At 2x kelly, an investor simply has 0 expected bankroll growth. That isn't inherently bad or anything (consider that it is still massively +EV), and the risks were well published. It's also worth noting that even when the whale was playing (with multiple accounts) it seemed most of the time he cashed out before the "forced cash out". Which means those bets were all < 2x kelly.

So the reality is, investors were exposed to exactly what was promised: a lot of variance, a lot of EV and a lot of expected bankroll growth (even if there was an occasional bet that didn't improve it).

I think the ideal would be that every investor can pick their own max kelly (e.g. 0.5x, 1x or 2x) and the max-profit becomes a reflection of that. For me personally as an investor, I would rather high risk (e.g. max of 2x kelly) because for me the greatest risk is simply the counter-party risk (you basically send someone your coins, and hope they're honest with them) but I've talked to some other investors who have said they would prefer a 0.5x kelly as they find the swings disconcerting.

In the end though, everyone needs to look at the risks and decide if it's something they want to partake in. But honestly, this whole discussion is a waste of time: bustabit did exactly what was promised and investor are now sitting on $3.1 million dollars in profit (which they are free to withdraw at any time) after merely weeks.  My understanding from talking to some of the larger investors is that everyone is very happy with the way it is being operated (although there admittedly were some grumblings about the commissions back when the site was deep in the red).

--

Also to clarify, I am strictly speaking as just a normal user/investor -- I do not have an ongoing role in bustabit. I am just trying to clarify the nonsense being posted. Do not take anything I say as an official statement or position