Eggventure / Multiplier Mania – Winners list does not match the stated

[Bolours]

 

Hello everyone,

I’m posting this to ask for a clear and public explanation regarding the Eggventure / Multiplier Mania challenge.

Challenge link:
https://stakecommunity.com/topic/160977-💰1000-usd-multiplier-mania-eggventure-🥚/#comment-3162028

My username: Bolours

1. The rule is very clear

The promotion rule states:

“Rack up as many qualifying 5x (or above) bet IDs as you can.
The top 10 users with the most submitted Bet IDs will score a share of $1,000.”

This clearly describes a ranking-based challenge:

No randomness mentioned

No discretionary selection

No alternative criteria

2. The issue

I am:

Listed in the official winners list

One of the users who submitted a large number of qualifying Bet IDs

However, the same winners list includes users who submitted only one (or very few) Bet IDs, which is not compatible with “top 10 users with the most submitted Bet IDs”.

This creates a direct contradiction between:

The written rules

The actual outcome

3. Support responses so far

After more than three weeks and 40+ emails, I have been told:

That winners were “randomly selected”

That meeting requirements “does not guarantee winning”

That I was “not in the Top 10”

None of these explanations appear anywhere in the original rules.

4. What I’m asking (publicly)

I’m not asking for favors or reinterpretations.
I’m asking for one clear answer:

👉 How was “Top 10” calculated if Bet ID volume was not the deciding factor?

And if the rule was incorrect or misleading, that should be acknowledged transparently.

5. Final note

I have not yet made this issue public outside the forum, but after this amount of time and inconsistent explanations, I believe a public clarification is now necessary.

Waiting another week for a clear answer or payment is simply inconceivable given how explicit the rule is.

Thank you in advance to the moderators or promotion team for addressing this clearly.

— Bolours

 

Edited January 5 by Bolours

[edmand]

Beddy45

[Bolours]

@NemanjaPi

[mann3r]

odd but below on terms on condition, not undermining your reason just what i saw on the terms.

 

and below it

that might have answered it.