves no productive purpose.

As far as Reybets is concerned, our communication with this affiliate is concluded.

Should AskGamblers require any further clarification, logs, fraud reports, blockchain analysis, internal monitoring data, or any additional supporting documentation, we will be happy to provide it directly to AskGamblers.

We are prepared to cooperate fully with an independent review conducted by AskGamblers.

Thank you for your time and your impartial review of this matter.

Kind regards,

Reybets Risk & Compliance Team

Thank you for your response.

I have a few questions regarding the information provided:

1. Shared Binance wallet addresses: Could Reybets identify which wallet addresses were determined not to belong to Binance, and explain the methodology used to reach that conclusion? To the best of our knowledge, the disputed addresses are Binance hot wallet addresses that may legitimately be shared by multiple users.

2. Inactive players: Reybets states that several players later became active. If those players became active, why were they still rejected?

3. IP conflicts: Reybets states that the IP conflicts were fully documented. However, during our discussions, we received information for only two players.

4. To allow an independent verification, we kindly ask Reybets to provide the Affiliate Customer ID (matching the Customer ID shown in the affiliate dashboard), the registration date, the payment period, and the specific reason for rejection for each disputed player.

There are still several important points that remain unanswered:

- Initially, Reybets stated that the players were inactive. In the latest response, Reybets now states that these players became active.

- The disputed wallet addresses are Binance hot wallet addresses. Shared wallet addresses are a legitimate part of Binance's infrastructure and can be used by multiple unrelated users.

- Regarding the alleged IP conflicts, Reybets has still not provided detailed evidence for all disputed players. During our discussions, we received information for only two players.


Thank you, AskGamblers Complaints Team, for your time and for your independent review of this case.

Hello,

Frankly, we are not surprised to receive such an amateurish and irresponsible response.

Let us make one point absolutely clear: you are no longer our counterpart in this matter. We have no intention of continuing any discussion with you.

From this point forward, if AskGamblers requires any clarification, evidence, technical data, internal reports, blockchain analysis, or supporting documentation, we will provide it directly and exclusively to the AskGamblers team.

At this stage, your repeated attempts to shift the discussion away from the actual evidence only reinforce our concerns regarding the credibility of your claims.

To be completely honest, after reviewing the quality of your responses, we are beginning to question whether we are communicating with a legitimate business representative or simply with someone lacking the professionalism and maturity expected in a commercial dispute.

As far as Reybets is concerned, this discussion with you is now closed. Any further communication will take place only through AskGamblers, should they request additional information.

WE WILL NOT FOLLOW ANYMORE THIS FAKE COMPLAINT.

regards,

Reybets

Thank you for your response.

We submitted this complaint because AskGamblers provides an independent complaints process where both parties can present their evidence. We believe it is for the AskGamblers Complaints Team to review all available evidence and decide which position is supported by the facts.

In their latest response, Reybets described our complaint as a "fake complaint." We respectfully believe that this is not for either party to decide. The purpose of this process is for AskGamblers to independently review the evidence submitted by both sides and reach its own conclusion.

We have not claimed that Reybets' position is "fake." We have simply requested clear explanations and supporting evidence regarding the wallet addresses, inactive players, and IP conflicts. That is the reason we submitted this complaint for independent review.

1. Inactive Players: Initially, Reybets stated that the players were inactive. In the latest response, Reybets now states that these players became active. If those players became active, why were they still rejected?

2. Shared Binance wallet addresses: The disputed wallet addresses are Binance hot wallet addresses. Shared wallet addresses are a legitimate part of Binance's infrastructure and can be used by multiple unrelated users. Could Reybets identify which wallet addresses were determined not to belong to Binance, and explain the methodology used to reach that conclusion?

3. IP conflicts: Reybets states that the IP conflicts were fully documented. However, during our discussions, we received information for only two players.

4. To allow an independent verification, we kindly ask Reybets to provide the Affiliate Customer ID (matching the Customer ID shown in the affiliate dashboard), the registration date, the payment period, and the specific reason for rejection for each disputed player.

For more than one month, we have been requesting clear explanations and supporting evidence regarding these issues. Despite multiple discussions, we still have not received sufficient information to independently verify the conclusions.

Thank you, AskGamblers Complaints Team, for your time and for your independent review of this case.

Dear Reybets Affiliates,

The AskGamblers Complaint Team is kindly asking you to provide a detailed explanation of the issue along with all the relevant facts and evidence that could support your accusations towards the affiliate. Please make sure to state all the relevant terms that you believe have been breached by the affiliate, if any. Please send required information to suppor­t@a­skg­amb­ler­s.com directly.

Please note that according to the AGCCS Terms, we consider all the information presented during the course of our complaint process confidential and as such it will not be shared with third parties.

Please be in aware that in case you fail to respond and/or provide requested information within the given timeframe, the complaint will be closed as unresolved.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.