Speaking as a small BaB investor here.
Devans, could you please cap the commission to a max of ~95%?
It wouldn’t be good if investing in the bankroll ever turned into a -EV proposition. I don’t think that’s what any investor signed up for, and the reality of the 2% nonrefundable investment fee means that new investors, and re-investors, must make long term considerations when they invest.
Furthermore, while I do have strong trust in you, a commission structure like this technically isn’t “provably fair” in in spirit, as the commission is paid to _you_, and nothing stops _you_ from investing. So let’s say it gets to a point where you own 55M XDR of Bitcoin. You could deposit it, force the commission rate to be >100%, and make _every other investor have negative EV_.
I think capping the max commission to 95% will achieve what you want, but also provide certainty to investors that they will always still be investors and won’t face the possibility of entering into a -EV trade.
I haven't looked into the changes too closely yet, but I second this. Devans, please do not allow the possibility of investors to have -EV; that would be reprehensible.
It is not possible for bankroll investors' EV to become negative. Assuming the commission rate never reaches 100%–and economics says it can't–both the bankroll's expected value and its expected growth will always be positive. And even in the case of a 100% commission rate the expected value and expected growth merely become neutral, not negative.
Worrying about that really isn't necessary, though. People invest in the bankroll to earn a profit. If they don't expect the bankroll to earn a profit then they won't invest in or remain invested in it. That holds true even if the dilution fee might lead someone that only invested recently to hold on and tolerate low yields a little longer than others in the hopes of others divesting first.
As a side note, as of a few days ago all bankroll investors have seen the announcement.