In ATF there is a thread asking for Lock's banner ads on 2+2 to be banned:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/55...2-2-a-1299361/
After recent developments Mat consulted Mason and then posted this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
A few things:
1) Due to legal advice we have never participated in any rev share affiliate deals, only cpa deals with sites that don't accept US players. That's done through our books bonus program: http://www.twoplustwo.com/poker-bonus/
2) Lock has paid us for advertising and has always paid within a reasonable amount of time. This has given us some optimism in regard to the slow cashouts for players.
3) It does now seem pretty obvious that the issues are serious and cannot be ignored.
4) We have reached out to Lock and demanded they properly address these issues on these forums. And that means answering to users to some degree of satisfaction.
This where we stand right now. Hopefully we will see some significant action in the next couple of days.
Essentially he's saying Lock need to give satisfactory answers to users if they are to be allowed to continue with the banner ads. I've started this thread to focus on the key questions that Lock should be answering. As far as I'm aware the main ones are these:
(1) Transfers
As recently as April 6, Shane clarified Lock's transfer policy:
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjustshane
There is a play through requirement on P2P transfers, players who receive transfered funds need to meet a 1:1 wagering requirement before they cashout the funds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjustshane
Yes that's right, so for every dollar they receive in a transfer they need to wager $1 before they can withdraw.
Seems pretty clear. But on April 21 Lock started blocking large withdrawals. Shane claimed it was "an increase in enforcement of the transfer terms" (even though cash-outs were blocked even for players who had easily exceeded the 1:1 wagering requirement):
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjustshane
This increase in the enforcement of the transfer terms is due to an influx of players abusing the transfer tool solely for bulk withdrawals, negatively impacting withdrawal times for actual players. This is targetted at players withdrawing funds using multiple accounts with no or minimal play and players withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars of transferred funds with minimal playthrough.
Shane went on to explain it was all designed to deal with some scammers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjustshane
We could activities on message boards etc linked to some of these accounts that were engaging in activities to decrease the value of Lock funds before then buying them at a low rate to profit.
We have had players speculate on this forum previously about this very possibility, and then this weekend we found evidence of a connected and very organised group of people involved in this practice.
However, he refused to provide any evidence of this or anything linking these activities to the particular transfers that were blocked.
Note that this wasn't just a change of policy any other site might implement, like: "From the start of next month we will change the 1:1 wagering requirement to a new requirement." No, this involved blocking existing withdrawals, many of which had been approved a month or so earlier, even if the player had met the stated requirements. Also, Lock didn't even announce what the new rule was. CS told players that funds received in transfers could never be withdrawn. Shane kept promising to clarify the new policy but the best we have seen (after 11 days!) is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjustshane
I can confirm that after speaking to the security team there is definitely not a blanket ban on accounts receiving tranfers cashing out. All of these situations are being monitored on a case by case basis, and security have still asked anyone with questions to contact them directly.
(Note that players who do contact security report that they either receive some cut-and-paste BS or no response).
So, issue 1 is: Please give a credible explanation why cashouts have been cancelled retrospectively and a clear policy on what wagering requirements players must now meet to cash out.
(2) Network deficit
Adameve Poker and Comeon, both Revolution skins have held up payments to players on the basis that the network is (5) months behind on balance payments. The implication is that it is due to Lock not meeting its liabilities to the network. Shane has repeated denied this with these words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjustshane
Lock is up to date on its payments to the network.
However, those skins have still not received the cash and the persistent suggestion is that it is due to Lock.
Lock: Please clarify the position, going beyond the words you've used to help explain why the skins are not being paid. In the absence of a sensible explanation this will continue to reinforce suspicions that Lock is insolvent.
(3) ROW cashouts
Lock cashouts are slower than every other site, including US facing ones. Lock blames this on practical difficulties in processing payments in the UIGEA environment. That washes to some extent as far as US payments but doesn't explain why ROW cashouts take 2 months+. Shane has tried to link ROW cashouts to UIGEA but the explanations so far are just unconvincing, especially as all other sites pay ROW immediately.
Lock: Please give a clear and rational explanation of why your US cashouts are slower than everyone else and why ROW cashouts are delayed at all.
(4) Cash Segregation
Despite all the apparently desperate actions to limit cashouts etc, Lock repeatedly claims that it holds 100% of player balances in segregated accounts. However, this doesn't mean much in itself - FTP and others made the same claims. What players want to see is independent confirmation of that. A year ago Shane promised that it would be provided but since then the committment has been cancelled for not very satisfactory reasons about not being able to trust auditors. Shane has even refused to confirm whether Locks regulator performs such audits.
Lock: Please agree to provide independent verification of segregated player balances. Also, confirm whether your regulator performs audits on player balances.
(5) Unfair Play Technology
This was introduced with unseemly haste by Lock after Party implemented a player segregation system. Some believe the Lock effort is a further technique to limit withdrawals. Also, the muddled implementation morphed into effective segregation of Lock players from the rest of the network, thus eliminating the need for it to make more of those network transfer payments. Despite a promised "education blitz" almost no information has been provided to players about how the system works.
Lock: Please explain clearly how Unfair Play Technology works and why you have created effective segregation from the rest of the network.
Note that all the issues above are consistent with a lack of solvency:
- Using transfers as an excuse to block cashouts
- Not paying deficits to the network
- Slowing ROW cashouts (as well as the direct effect, this also prevents US players cashing out by transferring/dumping to a friend/buyer overseas who can withdraw)
- Not allowing any kind of verification of player funds
- Unfair Play to limit the number of winning players
- Segregation from the rest of the network limits network transfer payments and stops players cashing out from Lock by transfrring/dumping to an account on, say, Intertops that pays out in 5 days.