Smarkets

Terms and conditions tend to account for everyday occurrences rather than exceptions to the rule and I would say if (key word there again) somebody's account has been hacked then that is an exception to the rule, considering it's not always possible to cover every possible eventuality when drawing up terms and conditions, which is why when something like this comes up, it becomes a test case and might well lead to additions and/or amendments of any T&Cs

"Hacking" isn't the exception to the rule.  Unauthorised access to an account is precisely the situation that the rules quoted are intended to cover.

Define hacked first because maybe I have a different idea to what is possibly meant by that term or whether there is more than one definition.

ima - have you ever come on when someone has made a point and then thought "oh yeah, I understand now". Or do you read something and automatically think "I can argue against that with some analogy that has nothing to do with said topic"?

If smarkets story is true, they are not seeking to profit themselves but are seeking to protect the wronged party (ie the person who had his account compromised).

If the story is true - we may never know this but I think what ima_mazed is trying to say is

exchange operators cannot simply shed all responsibility if a crime has been committed to the detriment of one of their customers. Ideally the software should not allow this type of thing to happen but the hackers in the internet financial sphere do seem to get plenty of success

remember that all this exchange software is relatively new and the security aspects have probably never been tested in court

swift - I get that, but the T&Cs cover Pelgrim Pete whatever way they look at it.

If someone compromised my account on here, number one I would want to know where it has been accessed from, and if it isn't my IP address, what country etc. They do not want to give him any of the details at all.

My opinion is if this was the case they would have told pilgrim pete in the first email, not the "human error" reply he got firstly that then changed. Asking him to close his account etc shouts "cover up" as well, then take in the fact there are plenty of other users who have had the same experiences regarding voided bets it must be 1.01 (coupled) that it was either A) Smarkets money, or B) a large liquidity provider who wants his money back or he will leave them. All in my opinion of course.

Yes I often agree with others on here Magic__Daps or alternatively at times read posts and have no particular view either way. If you like, in future I can post that I agree or let you know I have no particular view if it helps balance matters regarding my views, it's just that I don't really feel the need to do that as such if I'm not really adding anything new to the debate. Maybe if there was a Like system on here as with Facebook, then I might be more inclined to use that to show that I agree, but there isn't.

So anyway, back to the points of the thread itself and bearing in mind posts get made and then follow up ones occur all the time as a result of further information, pilgrim pete the OP stated:

"Bot goes wrong on their site, 20k plus wanting to back at 1.01, before they even start the race."

So first off let's look at all possible ways things this could have played out, where I'm not aware of any third part software/bot that can be used with Smarkets, so maybe the problem was with their own interface/software. Let's say that I'm the punter on the backing side of any matched bet in the scenario here, well for starters who in their right mind would be looking to back any runner at 1.01 even before the race has started? So OK, let's say I've made a mistake and actually wanted to lay at 1.01 instead of back but submitted my bet into the wrong column, then presumably wouldn't I have been matched at better odds than 1.01 pre-race anyway if they were available?

If later on in the thread we get told it wasn't a software/bot problem and that the backing punter's account was hacked, well all I'm asking is as a result of that if it was pilgrim pete who ended up getting matched as a layer at a far higher price than 1.01 so that the bet wasn't in his favour, would he or anyone else in the same position just accept that and move on?

Like I'm saying for the third or so time now though, Smarkets are the ones claiming the hack and so the onus is on them to prove it but just because you don't agree with the relevance of any analogy I make, doesn't mean they are irrelevant. No analogy is going to be identical to the actual circumstances but it can still be along similar lines.

Thank you swift-tuttle and that's all I was really trying to get at, by looking at it from the opposite viewpoint, as nothing here to me looked like merely a case of user error by the backer.

I guess smarkets relies on gullible mugs to keep them in business as indicated by those taken in by their "version" of events.

Even though their own t&cs contradicts their subsequent actions.

wesdaq you seem to think by the above comment and others that smarkets are a bookie
they aren't, they are an exchange and they earn their money via commission regardless of the result

Where did I say they are a bookie?

Being an exchange is exactly why they should pay out.

Or is it because their own bot/seeding took a hit why they refuse to?

You didn't say anywhere that they were a bookie, please re-read my comment

however you may be right with the question in your last post but I don't suppose that we will ever find out

I've re-read your comment and no I don't seem to think they are a bookie.

