Okay, but you yourself explained that allowing people to choose their risk would just make the "coward" investors parasitic to the "hero" investors. I agreed with that analysis.
That was a separate issue entirely. Will proposed a situation where 'coward' investors take on zero risk and get 60% of the rewards at the expense of the house.
That's not something I'm considering implementing at all. Risks must be proportional to expected rewards or it's not fair, and the coward's risk is nil.
LD pays investors in this fashion, but that's different. LD investors have no claim to ever get their investment back. They exchanged BTC for 'shares' in a one-way deal. They can try to sell their shares to a bigger fool, but don't have the option of selling them back to the house. So the house is free to use the coins to bankroll the site. We wouldn't be, since the coward has the option to divest and withdraw at any point - so we'd better just keep his coins in cold storage. In fact there's no point even asking him for a deposit. We could tell him to keep it, and just send him 60% of 1% of turnover on a weekly basis...