The reason codes
| Code | Meaning | Minimum evidence held by the filing member | Default expiry |
|---|---|---|---|
MULTI | Two or more accounts operated by one person at one member | Two shared hard identifiers (device, payment instrument, verified phone, government ID), or one hard identifier plus an admission | 5 years |
BONUS | Promotional credit obtained or converted by the abuse pattern itself: full-cover entries, mirrored slips, sign-up credit across linked accounts | The entries and the credit, with the pattern reproducible from stored picks | 3 years |
PAY | Payment fraud: chargeback after play, stolen instrument, deposit reversed as unauthorised | Processor notice or chargeback record | 5 years |
IDENT | Identity failure: documents rejected as forged, identity belongs to someone else, or verification passed on another person's identity | Verification vendor outcome, or a verified complaint from the real person | 7 years |
REFER | Referral self-dealing: referrer and referred are one person or one household acting as one | Shared device and address or payment, plus the referral payout | 3 years |
COLLUDE | Coordinated play across accounts to guarantee an outcome | Opposite sides or identical slips across accounts, plus a link between the accounts | 3 years |
AGE | Under the legal age for the jurisdiction at the time of play | Date of birth from a verified document or the account holder | Until age, plus 1 year |
GEO | Deliberate location spoofing: VPN or GPS tooling detected, or play from a prohibited state after a warning | Geolocation vendor finding | 2 years |
Two rules sit over the table. A member files only what it has itself closed an account for under that code, never a suspicion. A code may not be filed on the strength of another member's record; the evidence must originate at the filing member.
There is no code for skill. Winning, being limited, or any judgement of ability cannot be filed, and the agreement forbids adding such a code.
Governance guardrails
Four exposures shape the design, and the first is the reason the exchange is a query service rather than a list.
| Exposure | The risk | How the design answers it |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer reporting law | A shared record used to deny service can bring the duties of a consumer reporting agency: accuracy, dispute and notice | Fixed codes with an evidence standard, a dispute path, expiry, member notice on adverse action, and no data about suspicion or skill |
| Antitrust | Competitors agreeing on whom to refuse is a group boycott | Members never see each other's policies, decide alone, and the agreement bars any discussion of pricing, promotions or terms in consortium channels |
| Privacy law | Sharing identity data may breach state privacy statutes or each member's own terms | Hashes only, a single secret salt, no export, purpose limited to fraud prevention, and a disclosure line in each member's privacy policy |
| Reputation | One wrong record excludes a person everywhere, or the list reads as a winners' blacklist | No skill code can exist; filing is a named human act; a dispute withdraws the record on silence |
A neutral home
The exchange is run by a neutral operator, not by any member. The salt, the dispute routing and the audit of members' filings all sit with that operator. iBET Networks proposed and seeded the exchange; it does not own it.