So a loss like the one we suffer now isn't distributed evenly over investors. So the losing investors will be unhappy. So the site will lose investors, which is bad for everyone.
That, in a nutshell, is my argument why invest-trading hurts j-d. And the complementary argument is: there's no good reason to *want* invest-trading: j-d already has a gambling mechanism. Investments should be just that: investments.
Had Nak's run gone the other way, they would have been the winning investors, and they would have been quite happy to take a larger share of the gains I am sure. Nobody would now be calling for any tinkering of the system either.
There's no need to do anything. Investing in JD is a gamble anyway and in the long term daytrading will likely make no difference to those who stay invested. Besides we've only heard from the winners because they feel they've been smart, just like Nak feels he's a smart
gambler whatever he calls himself.
My feeling is that some people who took a hit are pissed off that other people managed to make some money. While this is understandable, tinkering with the system just to appease them, with measures that probably don't work anyway and make no difference overall are just a waste of time.
There's even a chance that such tinkering is mildly detrimental for the site. What if a gambler decides to invest while he doesn't play? Say he wants to make a few rolls each day and always stops after 15 minutes, hoping to have made a profit, then reinvests. Why would you want to prevent that and either dissuade him from gambling or from investing or from keeping his money on the site. My impression is that are quite a lot of people doing both gambling and investing.
re: "only people who lost want to tinker with the system". Nope. I'm still ahead in invest profit. And I'm in favor of a delay.
re: gamble&re-invest. You're right, I've done so as well. And you still can do that, only with one hour delay.
Also, you're not really addressing my point: invest-trading/gambling serves absolutely no purpose (the example you gave, of gambling, then re-investing is something else),
and there is arguably negative consequences. If something has no positive side, and quite possibly a negative side, then it is only rational to get rid of it.
As for it having no purpose, a few pages ago somebody did come up with a good reason: day traders tend to divest when the whale is losing and investment is high, and reinvest when the whale is losing and investing is low. So they are counter-cyclical. That means they tend to keep the max bet stable. Also, if there was a crazy run of bad luck and a bunch of divestments, you might have a situation where people would like to jump in and bring investment up, but they can't and we reach a tipping point where a sort of bank-run happens and the site collapses as a whale gets lucky, people panic-withdraw, and potential investors are locked out.
Also, isn't all this talk of preventing day-trading academic? There's no limit to how many user names you can create, so determined day-traders could just create dozens or hundreds of user names and get around most plausible restrictions.