Y M C A Y

1/14 @gamdom CRASH COMPENSATION – MY EXPERIENCE I played @gamdom Crash throughout 2026. After reviewing the detailed transaction history Gamdom sent me, I discovered that 93.3% of my payout transactions were cashed out BEFORE my saved auto-cashout target. Yet I have received $0 in Crash compensation. Here’s what my records show. ⸻ 2/14 – MY ACTUAL BETTING HISTORY Between January and October 2026, my Gamdom transaction records show: * 1,303 Crash rounds * 2,796 individual wagers * $78,794.89 total wagered * $69,992.78 paid out * $8,802.11 net loss These are cumulative wagering amounts, not deposits. I have the original transaction exports to support these figures. ⸻ 3/14 – THE PROVABLY FAIR INVESTIGATION On November 1, @provablyfairorg published a technical investigation into Gamdom’s Crash game. Their findings showed that the old formula provided worse odds than the advertised 99% RTP. At a 2× target, the calculated RTP was only 98%, rather than 99%. This affected the odds on every bet, including winning bets. ⸻ 4/14 – THE ADDITIONAL HOUSE EDGE According to Provably Fair, the extra expected cost per $1,000 wagered was: * 1.5× cashout: $6.69 * 2× cashout: $10.00 * 5× cashout: $15.90 * 10× cashout: $17.86 These figures represent additional expected losses resulting from the old formula, regardless of whether an individual bet won or lost. ⸻ 5/14 – GAMDOM’S COMPENSATION Gamdom has since corrected the Crash formula and announced compensation. They reported $339,113.41 in balance adjustments across 1,293 accounts. However, their method reportedly recalculates historical rounds and checks whether the corrected Crash multiplier would have reached the player’s SAVED auto-cashout target. This is where I believe there may be a serious problem for manual cashout players. ⸻ 6/14 – HOW I ACTUALLY PLAYED I frequently had a very high auto-cashout target saved, sometimes around 500×. But that was NOT the multiplier I normally waited for. I usually cashed out manually much earlier. My saved auto-cashout target and my actual manual cashout strategy were two completely different things. ⸻ 7/14 – WHAT GAMDOM’S OWN DATA SHOWS Gamdom provided me with a detailed transaction export. After matching the payouts to their individual wagers and saved auto-cashout targets, I found: * 900 payout transactions * 840 payouts BEFORE the saved auto-cashout target * Only 60 payouts at the saved target That’s 93.3% of my payouts occurring below my saved auto-cashout target. These figures come from the transaction history Gamdom supplied. ⸻ 8/14 – WHY THIS MATTERS Imagine having a saved auto-cashout target of 500× while normally cashing out manually at 1.5×. If a historical round would have reached 1.5× under the corrected formula, but still would not have reached 500×, Gamdom’s saved-target-only replay would not credit that potential manual cashout opportunity. This is exactly the limitation Provably Fair has highlighted. ⸻ 9/14 – A DIFFERENT COMPENSATION APPROACH Provably Fair proposes compensating the additional expected house edge on each affected wager. For successful manual cashouts, their method uses the actual cashout multiplier. This addresses the disadvantage created by the old odds, rather than only looking for rounds that would have reached a previously saved auto-target. The two methods can produce very different results. ⸻ 10/14 – MY INDIVIDUAL SITUATION Using Provably Fair’s published formula, the additional expected cost can be calculated for my documented successful cashouts. For the wagers that did not pay out, the situation is more complicated. My saved auto-targets are recorded, but those targets do not necessarily reflect when I intended to cash out manually. That’s why I believe an individual review is necessary. ⸻ 11/14 – IMPORTANT DISTINCTION I’m not claiming that every losing bet should automatically have become a winning bet. And an additional expected loss is not the same as a guaranteed refund amount. My concern is that a compensation method based only on saved auto-cashout targets may fail to account for how players like me actually played the game. My transaction history provides concrete evidence of that difference. ⸻ 12/14 – WHAT I EXPECT FROM @gamdom I have already contacted Gamdom regarding this issue. After receiving their detailed transaction history, I reviewed my Crash activity again. I am now requesting an URGENT individual investigation and a transparent explanation of: * My original and recalculated Crash results * My saved auto-cashout targets * My actual manual cashouts * How my compensation eligibility was determined * Why my account received absolutely $0 I expect an appropriate review of my situation, not just a generic response. ⸻ 13/14 – PROVABLY FAIR REMAINS AN OPEN QUESTION There is also a separate issue raised by Provably Fair. Their investigation questioned the lack of publicly verifiable advance commitments for Gamdom’s Crash hash chains. But transparency around the chain commitments and seeding process is essential if the game is to be independently verifiable. That issue deserves a clear response too. ⸻ 14/14 – FINAL MESSAGE TO GAMDOM @Gamdom, I have reviewed the transaction records you provided. I wagered nearly $79,000 on Crash, with hundreds of manual cashouts occurring below my saved auto-cashout targets. Yet I received ZERO compensation. I am asking for a proper, urgent investigation and a detailed per-wager explanation of how my account was assessed. Players deserve transparency and fair treatment. @provablyfairorg, I would also appreciate your perspective on my situation. @stevewilldoit @mumullov Please retweet & spread my Tweet so Gamdom actually does smth about that.