Post
Topic
Board Gambling
Re: should Ponzi's be in the gambling section?
by
Micon
on 19/02/2014, 04:34:54 UTC
I think the real reason that people (especially Micon) are complaining is that these games are competing with their gambling businesses.

wrong, SwC player numbers are unaffected.  (very small % of overlap between a poker player and a ponzi player.  Maybe Tennis only...)

I dont see ponzis, if sold as a ponzi, a scam.

Vortuarackne, I appreciate your arguments.  They seem to come from a rational place.  Consider this question:

how does a Ponzi usually end? 

Are expectations managed properly? 

Think about the expectations players have with other legitimate gambling games like bitzino, just-dice, sealswithclubs, and bitcoinvideopoker. 
(not expectations in terms of win-or-lose, but expectations like the rules of the game, how payouts will be handled, how the game is scored, when it ends, etc)

I agree that a game that clearly states "You only get paid if the next guy sends coins"  and a clear "reset" time is defined (maybe after 24 hours of no sends) could function as an "honest ponzi" (and I agree that would only be similar to a Ponzi, not an actual ponzi where the entire underlying business is misrepresented) maybe we need a name like a "hope next guy sends"

either way, it's not like the other gamblings.  sub-cat for sure.  Nevermind this appears to be only a handful of operators copy-pasting sites.