Re: Just-Dice.com : FREE BTC : Play or Invest : 1% House Edge : Banter++
i was interested in the discussion purely from a "have more options for people" vs. "what is the simplest, successful setup."
Those are not mutually exclusive, but it was considered such. Unless some sort of voting system was put in place based on % of shares, of course, it is likely impossible to parse all investors opinions.
And a lot of the sentiment was similar to bugpowder and those who apparently have invested a lot: more investment isn't really wanted, and when the option to increase % of your investment to go towards bankroll happens, there will literally be no real reason for further investment.
So yes, tools + concepts that make investment more robust than what it is are in exact odds with the fact that current investors don't want "more" investors when there is a 1% edge (that is currently performing at 3%). When things are on an upswing sure people want less split, but when it swings back down that extra investment absorbs things
To address the sentiment voiced earlier in the thread of pure bankroll footers cashing in on the investment of those who "opt in" to have their funds used in other ways, it would be trivial to have different returns on the types of investments. Clearly the BTC going towards site investment should return a higher cut than that only footing bankroll, if that were to be initiated.
I recall the rationalization for changing it is that nothing making use of this new policy has been enacted. To be fair, this was only discussed over 5-10 minutes in chat (that i saw) and then updated. There is no news feed, and it wasn't posted here. Perhaps that sort of "news feed" will come in another update to the site. I think the idea was that the sooner it is made clear that investment is left to doog's discretion, the better. I can see the validity to a complaint of it seeming like a "switcheroo" if you didn't happen to be reading chat to see the discussions, or the pattern that this could be the beginning of.
The flipside of that is to trust.
Those are not mutually exclusive, but it was considered such. Unless some sort of voting system was put in place based on % of shares, of course, it is likely impossible to parse all investors opinions.
And a lot of the sentiment was similar to bugpowder and those who apparently have invested a lot: more investment isn't really wanted, and when the option to increase % of your investment to go towards bankroll happens, there will literally be no real reason for further investment.
So yes, tools + concepts that make investment more robust than what it is are in exact odds with the fact that current investors don't want "more" investors when there is a 1% edge (that is currently performing at 3%). When things are on an upswing sure people want less split, but when it swings back down that extra investment absorbs things
To address the sentiment voiced earlier in the thread of pure bankroll footers cashing in on the investment of those who "opt in" to have their funds used in other ways, it would be trivial to have different returns on the types of investments. Clearly the BTC going towards site investment should return a higher cut than that only footing bankroll, if that were to be initiated.
I recall the rationalization for changing it is that nothing making use of this new policy has been enacted. To be fair, this was only discussed over 5-10 minutes in chat (that i saw) and then updated. There is no news feed, and it wasn't posted here. Perhaps that sort of "news feed" will come in another update to the site. I think the idea was that the sooner it is made clear that investment is left to doog's discretion, the better. I can see the validity to a complaint of it seeming like a "switcheroo" if you didn't happen to be reading chat to see the discussions, or the pattern that this could be the beginning of.
The flipside of that is to trust.