Hth.

so when you say gullible mugs you are talking about anyone that chooses to bet with an exchange

So ima - you are saying that nobody wants to back at 1.01 pre race - we can all agree with that. But if for instance the backer at 1.01 wanted to lay at 1.01 but backed it wrongly should they accept it and move on. Well the answer to that is a resounding yes, number one it is tough sh1te if you make a mistake on an exchange, and number two if the person wanted to lay at 1.01 it is obviously trying to trap a mug, they then got more than they deserve (imo of course).


but just because you don't agree with the relevance of any analogy I make, doesn't mean they are irrelevant

By the same token if I pick up a £1 loaf of bread in a shop and they ring it up as £10 on the till, oddly enough I don't just hand over a £10 and walk out with it.
Point me where there is one ounce of relevance in that and I will be amazed.

swift - I think what wesdag means is they expect people to swallow any void bets and keep betting with them after.

Exactly.

Thank you Magic.

Yes I realise that Magic_Daps but I think people are forgetting that the same thing happened on this exchange. It is in my opinion an untested legal area and will undoubtedly happen again on this exchange

The only one I know of is the VLV one. If that is the case we are talking about I would guess if that went to court there would be a paper trail actually proving that is was a technical error, I do not believe like many the old "someone with nothin in their account" line.

I do think this is a completely different situation, and the T&Cs are all in pilgrim petes favour, and in a court I don't think smarkets would have a leg to stand on. We shall see, but they have basically set a precedent that CANNOT stop anyone claiming "user error" and getting their money back. I would guess anyone that tries that gets given the Spanish archer.

Prepare to be amazed Magic__Daps.

You seem to have overlooked my point in my previous post that if pre-race I had meant to lay at 1.01 but clicked the wrong box and put in a pre-race request to back at 1.01 and that price was never available/it never was that price at that time, then wouldn't I get matched at the correct current price that is was instead? I assume that's how it works on Smarkets, considering they follow Betfair's prices and that's how it would work on here.

So in other words I should never have to accept a price that wasn't actually the real price because for whatever reason, whether it be a software glitch, a hacking issue or anything else that threw up an artificial or wrong price, I shouldn't just have to accept it because the computer said so.

By the same token if I go to buy a £1 loaf of bread on a self scan and somehow the price I'm mistakenly asked to pay is £10, I wouldn't expect to have to pay that because of a barcode software glitch or because the computer said so.

The bottom line being that in both scenarios is you would go by what you know to be right and not just accept what a computer says is.

If you meant to lay at 1.01 but hit back by mistake that is your fault, you do not get refunded. To say you should have got matched at the bigger prices is fair enough, but if the bet was 25k it would have wiped the poor liquidity off the whole selection and left at 1.01 (pretty simple to do) wouldn't it. You would not be expecting to get matched the whole sum at the price are you? Therefore you SHOULD have to accept it because it was your fault in the first place - that is how an exchange works. You only have to read their T&Cs to see you do not have a leg to stand on if you actually do what you say you have done. Therefore no software glitch.


The bread scenario is surely some sort of joke isn't it.

By the same token if I go to buy a £1 loaf of bread on a self scan and somehow the price I'm mistakenly asked to pay is £10, I wouldn't expect to have to pay that because of a barcode software glitch or because the computer said so.

is the loaf of bread organic wholemeal , or sunblest white medium cut ?

Magic, I admire you for responding to the nonsense some continue to spout on here.

Er, you still seem to be missing the point yet again Magic__Daps that even if I mistakenly hit back when I meant lay at 1.01, then presumably if there was a current back price better than 1.01 then that current better back price would be what I would get matched at, would it? I'm sure I've asked this question already now.

The fact that someone has supposedly asked for 1.01 to back a runner pre-race (which seems highly unlikely and I ask once again, why would anyone do that anyway?) and actually got matched at 1.01 before the off when it most likely wasn't 1.01 at the time, suggests to me that something has gone a bit wrong somewhere. So in other words why take part with in a betting transaction with no retrospective questions asked regarding an artificial/incorrect price and just accept it?

Likewise, why take part in a retail transaction (say for a loaf of bread) with no retrospective questions asked regarding an artificial/incorrect price and just accept it? Er yeah you're right there, that bread analogy isn't even remotely like the particular scenario here!

You not getting this is surely some sort of joke isn't it?

