Why would anybody be happy with an annual rate of 4% when practically every DeFi platform pays far more... even non-custodial ones.

I understand investing in casino bankroll is a good way to diversify your investment portfolios, but at least go for more than 4%.

Seems like some technical wizardry should allow people to bet their tokens while they're staked if the casino were to allow it. It could simply divide the wallet into two pools: staked and unstaked, ensuring people can only wager against either of these bankrolls.

Would like to see if any casino owner can chime in on why this hasn't been done yet.

There has been a lot of talk lately about which new features are important for cryptocurrency casinos to add;

The general consensus is that new games, deposit methods, chat features etc are expected from any good casino. But has anywhere actually began offering cryptocurrency staking options for accepted cryptocurrencies?

As far as I've seen, plenty of crypto casinos support deposits for stakeable assets like Tezos, Cardano, Tron etc, but I haven't seen a single casino that allows users to benefit from this feature.

Seems like a nice potential revenue option for casinos and its users... Just need to add a withdrawal delay that accounts for the staking period for those that opt in to the feature.

I think that a lot of casinos don't want to accept stablecoins simply because they are a proxy for fiat, and most cryptocurrency casinos don't want to be seen handling fiat currencies in any form.

That's why a lot of these places partner with external currency exchange platforms to automatically convert stablecoin deposits into a decentralized cryptocurrency like BTC, LTC etc, just to avoid this issue.

That said, I'd like to see a casino that allows users to stake their balances, e.g. TRX, Cardano etc. So far I haven't seen any casinos that offer this feature.

He's got a zero percent chance of winning, just like Kanye.

What's more likely is that he's simply running as interference against Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, to reduce their odds of winning by splitting the votes.

That said, if he did manage to get elected, he'd probably be unsuccessful in ushering in cryptocurrencies—since monetary policy is actually set by the central bank, rather than the white house.

He'll get less than 10,000 votes, I'd bet on it.

At $1/coin, that would make Dogecoin the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, and only narrowly behind Bitcoin.

I highly doubt a few viral videos on TikTok could accomplish that, it's just a ridiculous ask to be honest.

As we can see the viral campaign has already lost practically all of its momentum, and DOGE is -18% today—the latest round of investors are now rekt.

This was just a simple pump and dump taking on a new format. I doubt it will be the last of this kind we see.

Bitcoin lottery ends in just over 16 hours!



28 tickets have now been hold, try out one of the only zero house edge games in the business!

All that matters is the return to player rate, in this case, slots typically have a far worse RTP than dice games—depending on where you play of course.

It's best to look at it like this, if you put a $100 bet on each one 100 times, what would your total winning be.

Since dice usually has a house edge of 1-2% and slots a house edge of 5-10%, it is quite clear that in the long run, you'll have lost less by playing dice. This also translates to the inverse if you get lucky, in that you can win more playing dice than slots simply because you're up against less severe odds.

Useful information, never considered the fact that the protocol owner could simply freeze and reclaim funds whenever they want.

Although this is a useful process when complying with law enforcement, it's definitely not something that the coin holders want to have looming over them.

I wonder how it would work at exchange platforms, since they usually use pooled wallets. Would the exchange take the hit? I don't imagine many have mechanisms in place to detect when an address has been frozen out, while some allow instant off-chain trades between crypto assets.

Seems like an imperfect solution.

In any case, DAI is looking a lot more appealing now.

Although there is an increase in number of players at these casinos, I think that the overall revenue has dropped in the last few months, since people are less willing to spend money since they might been laid off at work or have poor job security. Because of this, it could simply be that the losses are taking longer to recoup than normally. It shouldn't be possible for a whale to tank the bankroll for a long time unless the game is improperly set up to prevent this, or he gets astronomically lucky.

DefiPulse is a great resource for this, it has a list of all the major DeFi applications based on their total assets under management.

It doesn't actually list the yield you might get from using each one, but it can definitely give you some insight on how popular each one is.

I'd personally stick with non-custodial DeFi solutions for now though; just google "Non-custodial DeFi" and you'll find a bunch of options like Compound, Nuo, Aave etc.

Compare them based on their viability and return, and make your judgment based on your risk appetite.

