White Lotto Recenzje 2

BEWARE OF THIS SCAM! I am suing the owner Wojciech L for not paying salary and he is going to jail. Don't let them manipulate you. Better deal with other companies. By the way - Wojciech L who wrote the other review here is the owner and it's a lie.

Our company entered into a white-label platform agreement with WhiteLotto in April 2025 following discussions with Wojciech Lysak and his team. During these discussions we were informed that a fully functional platform (Sports, Casino, and Lotto) would be ready within approximately 3-4 weeks.

Our actual experience was significantly different.

1. Timeline and Payments

In April 2025 we paid 50% of the setup fee to begin the project. In May we were asked to pay the remaining 50% earlier than initially planned, with the explanation that the project required the funds in order to proceed. We agreed and paid the full amount in good faith.

Despite this, the platform took approximately 10 months to reach a partially usable state instead of the originally discussed timeline.

2. Changes in Management and Contract Terms

During the delay we were informed that the project had been taken over by Thomas Fritz Koller through Graucus Trade Limited / Alphos Ventures. At that point we were asked to sign a revised agreement that introduced new commercial terms.

These terms included higher monthly fees and the introduction of “Negative Carry”, which had not been part of our original discussions. Because we had already invested substantial funds into the project, our options at that stage were limited.

3. Platform Functionality and Technical Limitations

Another significant challenge was the slow implementation of core platform features.

• A basic sports deposit bonus system was only implemented around late January 2026.
• The team informed us that their system could not separate “Bonus Balance” from “Real Balance” for casino operations, which prevented the use of standard promotional mechanics commonly used in the industry.

These limitations made it difficult to operate the platform in the way we initially expected.

4. Billing and Transparency Concerns

Several billing elements also raised questions during the partnership.

For example, a fee of approximately $5.50 was charged for every $10 lottery ticket sold, described as covering ticket purchasing and insurance. When we requested supporting documentation or third-party invoices confirming these purchases, we did not receive detailed verification.

5. Compliance Observations

During our own due diligence process we also noticed that some domains associated with the infrastructure used in the project appear in publicly accessible regulatory domain registers in certain jurisdictions. Businesses considering a similar partnership may wish to independently verify regulatory status and licensing requirements.

6. Documentation

Throughout this project we preserved extensive documentation including signed agreements, email communication, and WhatsApp discussions with the project team. These records document the timelines, contractual changes, and operational challenges we experienced.

Conclusion

Based on our experience, this partnership involved substantial delays, contract changes, and several operational concerns. Companies considering a similar white-label arrangement may wish to carefully review platform capabilities, contractual terms, and regulatory status before committing to a long-term agreement.