💬Arc has shared his response on OGU and Telegram stating the following (TL:DR):

✏️Ban validity: Arc says Jam’s ban was valid, tied to how he promoted/operated services while breaking rules, not the swap service itself.

✏️Refunds & ownership: Verified upgrade was refunded, group ownership stayed with Jam.

✏️Fee violation: Arc claims Jam broke an agreement by adding an extra 7% fee on credit distributions.

✏️Bingo defense: No double standards, Jam contacted Bingo offsite, Bingo referred him to his own exchange. That thread was later removed for rule violations.

✏️Dismissal: Arc calls Jam’s complaints “begging for attention.”

✏️Arc’s response on Telegram : Arc said that there are plenty of exchange sites owned by OGU members, and if Jam was “targeted specifically,” more of those sites would have been promoted onsite.

🌟Trusted Middleman @cold has reached a milestone of 9000 Reputation on OGU

📌Congratulations to cold for this milestone

opc: OGUNews

⚠️ Deal Dispute

➡️User /kacper claims @cupid failed to secure an mc account which resulted in it being pulled back by the seller and kacper suffered a 9k loss, in which cupid offered the 500$ service fee refund, even tho it wasn’t cupid’s fault and he did because kacper claimed he has nothing else.

Cupid mentioned that he secured it properly and made it clear he will release the funds after 1 hour.

✔️After OGU Staff Bevo reviewed the deal dispute he stated the following:

After reviewing everything, this dispute is invalid for 2 main reasons.

1. Cupid is the middleman, not the seller.

Cupid is not the person who sold you the account and, based on the evidence provided, there is no proof that he was involved in scamming you. If you believe Cupid was actually involved in the scam, you would need to provide sufficient evidence proving that. As of now, the seller is the person who allegedly scammed you, so any dispute regarding this should be opened against the seller, not the middleman.

2. The "he didn't wait for me to release" argument doesn't make sense.

You hired Cupid specifically to handle the securing process for you. The entire point of this is that they handle that part of the trade. Because of that, he is the one who decides when the account has been secured and when the funds can be relaesed.

Even if Cupid had waited for you to come back before releasing, it would not have changed the outcome. The most likely scenario is that you would have come online, asked if everything was good, Cupid would have told you the account was secured, the funds would have been released, and then the seller would have done the exact same thing a few minutes later.

Your dispute is based on the fact that the seller was apparently able to regain access to the account after the release. Whether you were online or offline at the time of release has no relevance to that issue and would not have prevented it from happening.

➡️OGU Staff Eviona said the following:

@kacper https://i.ibb.co/WpYQqL8Q/image.png here is you acknowledging that it would be released after an hour and telling them to let you know once the process was done. so your argument about “not being asked to release” is invalid.

@Cupid share your tos for the securing service — does it cover situations like this?

💬Beforehand cupid mentioned that he secured the account properly while giving it a 1h and 30 minutes cooldown before releasing the funds and he checked the informations in which they were correct before releasing.

⚠️ Deal Dispute

➕user /satoshi711 opened a dd against /R5 verified user onsite, /satoshi711 claims that he paid /r5 1.25k USD for an IG Username claim and fee to get it on a new account.

❓/R5 has ghosted since 28/05 and /satoshi711 claims numerous pings and messages were sent and no response yet.

✔️Proof's attached by /satoshi711

https://ibb.co/SDRYM9Pr
https://ibb.co/r2wfgsY9
https://ibb.co/cKRvv9kG
https://ibb.co/bMdwZHk6
https://ibb.co/RTY41Rzj
https://ibb.co/6R8HC8Gc
https://ibb.co/21t5K4Sg
https://ibb.co/wNLmDHn7
https://ibb.co/6JRnfrHS
https://ibb.co/xSPSvw3N
https://ibb.co/JFxb95Ph
https://ibb.co/Pvbv9X1t

⚠️ /R5 has been banned for ignoring the deal dispute

‼️ /R5 has been unbanned

🚫 /R5 has been stripped of his verification status on OGUser.com

🌟 OGUser.com is currently experiencing a downtime caused by an outage.

🌟 /Panda has been demoted from the Trusted Rank due to inactivity, he still is Verified !

old news

⚠️ Deal Dispute

🖥The Situation:
User @dennis20 opened a dispute against exchanger @jason (aka Apollo) over a failed $6,000 physical cash delivery to Canada. Dennis claims he only agreed to the deal because Jason promised the cash would be shipped locally from Canada (Waterloo) to avoid major risks. Instead, the tracking number showed the package was dropped off at a UPS store all the way in Texas. The package never moved after the drop-off and completely vanished. Dennis suspects a inside job, accusing Jason or his associates of having someone at the UPS store snatch the cash.

❗️Jason fired back, calling the accusations baseless and ridiculous. He claims Dennis knew shipping physical cash is highly illegal and that "all risks were on him" from the start. Jason admits the package was dropped off in Texas, but argues the origin didn't cause the loss. According to him, UPS simply misplaced or stole the package. He also accused Dennis of deleting parts of their chat history, using multiple Telegram accounts to harass him, and trying to force a refund for a shipping risk that exchangers are never liable for.

⚠️ Deal Dispute

‼️The Situation:
User Top has opened a dispute against his former partner @scholar over the unfair division of their digital network assets. According to Top, Scholar messaged him a week ago wanting to end their partnership and split ways. While they successfully divided most of their handles based on original ownership, things went sideways regarding their joint channel, telenews.

The Beef:

The Structure: The telenews channel was split equally three ways: 33.3% to Top, 33.3% to Scholar, and 33.3% to a user named Plug.

The Kick: Top claims he was abruptly removed from the channel after the split without ever being bought out, compensated, or agreeing to give up his 33.3% share.

The Motive: Right after getting kicked, Top noticed telenews picked up a lucrative Rainbet sponsorship. He believes Scholar intentionally cut him out right before the deal went live to pocket Top's share of the sponsorship money.

The Pattern: Top notes they were also 50/50 co-renting the handle @/entrance. Scholar allegedly kicked him from that as well, despite Top already having paid his half of the rent.

The Evidence:
Top has uploaded screenshots proving that both Plug and Scholar explicitly acknowledged the 33/33/33 ownership split of telenews in past conversations.

The Demand:
Top isn't sweating the rental fee for @/entrance, but he is demanding a fair buyout for his 33.3% ownership of telenews, alongside his cut of all channel revenue generated since he was removed (including the Rainbet sponsorship).

TL;DR: Partners split up a handle network. @scholar allegedly kicked Top out of their 3-way owned channel (telenews) right before signing a Rainbet sponsorship. Top wants his 33.3% buyout and his cut of the ad revenue.

⚠️ Scholar’s reply

⚠️ OGU Staff Bevo’s reply

⚠️ Scholar’s reply to bevo’s question

sorry for back to back posts