Gravispin Support Transcript Exposes Verification Ladder Scam Used by “Interstorm N.V.” Footprint Casinos

Leaked chat logs reveal how players are pushed through escalating “verification” and “VIP” deposit stages while card payment partners remain non-functional

MyCasinoIndex has obtained a full transcript of a prolonged conversation between a defrauded player, D. Mark, and customer support agents of Gravispin, an online casino also operating under the brand Trophies of Olympus and claiming ownership by Interstorm N.V. Follow our Developing Investigation: Casino Scam Scheme Impersonating Interstorm N.V.

The exchange provides rare, step-by-step insight into how the scam network behind so-called “Interstorm N.V. footprint casinos” systematically extracts additional deposits from victims using a structured escalation model disguised as compliance, verification, and VIP progression.

A Non-Functional Payment Gateway as a Psychological Trap

One of the most revealing elements of the transcript is that all fiat payment partners consistently failed to function when the player attempted to comply with the initial “verification deposit” demand.

Support agents repeatedly instructed the player to try different on-ramp providers — Ramp, Sardine, Transak, Moonpay, Mercuryo, and Paybis — yet none of them redirected or processed payments successfully.

Despite acknowledging “widespread technical issues” with all partners, support staff continued to insist that the player must make a deposit in order to unlock withdrawals, creating a logical contradiction:

This pattern strongly suggests that the broken fiat gateway is not a bug but a filtering mechanism — forcing victims into cryptocurrency deposits, which are irreversible and far harder to dispute than card payments.

Stage One: The $50 “Account Verification” Deposit

The first escalation layer is presented as a routine compliance step:

The player was told that:

• the casino is “decentralized,”
• Curaçao regulations require “activation,”
• and the deposit would be instantly withdrawable after verification.

This framing creates the illusion of a refundable compliance fee — a classic trust-seeding tactic.

Stage Two: The $100 “Wallet Verification” Deposit

After the player made a $199.10 USDT deposit and was formally marked as “verified,” a new error appeared: “Wallet verification error.”

The justification shifted from KYC to AML risk scoring:

The solution:

At this point, the narrative mutates: the same deposit that was previously “verified” is now retroactively deemed suspicious, and the player is told he must re-establish trust by paying again.

Stage Three: The $288 “VIP Status” Deposit

After the $100 stage, a third requirement emerges — completely unrelated to compliance:

This marks a critical pivot in the scheme: withdrawals are no longer framed as a regulatory issue, but as a gamified loyalty upgrade.

Even more telling is the rule that:

• the $288 must be a single payment,
• multiple deposits are explicitly rejected,
• and smaller top-ups are said to be “ignored by the system.”

This design ensures maximum extraction per step while preventing cautious incremental testing by the victim.

A Moving Goalpost by Design

Throughout the transcript, support agents repeatedly:

• contradict one another,
• apologize for “misinformation,”
• claim system rules have “changed,”
• and assure the player that this new deposit is the final requirement.

When the player directly questions the pattern:

The response:

This promise is structurally identical to the assurances given at the $50 and $100 stages — a hallmark of verification ladder scams.

Additional Red Flags Identified in the Transcript

• fabricated or contradictory claims about sponsorship of the Blockchain 2025 conference,
• inconsistent statements about Curaçao licensing status,
• repeated automated fallback messages about “errors” regardless of user questions,
• evasive refusal to provide contact points for compliance or policy departments.

Why This Transcript Matters

Unlike surface-level scam reports, this chat log exposes the internal logic of the fraud:

1. Block fiat payments → force crypto deposits
2. Seed trust with a small “verification” fee
3. Invalidate prior compliance via AML risk flags
4. Introduce gamified VIP thresholds
5. Enforce single-payment rules to maximize losses
6. Move the goalpost after each deposit
7. Deflect with scripted apologies and technical excuses

This is not an isolated customer service failure. It is a repeatable, modular extraction funnel — likely deployed across multiple casinos sharing the same backend and “Interstorm N.V.” footer footprint.

Ongoing Investigation

MyCasinoIndex is continuing to analyze:

• additional player transcripts,
• payment flow endpoints,
• the technical backend shared by Gravispin and related domains,
• and the affiliate infrastructure promoting these brands.

We believe this case materially strengthens the evidence that the current wave of Interstorm N.V. footprint casinos represents a coordinated fraud network rather than independent rogue operators.

If you have been contacted by similar casinos, encountered staged verification deposits, or possess chat transcripts, transaction hashes, or domain data, we strongly encourage you to contact MyCasinoIndex: [email protected]. All submissions will be reviewed and anonymized before publication.