Available to back:

40 - 10.00
34 - 8.00
26 - 12.00
17 - 10.00
11 - 20.00
6 - 25.00
3 - 100.00
2 - 200.00
1.5 - 100.00

If you hit back at 1.01 (mistakenly) for 1000 then you would get all the available money from 40 down to 1.5 (485.00) and leave an unmatched amount at 1.01 of 515 for someone to lay, which you wouldn't have to wait too long for.

I agree with Ima, I love Hovis Seed Sensations here (especially toasted with peanut butter) but I deffo wouldn't pay a tenner for a loaf.

Er, you still seem to be missing the point yet again Magic__Daps that even if I mistakenly hit back when I meant lay at 1.01, then presumably if there was a current back price better than 1.01 then that current better back price would be what I would get matched at, would it? I'm sure I've asked this question already now.

Pretty sure the answer is in my previous post - a large bet will wipe everything off and leave the rest up at 1.01 (as that is the price you requested). Swift-tuttle has gave you the perfect example above. YOUR FAULT AND NO SYSTEM FAULT WHATSOEVER.


The bread analogy - you pick up a loaf and it is advertised at £1, you scan it and it's £10. You call someone over as it is obviously wrong on their part (not yours) = A COMPUTER ERROR.


FFS - what do you not get.

If it was someone else answering it would be 1.01 a fishing expedition, as it is you it obviously isn't.

BM

Please accept my apologies Magic__Daps for not giving your previous reply my full attention, as I was posting in between betting on races.

Just thought I'd post a quick update.

Smarkets have now accused pilgrim pete of breaching the following term by matching an order placed on their exchange.


28. Our services are provided for legitimate betting purposes only. You agree not to bet on any market with the intention or effect of adversely affecting its integrity. You also agree not to obstruct or hinder Smarkets's business operations.

They haven't as yet quoted their catch-all rule.

I thought it was a "compromised account". It seems they are making it up as they go along.


I will send you a pm or email in the morning regarding what we discussed the other night.

How can taking odds offered on their site by another party be considered "adversely affecting its integrity" surely the other party woud have to be considered "adversely affecting its integrity".

They seem to be clutching at straws now and changing the story each time, hopefully it'll go to IBAS and their lies about hacked accounts will be laid bare.

How long do these things usually take before IBAS make any decision?

Around 6-8 weeks I've heard.

I think that perhaps the key sentence in this whole sorry debacle is this one: " You also agree not to obstruct or hinder Smarkets's business operations."

I'll read between the lines here. Smarkets is a betting exchange, but at the same time, it isn't really. It now appears to have been set up as a vehicle for a group of individuals to piggy-back on the exchange betting concept to these individuals' own exclusive advantage.

That's how it looks to me. By the way, are these T&Cs (e.g "we can void any bet at any time", "don't affect the market's integrity", and " don't hinder our operations") being added retrospectively, or did they exist before the event in question?

Any more news on this that can be reported?

It's been submitted to IBAS, not something I would normally do, but there are reasons for choosing this course of action which will become apparent at a later date.

Looks like Smarkets have changed their Terms & Conditions in response to this affair :-

"New Terms & Conditions
We have made some changes to our Terms & Conditions. You must agree to our new Terms & Conditions before accessing Smarkets.

Main Terms & Conditions

Section 2 ‘Account Rules’; addition of point 2.21
Section 5 ‘Betting Rules’; addition of point 5.30 covering clearly erroneous bets"


New Point 5.30 states :-

"In the interest of preserving the integrity and fairness of the exchange, Smarkets retains the right
to void bets we deem to be clearly erroneous."

That rule means they are NOT an exchange then, they can void whatever they want whenever they want? If they bet in running you can claim mistakes non stop and how will they prove otherwise? Or is it just a case of "it's our money" so they void it?

Stay well clear and hope Pete gets paid out and it make it into the press.

What would you rate the chance of success, Paul?

Magic__Daps
06 May 16 14:49

That rule means they are NOT an exchange then

I would have thought that was blatantly obvious to anyone using the site?

When a request is made to back something for £20,000 pre-event at 1.01,
it's obviously an 'erroneous' bet.

I think everyone on this thread, including the OP, accepts that this was an 'erroneous' bet.

However, Smarkets Terms & Conditions at the time this event occurred, did NOT, in my opinion,
allow them to void the bet.