So this game is using a random number generator as its fairness mechanism?

Do you have any information that shows how your RNG and verifier system works? That would be helpful—players want to know they're playing something fair, and providers want to know they can keep their players happy and avoid suggestions of foul play.

The industry is booming, and white label solutions are an inevitability, but only if they're good.

Unless there is a breach on Coinbase's custody side, your Uncle is tough out of luck.

I don't think I've heard of a single example where blockchain analysis successfully helped somebody get their stolen funds back.

Also your ploy to gain affiliate commissions and plug Coinfirm are incredibly obvious, if you keep doing that somebody will eventually tag you. Hope it's worth it for the couple bucks commission you might land.

Looks like the viral video is working.

Though I doubt Dogecoin will climb to $1 like they're hoping, those that bought in at the beginning have already netted a nice profit of around 50%. Can't really hope for than that without being unrealistic.

I also saw that Tron founder Justin Sun posted that he's going to be ramping up efforts on TikTok soon, so I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a similar pump for TRX soon.

I doubt Dogecoin will continue on this trajectory for much longer, the viral nature of the challenge seems to be dying down now.

Nobody expects stablecoins to be absolutely stable—nothing ever is.

Even if the stablecoin is pegged to the USD, EUR, JPY etc, the value of these changes over time with inflation and other macroeconomic factors which affect their purchasing power.

If stablecoins were truly stable and absolutely pegged to USD with no room for fluctuation, then I think they'd be less popular, since trading volumes would slip since arbitrageurs would no longer be interested in them.

If you want something truly stable, better design it yourself because no current system fits the criteria as you describe it.

They don't need to remain undefeated to face somewhere down the line and make big money.

I personally think Garcia beats Gervonta if they were to fight sometime soon. Davis is like a small version of Wilder, he's got power but not much else.

But either way, if Garcia ends up fighting Campbell (who he'll beat), then he'll have to challenge Loma. And Loma will obviously destroy Ryan Garcia, causing him to lose his undefeated record.

The only way they can avoid this is by pushing back the Loma fight as far as they can, and hoping he gets injured and/or slows down (which he might). He's 32 now so he probably only has 2-3 more good years in him.

The most optimal scenario would be fight Campbell now, delay Loma fight, fight Davis, then go for the titles against Loma for a massive pay day.

It is my personal opinion that mixing services do somewhat facilitate the cleaning of illegitimate funds, I don't think anybody would argue against this.

It may not be the absolute biggest use case for mixers, but I would guess that at least 20% of their activity comes from people trying to improve the fungibility of their assets because they're from dubious sources.

I'm not a fan of them in general either. I think there should be on-chain privacy features that don't require the use of a "trusted" third party like mixers. Understandably, most of these mixers have an anonymous team, but that also means they can run off with funds without a hitch if they chose to. This makes it very difficult to trust them.

I think we simply need some way of performing a trustless atomic swap between cryptocurrencies like BTC and XMR, then we can cut out these middlemen programs and avoid the risks that come with them.

Any reason why people should trust you over one of the myriad crypto funds that are also able to secure these deals, e.g. Grayscale Capital?

There's already a huge number of crypto funds out there, many of which have a strong public presence and a transparent record of their success.

Do you think that a simple vague forum post is going to convince any HNW individual to part with their cash? Surely not.

Your BTC address still has 0 sats in it. Who are you trying to fool?

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1Cvpe4xigkCZxgiWn1vBGuevy7zVDkJNpP

Nobody is going to send you a single penny. Even if it was unequivocally proven that your needs are genuine, people just aren't going to throw their money away.

Honestly it's not their job to save your friend... If he's suicidal, that's on him, people shouldn't need to pay out so this guy doesn't off himself.

Altcoins are pumping hard, and there is now a good mix of altcoin high rollers on the board today;



Coincidence? I think not.

Well, that's the case with any stablecoin really. You can't just single out Tether here.

I don't think they could freeze the bank account even if they wanted to, since they're using a bank account in Puerto Rico.

Even if they did shut down Tether, it wouldn't stop the problem really, and they would actually be causing potentially millions of people to lose money.

Not saying I think Tether is trustworthy—far from it. But they're definitely not the only stablecoin at risk of a bank freeze.