Quote from: TheFuneral on January 20, 2015, 03:27:06 AM

So with the current thin market problem and me having a couple thousand CLAMS there really is no reason to invest using your site anymore is there? Unless claims thousands of more CLAMS than I really have I'll never see any of the profits with the pot this big. And all the big investors are protected because no on that wants to bet big can even enter considering thin market.

The #1 investor at the moment wasn't even on the site until a few days ago.

I guess I was misunderstanding how people saw the risks.

It seems it wasn't:
"I value CLAM but don't want to store them all on a dice site",
it was:
"I value BTC, don't trust CLAM's price not to crash, but will buy some CLAM if I can use leverage"

ie. he's more concerned about the currency risk than the CP risk. He can now dominate the JD bankroll without having to own 60% of all the CLAM in the world by taking a huge risk with the relatively small number of coins he bought. If he loses them, he can just buy the same amount again, possibly even from the guy who wins.

It appears that what has happened isn't that the relatively small investors we had before moved their coins offsite, but that the whale investors we never appealed to before now have a way in.

So obviously that sucks for the small investors. They've seen their share of the bankroll drop to a tenth of its previous level. And obviously it's good for the big investors, since they can now increase the size of their investment to the level they want it at.

Quote from: TheFuneral on January 20, 2015, 03:27:06 AM

I value the idea but I think this fucks every investor on your site except the top5. Granted I'm sure the top5 pay the bottom line so maybe it doesn't matter and they hold all the risk for you?

"The bottom line" is that I take 10% of player losses. It doesn't make any difference whether the bankroll was provided by 100 equally sized investments or one huge one. The player losses are presumably the same in both cases.

I used to have a decent percentage of the bankroll myself, and now I don't. So I can see where you're coming from. The change has fucked me too in that respect. My coins are still invested, and still staking. In a sense it's safer than before. If gordo wins 2k off the site, something like 70% of his winnings come directly from the biggest two investors. For the small investor JD has recently become a lot more like a staking pool and a lot less like a place to "be the casino". Be clear that staking rewards are allocated as before : in proportion to the size of your onsite investment only.

Edit: I just checked the stats. There are the individual and cumulative returns on an account with 0 offsite coins declared since shortly after launch:

Quote

Dec 12 2014 0.00% 100.00%
Dec 15 2014 3.64% 103.64%
Dec 22 2014 5.02% 108.85%
Dec 29 2014 2.09% 111.13%
Jan 5 2015 8.16% 120.20%
Jan 12 2015 5.28% 126.55%
Jan 19 2015 3.55% 131.04%

Jan 20 2015 0.72% 131.99%

So far this week the account has made 0.72% of its investment in profit, in a little under 2 days. That's less than before, but still significant.

Quote from: GrandmaJean on January 20, 2015, 07:48:58 AM

Why don't you force players to sign a message from their cold storage addresses confirming they actually have the coins they claim to have. Then only count the lesser of the amount of coins that are in those address(es) or the amount they claim to have (they may not want to use all of their cold storage for the bankroll).

This would prevent people from lying about the amount of coins they have and would keep the bankroll more "honest"

1) it would probably just cause a market to appear for address signing services.
"want to leverage at JD but don't have the offsite coins? no problem, we'll sign a message for you!"

2) I'm OK with the "lying". The Kelly criteria tells you what fraction of your "bankroll" to risk on each bet when you have a positive expection. There's no reason your "bankroll" has to all be converted into CLAM. Suppose I have a bankroll of 100 BTC and want to invest on JD. Should I convert my whole 100 BTC into 20,000 CLAM so I can deposit 2,000 of them to JD and be able to prove that I have 18,000 more offsite? That seems a silly requirement. I'm much more likely to convert 10 BTC into 2,000 CLAM, deposit it all to JD and "lie" about having 18,000 more offsite. If I lose the 2,000 onsite, maybe I'll convert another 10 BTC and repeat.

Quote from: uvwvj on January 20, 2015, 05:13:10 PM

So basically 2 investors is risking BTC in the form of Clams with 100x leverage with possibly no care of utilizing CLAMS but to just have JD Tokens, while not allowing any liquidity for someone to come gamble because of Poloniex's horrible market depth.

CLAM is a Piece Of Shit coin but this shows the evidence a Sidechain pegged coin would work with this and Dooglus capping an Investment amount that he would feel comfortably HODLing.

Dude, don't you work for a university? I can barely grasp what you're trying to say here.

None of this is specific to CLAM, or proof-of-stake. I know you're upset that JD doesn't use BTC any more but that's how it is now. Get over it, please.

"capping an Investment amount" : I don't want to artificially limit the bankroll size. I figure the market will cause it to limit itself

"feel comfortably HODLing" : Someone recently observed that JD now has a cold wallet again. I scratched the idea of a cold wallet, because CLAM is proof-of-stake, and people want their coins staking, not sitting idle on a piece of paper. Now you hold your own part of the site's "cold wallet". If you have 20k CLAM to invest, deposit 2k, declare the other 18k offsite, and hold them yourself. Leave enough for day-to-day operation on the site, and keep the rest safe. So the site is the "hot wallet" and your offsite coins are the "cold wallet". Now I can't steal the cold wallet because you hold it yourself. Maybe your part of the cold wallet is in BTC, or USD, or whatever you like.