With the new 5.30 condition in place, I personally would have no problem with them voiding
such a bet in future.

Why should one mans mistake cost several punters their winnings? Everybody's fooked up using the exchanges at some point and learn by it. Also where do you draw the line? Would somebody backing for £2 pre race at 1.01 be entitled to there money back?

their.

When a request is made to back something for £20,000 pre-event at 1.01

it may well have been an obvious error , but that must be the player placing the bets fault .

2.30 lingfield  ( today )

black bess hit 1000 when about 8-10 lengths off the lead ( not in the picture ) , with about 50 yards to go and absolutely no chance of winning, someone backed it into 1.6ish .

an obvious error , should they get there money back ?

Where do you draw the line and decide what is an "erroneous" bet?

If it wasn't smarkets own money at stake, why would they care?

We're all adults here and know you can lose money by making errors.

Are you taking the piss out of my spelling, Pabs!?

kenbo

just noticed

* their

It's contagious!

Did anything come of this or is it still ongoing?

Still ongoing with IBAS

Thanks, it'll be interesting to see how they rule, could open the door to smarkets getting a load of requests to palp bets if it goes their way especially as they seem to be stepping in to protect their market makers who no doubt don't have a bookmakers licence.

Update - IBAS have stated that they are currently unable to adjudicate on this dispute due to an ongoing police investigation.

Read into that what you like as they refuse to give any more details.

All I know is that pilgrim pete has not been contacted and has no concerns about his actions, so it's not him who is being investigated.

It is surely worth going straight to the Small Claims Court now then? If the police investigation is not related to the punter with the dispute, then it shouldn't stop the courts from forcing them to cough up.

Hopefully a few who have had their money stolen back by Smarkets have filed complaints to the law. We can only hope...

Its obviously a police investigation into the hacking Magic_Daps

Alleged 'hacking' Dave, I wouldn't believe too much of what smarkets say, tbh.

If they have been "hacked" then why not inform customers?

ffs  They say the bloke that put up the daft bet was hacked ie his account was accessed by an unauthorised person.

The entire internet gambling world agrees that the account holder is responsible for their own security and any bets made through that account are valid no matter who makes them.  Even smarkets t&c agree on this point.  So unless OP was involved in the hacking, they have no chance of avoiding a payout.

to Ghetto Joe - if you are really think that smarkets have lied to the police about the matter, you aren't very bright.

I jumnped on panama too. panama canal looking tight and fast.

wtrong thread

Any more news?

Apparently not. Legal case perhaps?

No legal case needed.

The dispute was submitted to IBAS, and we are expecting a favourable ruling within the next 7 days.

In my opinion, the only way IBAS can rule in favour of Smarkets is to allow them to invoke the following, unlawful (imo) T&C of theirs which states:

"We reserve the right to void any bet, for any reason, before or after the event has started."

Can't see this getting anywhere near a court, somehow.

Hope I'm wrong on this but IBAS only needs one way to rule in favour of the bookmaker,especially for £34K.

Is it possible to make a claim against an overseas company through the small claims court?

I remember that when the bald knocker refused to honour his bets, Barney Curley had to take legal
action in a Gibraltar court.

Jul 28, 2016 -- 10:55PM, Paul Haigh - Total Respect wrote:

No legal case needed.The dispute was submitted to IBAS, and we are expecting a favourable ruling within the next 7 days.In my opinion, the only way IBAS can rule in favour of Smarkets is to allow them to invoke the following, unlawful (imo) T&C of theirs which states:"We reserve the right to void any bet, for any reason, before or after the event has started."Can't see this getting anywhere near a court, somehow.

If IBAS do uphold a blatantly unfair term, you should launch an appeal for crowdfunding a judicial review of the IBAS decision.  The Gambling Commission shouldn't be allowed to outsource its statutory obligations to a bookie's PR department.

They'll say that they don't adjudicate about the fairness of any T&C.
Didn't Betfair once void all bets when there were thousands on offer at 1000.

Paul--this is your post from April 12


I'd just like to post an update on what's happening, and why pilgrim Pete has not posted on this thread recently.
I have agreed to assist with this dispute, and at this stage it appears likely the matter will be going to court unless Smarkets change their position.
I've advised pilgrim pete not to make any more postings about his dispute at this time as I want him to keep some of the facts of the case to himself and not post them on here.
What I would say is that I have serious concerns about the behaviour of Smarkets in this matter, and I would advise people to exercise caution if choosing to bet there until this dispute is resolved.
Don't forget they have the following in their T&Cs:
"We reserve the right to void any bet for any reason before or after the event has occurred."
Quite looking forward to that term's fairness being considered by a judge.

