Quote from: bsky on April 14, 2020, 11:38:28 PM

Quote from: ethan_nx on April 14, 2020, 08:26:07 AM

Hi,

first things first: The reason for using SHA256 is simple - SHA256 hashes are shorter, but the are not less secure by any means. There is no known collision known for neither SHA512 nor SHA256. You'd have to crack the original 128 bytes of the "secret" part - good luck brute-forcing that. Neither SHA256 nor SHA512 have been cracked so far it's not going to happen in a foreseeable future, even with quantum computing on the horizon.

I am glad you people like that investing is back. So far I've got the following feedback:

1. Commission is 50% of "expected profit" instead of real profit. Some people like it, some people have objections and it's OK. It definitely does move the "risk part" to investors and protects us as site owners, but that's the point. 50% itself does not seem to be an issue, other sites have been taking 50% cut for some time now. In the long term, wager-based cut vs profit-based cut should not matter much since the real profit oscillates around the expected profit. But I have to be honest - since our costs like referral bonuses and rakeback are based on wager, it's so much easier and safer for us. We've been through moments when not only bankroll lost a chunk of coins but we also had to pay the bonuses from our own pockets and a few such events left us in loss for months.

2. Pausing the investments during competitions. This sounds controversial, but it's pausing only, for one week once in 2 months. It's still not implemented in the code, so no worries :-) Anyway, I think the competitions bring more to the table then just increase wager for a week - they reactivate existing players, they bring new players and get things rolling.
We'll try to think it over, maybe we will not be pausing investments on all competitions, or maybe we'll come out with a different ideas.

3. Yes, ETH will be open for investing too. Finally :-)

4. Dilution fee - most feedback suggests investors don't mind the dilution fee, but I am still having doubts. From the investor's perspective it's locking funds in the site. I might postpone these dilution fees for some time. I'd be really happy to get your opinion on this. What do you think?

Edit: Other than that, I am really happy the investing is open again. I like the transparency of the site, it's much more community-oriented now, just as it was from the very beginning.

Cheers,
Ethan

Hello,

I just recently invested some LTC (about 9% of the bankroll)
For the wager competitions : why can't it be 50% of usual house-edge to the players/25% for investors/25% for owners with investors at risk. I guess the goal of the whole investing system for the owners is to prevent the risk of players winning bigs amounts, this risk is even bigger for you during wagering compatitions where big amounts are played so i dont really understand why you would assume this risk while the 50% given to the players could just be taken from both. Or is it because you can't cover your exepenses with 25% of the houseedge?

About the dilution fee : I personnaly dont like it because i like to cover myself versus litecoin or bitcoin price variations using short futures on others sites like bitmex so my balance stay quite stable in USD. I may have to cover the margin calls of this kind of sites by withdrawing a part of litecoin (in a case where the litecoin price increase).

I understand the goal of this dilution fee is to have longterm investments but i think there wasn't really any problem about this (even without dilution fee the investors stayed in the long-term, which is even more surprising when we know they were all leveraged).

I think the dilution fees would not only provide long term commitment but it will also provide some advantage to the long term investors as they get a share of it so longer they are connected they would get more income from the dilution fee if anyone willing to stay longterm i think it wouldn't have any big issues in the returns rather than helping