Youtuber Raid Quang Brave was threatened by NPH to delete his channel because of policy violations?

As reported earlier, the conflicting story between Quang Brave and NPH VTC Game made Raid community strongly argued against the negative statements about the game of this male Youtuber. Especially when NPH said that it would withdraw the hundred million account previously granted to Quang, as well as officially remove Quang Brave from the team. Youtuber Raid. However, soon after, on Quang Brave’s Youtube channel, a clip “confident” was posted to completely refute the above information and assert that it was not NPH that revoked the account, but returned it himself. , as well as leaving the Youtube team Assault due to dissatisfaction with the policy and working style of NPH, not by anyone’s dismissal, making the community playing this game more confused than ever. Details readers can follow the article and clip below.​

It seemed that the story had temporarily subsided after nearly half a month, but recently on Quang Brave’s personal facebook page, he continued to post a status that surprised many people. The status is just the status line “Losing” with a smiley face icon and a picture of an email. According to the content of the shared email, the sender claimed to be the representative of VTC Game and asked this Youtuber to remove the clip “The truth about Quang Brave having his hundred million account withdrawn, removed from the team of Youtuber Raid ” that the guy posted earlier. And threatened if not, NPH would be forced to delete Quang’s youtube channel because it seriously violated the policy set out by VTC Game.
​

​

A lot of comments from gamers were made after this share, but most of them are still supportive and encouraging comments for Quang Brave. Many questions arise “What does it have to do with VTC to ask to delete the video?”, “Delete or not is the right of Youtube, what to do in VTC’s turn”…

Currently, it is not clear what the truth of this email is and NPH has not had any action on the case, so the conclusion of the article is still in question!