Why the change of tactics?

@JML - The ruling on this case is likely to be of huge significance in terms of the future role of IBAS as an ADR entity - that's why I decided to submit it to them for adjudication rather than go straight down the legal route.

I'm not willing to expand on that statement at this stage, other than to repeat from my my posting above:

In my opinion, the only way IBAS can rule in favour of Smarkets is to allow them to invoke the following, unlawful (imo) T&C of theirs which states:

"We reserve the right to void any bet, for any reason, before or after the event has started."

Anything to report on this at the moment?

Having read thru most of this, and I apologise if it's already been suggested, but money laundering is always the first thing that springs to my mind in such cases - although difficult to do in an active horse race market!

If the police are involved then this is a possible scenario.

Wasn't the VLD case down to differing computers using 32 and 64 bit integers and a negative liability turning into a £500K+ liability - hardly the same.

If it was laundering though I would guess they would put the money up to lay first, and then the other account would take the 1.01?

The police should be involved and arresting the burglars who literally "stole" the PPs money imo.

We never had a full explanation of the VLV (I assume that's who you meant), apart from it was a skint account that placed the bet - of course it was!!!

We are expecting the IBAS ruling any day now....

I would imagine at court a judge would deem the term "We reserve the right to void any bet, for any reason, before or after the event has started." to be that much in smarkets favour that it would need to be subject to the 'red hand rule' in order to be incorporated into the contract.

I think the VDV incident opened up all of our eyes to the current automated state on here.

The Bots on the site must be an eye watering number/percentage, increases of "in house" software activity and "tweaks" to market software a possibility.

Cross Matcher and the 1 sec delay on in running bets, who and what are they there to serve ?

The Gambling Commission and IBAS, I wouldn't give tuppence for, from my dealings with them on a personal level.

I think pilgrim pete may be along later to post an update on this - I don't want to steal his thunder......

Sounds encouraging. I'd have been 5's on that he'd win a court case, and 25's on that it'd never get that far.

You already have with that post! Well done again, Paul, I presume!

I've only read the first few posts and the final few, but it's a fking disgrace if he's had to wait 5 months or so to get paid.

First of all , I'd like to thank all the people on the thread who supported me. Also big thanks to the people who told me about Paul and advised me to contact him.
   
With Paul's advising me at every step for the last six months at last we won the case and IBAS has made a ruling in my favor for the full amount to be paid.

During this time Smarkets have changed their story of what had happened several times. At this stage I can not go into too much detail without Paul's advice.

How I found out today that IBAS has ruled in my favor was due to an email from Smarkets telling me that money has been put back on my account, without a word of apology.
   
  I am still  waiting for the IBAS report which should be with me in the next few days. I will update you with the details of IBAS findings.

Great news Pete and brilliant work Paul

well done pete and paul

I do hope you give paul a good drink for his efforts

sorry , I thought it was for 30k

I should have said a drink ( not a good drink )

Yep pablo giving Paul fair share of the moneys, as without hes help taken far longer ..
Very lucky to have someone like Paul to be around to help , and to be honest never been a money issue , its the way Smarkets have behaved lies lies and more lies ..

Good on you, the result we all wanted

A fair result finally achieved.

I wish I had Pauls strike rate!

Nice one - get it in the media now and expose them for what they really are if you can. If that can be achieved it may open the doors for a good for more punters who have their money stolen by Smarkets, there are numerous stories online of the same practice.

well done peter and paul (sounds biblical doesn't it )

three grand for yet more damage to their already tarnished reputation. And your account paints a very VERY shady picture.

I'm intrigued pete, if immediately after settling the market, they called you, explained their mistake and offered you a flat grand and a reduced commission rate for a year would you have taken it?

Congratulations both on a cracking result, allegedly Smarkets do not contribute enough to the IBAS hierarchy (kidding, lol).

BOTs are ruining exchanges, they should be peer to peer, man to man, not man against the machine.

Their BOTs were happy hovering up ricks and fleecing customers, but boot on the other foot when they were mismanaged and tried to wriggle out of it.

