☐Trade Hold Open the partner account
Affiliate disclosure. The partner link in the masthead and in the bands beside the copy on this page is a sponsored link to a partner operator, and this site may be paid if you open an account through it, at no extra cost to you. It carries rel="sponsored noopener" and opens in a new tab. That matters more than usual on this desk: the subject is a balance made of objects that three separate companies control, and this site's own funding is a referral fee from one of them. There is no ranking, no review and no recommendation of any operator, item or marketplace anywhere on this site.
Trade Hold / What you can prove
Three systems, three histories

Three companies hold a piece of the same story

A money deposit leaves one trace. An item-funded balance leaves three, in three companies’ systems, none of which reads the others. When something goes wrong, the difference between a resolved case and a loop is which of the three records a reader can produce.

Open the partner accountStart with the exit arithmetic
Yours to move: an object in your own inventory, a listing you can withdrawFrozen: an object inside its hold, unreachable at any priceTheirs to decide: the valuation, the commission and the cash-out
Direct answerAn item-funded account generates a trade history on the publisher’s platform (what moved, to whom, when, and under which hold), a valuation and wager history on the operator’s ledger (what the object was credited at, and what was staked against it), and a sale and cash-out history on the marketplace (listing, buyer, fee, proceeds and rail). Each company answers only for its own part, and each holds its own record of the identity verification behind it. A dispute file is therefore assembled, not requested from one place.

Which record lives where

record 1

publisher Movements and holds. Trade history with counterparty identifiers, the dates on which objects arrived, and the hold or lock that applied. This is the only place the freeze is documented, and it is the first thing to export.

record 2

operator Valuation and wagers. The credit given for each object, the reference price used, the balance movements the credit produced, and the terms version in force - which is the record that decides an account dispute.

record 3

market Sales and cash-outs. The listing, the achieved price, the commission deducted, the proceeds hold and the final transfer reference. This is the only record of what the object was actually sold for.

Worked example - the same event in three records (illustrative) One object is bought on the market for 100 units and sent to a wagering account on 3 March.
Publisher’s record: arrival 3 March, hold to 10 March; nothing else.
Operator’s record: credited 90 units on 3 March at a stated 90% of a reference price, against terms version v4; balance movements thereafter.
Market’s record: purchase 3 March at 100, commission 9, seller received 91.
Three records, three numbers for one event: 100, 90 and 91 - and the only one that describes the reader’s actual position is the operator’s 90, because that is what the account was credited with. A dispute that quotes 100 will be answered with the terms; a dispute that quotes the credit figure and the version will be answered with the calculation. Add the dates and the three records stop being contradictory and start being a timeline: purchase, arrival, hold expiry, credit, wager, sale, cash-out.

Building the file, in the order that works

  1. Export all three histories on the same day. Old transactions fall out of default views, and a partial export has gaps that the other side will read as missing evidence.
  2. Write the timeline before the complaint. Dates, objects, identifiers, amounts. Most disputes are lost at the point of description rather than at the point of law.
  3. Name the company responsible for each item on it. A valuation complaint is the operator’s, a delivery or fee complaint is the market’s, a tradability complaint is the publisher’s. Three queues, three answers, no overlap.
  4. Ask for the record the other side holds, in writing, under your own data rights. The series’ data desk covers what a reader is entitled to request and how; on this rail the account data is spread across three companies, so three requests may be needed.
  5. Keep the verification acknowledgements. Two separate identity checks happen on this route, and both have their own reference. Neither of them is visible in the other company’s system.

What a reader cannot get, and should not expect

Why the record is the whole game on this rail

On a card payment, both sides of a dispute are looking at one reference at one bank. Here the object, the credit and the sale are three different facts held by three different companies, and a reader who cannot produce them is left arguing from memory against a system that can produce all three of its own. That is the practical reason this page follows the arithmetic in this desk: the arithmetic tells a reader what the number should be, and the record is what makes the number arguable.