Again well done to both, hopefully a bosman type adjudication moving forwards.

Great result Paul.

Don't know why I thought it was for £30K in my earlier posts.

I think the reason why it took so long is because when IBAS find in favour
of the punter they give the bookmaker every chance to find an arguement to
make them change their mind,which is unfair because the punter is only allowed
one chance to state his case.

We'll probably never know if smarkets returned money to the accounts that didn't
go to IBAS.

Dstyle
No after the race they paid me , then 30 mins later I found out that money had been stolen  my winnings disapeared from account..and a very poor email from them..

When i rang to discuss the issue I was passed around to many people some saying the bet should stand , some knowing nothing, but someone would ring me back..

About 30 mins later I got a ring back from David offered nothing apart from closing my account and a few flannel stories why bet cancelled , and very rude to me when we talked on the phone..

After that we talked only through emails ,and even then after a while they refused to talk to me no more either in email or on the phone. Story changed many times, hacked account, police investigation etc ..They even changed their terms and conditions when they realized that I was going to IBAS!

Once i contacted IBAS I sent them all my correspondence with Smarkets , also asked Smarkets if they could send my conversion I had with David , but no surprised was told NO as it was not recorded ..

yep, but i probably didn't make myself clear.

what i meant, is that if they'd said to you, for example, look sorry, that was one of our bots, it made a mistake, we use them on illiquid markets, would you be prepared to have it voided, and will comp you £1k in return and offer you 0% commission for a year, would you have taken the offer?

This has been a shocking PR exercise for them, still cost them the value of the bet they tried to void, and presumably cost them plenty in employee hours as well.

Dstyle

Well to be honest guess i may have taken a cash offer, But then never use them again .

But been a long wait 6 months , and time dealing with the scam , but not a penny for it all a sorry letter ..

But while i was using that place ,  I bulls up laid a horse to be place in a 5 horse race at 175-1 yep thought it was 1.75 , 2nd fav trading at 5s , i matched a bot , but i cant ring up asking it to be voided ..

thanks for the reply. it's pretty amazing, because it seems unlikely that this wouldn't have been escalated higher up the organisation, prior to your going to IBAS.

That no-one on their side was prepared to seek a conciliatory offer speaks volumes, particularly given that it's not THAT much money and how damaging this sort of thing is to how exchange users perceive an organisation.

I'm almost certain I've read of something like this happening in the early days on betfair/flutter, and an agreement being reached.

I'll be interested to know what comes out in the IBAS verdict.

Here's some more detail about the IBAS ruling on this case:


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/03/ibas-bet-declared-void-should-be-paid-out

Good work - hope the others that got voided go and ask for their stolen money back.

You'd like to think Smarkets would contact those people and give them the good news....

Seeing as Smarkets changed their T&Cs after the event it is 1.0000001 that they won't be contacting anyone about it.

If you google "smarkets void bet" you will find many other examples of picking and choosing what to pay or not after the event has ran. What a lovely story that would make to expose them for what they really are.

Well done all concerned. Idiotic from Smarkets they have to take the hit for incidents like this. Worst possible advertisment for an exchange.

Here's an interesting line from an email from Smarkets to a customer:

"We have on numerous occasions voided bets where prices far out of line with the prevailing market price have been matched"

In light of the IBAS ruling on pilgrim pete's case, I'd suggest anyone who has had a bet voided by Smarkets drop me an email to betdisputeadvice@gmail.com

That really is shocking - shame it wasn't in The Guardian piece.

I hope plenty get in touch, but many probably don't even visit this forum.

Well done to Pete and Paul for seeing it thru to the end, smarkets behaviour has been shocking so good to see IBAS have seen sense and ruled in their favour.

It'll be interesting to see if smarkets change their 'erroneous bets' t&c's that appeared on the site in light of this IBAS ruling, somehow I doubt they'll take it down.

https://smarkets.com/erroneous-bets/

From the Guardian report:

“Ibas obliges all parties to keep its dispute process and decisions confidential,”

This is something which definitely needs to be changed. I personally feel that IBAS is a pointless, bookmaker-funded organisation that should be dispanded and replaced with a fully independent panel (perhaps an extension for the GC). But given that IBAS are what we currently have, it is surely only fair that ALL rulings should be made public?

bump this thread as i was considering joining smarkets before I read it.

I will now avoid them like the plague