Early investors simply have more room for profit, but at the same time, also carry more risks involved than late adopters, so it isn't necessarily a good thing nor is it a bad thing imo, what matters is that you're able to actually identify what to invest in, even if it was later on. Right now investing might be relatively safer compared to back then since we have instances of Bitcoin going back up from situations like this, so there's at least something to refer to. Altcoins are fine occasionally imo, but they're never for holding in the long term.

Yes, but most of them only last in the short term. Some altcoins actually pop off with how much investment the team does so that their project starts off with a  big hype behind them but most of it dies off in the long term, so some investors (if not all) just invest for the start of the project, wait for the peak hype, sell off then look for a new project to invest in. There might be altcoins out there that are worth in the long term but honestly, you're better off shorting them most of the time.

The short answer is yes, you just need to know what and identify the hows.

Seeing as it's a KYC issue and they're pretty much using the TOS on their hands, I don't think this can be simply talked about, especially since after the KYC verification they just straight up terminated your account (from the reply sent by the team anw). If that was stated on their TOS then I think you'd need legal advice now instead of simply "let's talk about this" kind of action since as they've said, they have all the right to do whatever they just did since they did state it in their Terms.

I don't think it would be an absolute need to add, but if they wanted to then they can, just that I don't think it's something you'd actually learn even if someone wanted to teach you. Maybe teaching them to know when and how to ask for help would be better. Cause afaik, what and the types/samples of vices are already taught in school as part of a general curriculum (at least in my case) which I would as far as I can remember, also discuss addiction and stuff like that. It's really that small of a part really, nothing more can be said since the rest of the realization part is up to the person themselves.

Doing something is a start. Find what you do best, or at least what you can learn to do, and play around with that. I wouldn't recommend anything that relates to trading if you're looking for "earning" money since that requires money in the first place before you start, so go do some regular jobs. Minimum wage jobs would probably be your best bet but if you have the skillset then you can probably go up and receive better wages. It's gonna take time but that applies to everything imo.

This is closer to telling them not to gamble at all lmao. I myself set a specific amount to gamble on every session, but 1% is way too low, not enough to actually satisfy that craving of gambling. Even if I say that gambling is more for fun, experiencing that fun of winning/losing money is also part. If I was only in it for the game, I might as well just go for playing the same games but without money involved.

As for the number of sessions, I think that's closer to what you prefer, setting up a number for it might just limit you way too much, bringing out more of anticipation than normal which can influence you to go past it in the long term imo.

The 3rd advice is just a joke. It's like asking your average gamer to only buy/play one game in their entire life, that's just a joke. I myself repeat a lot of games that are long and story intensive, whatmore for simple games like the ones in casino.

Congratulations! Saw your thread and your prior tweets when you started the challenge and was pretty amazed at the beginning when you went from $1k to the $3,$4k levels. Maybe keep going and see what you can get for the last day?

I guess the mentality of not being limited to that 10k made it a lot comfortable to work with it maybe? Like compared to a person who only has $1k to invest, pretty sure they'd have much more stress involved or would probably take longer to actually reach the same amount of profit since he'd probably do this with a lot less risks involved.

If it was the exact same copy then their either under the same company of sorts or one of the other copied the exact same code somehow and published it on their own. Developers often just follow most of what is already developed, the most that would differ about them would be the UI designs but other than that they're generally the same imo. Now if a site has the exact same UI and backend, that's a copy, but if it felt like at the very least the UI changed, then it might just be the first scenario I said, or just a developer developing their own but by referencing that specific site, hence the similarity with minor differences.

I don't think $20k matters that much, the price has bounced here and there so far in here, The price has dipped below $20k in the past few days and before that, it came from above $20k, so we should be looking at somewhere above there for now, unless BTC drops down again to below $20k and stays for a fair bit there. I also don't think it's impossible to go down below with all the FUD that's come out with the Mt.Gox thingy, but it also won't last since people would probably rush to buy once the price drops.

It's because trying to change up something would probably require a lot of investment and wouldn't even guarantee a return of it in the long run. Businesses are made to create profit after all and the most stable way to do so is to basically copy the general guidelines that earlier businesses with the same model have set. You'd only have to improve the reputation with simple marketing stuff to actually attract customers. A unique identity is really hard to create, especially in casinos where their luck-based games are the main feature, and seeing that most of those types of games are just a reskin of the same old ones, you won't really get anything "new" out of that.

I do love the idea of Rollbit and the NFT feature, but I'd consider it as a marketing feature instead of the core "luck-based" requirement that casinos have. It makes them unique in that their reward system is a lot more intricate with it, but it's only limited to the rewards part.

It doesn't seem like they've done well so far in the past year, If you trust it enough you can do long-term investment on it but honestly, I'd rather do short-term investments instead. I don't think altcoins are investments you'd take for long-term ones, the only coin I'd ever go for long-term would be Bitcoin. Maybe invest and wait for 3 months to see what happens and if you think it'll still go up then yea stay, but honestly if you get positive by then I'd just take it and plan for another short-term investment.

I think 1 is a relatively known event? There's been a few discussions about it here actually afaik, though ofc I wouldn't consider everyone to know it but a vast majority should be well aware of it by now. I honestly still consider how dumb the decision was but well, it all paid off in the end so I won't really say anything about it except to not actually consider it as an inspirational story, he risked everything and he won that's why his story was told, if he lost then you wouldn't see anything about it in the first place imo.

As for 5 which is the self ban, pretty sure even online casinos have it, I wouldn't consider how physical casinos wouldn't have it. I guess it's more strict though since well, you can't exactly create a second you to enter the casino to play.

I wouldn't put it as being an impossibility, we might even see it go below $18k or so but it would probably take a few more months before it happens since the price resists every time there's a bit of dump that happens. Nevertheless, I don't think there's much of an issue here unless Bitcoin breaks down the past lowest price that we've had which was around $17k or so. We'd probably stay at the $20 - $30k levels for a long bit though, maybe till the end of the year till we see it going back up imo.

I think the case here for the forum is a rare case, since most campaigns here have their own threads hence a lot of people have shared their feedback and opinions on it, so it can actually be considered close to being a review at that point. And as you said, they also include their own advertisements (bonuses, rewards, etc), in their own forum threads which makes it almost an all-in-one package when it comes to a casino review, but whether inside or outside the forum, you'd still need to actively review them so reviews would still top it because even if it was a signature campaign, it doesn't necessarily entail that it's a good casino to play in.

Reviews. Or any other thing similar to a vouch to the casino tbh. Signatures like this are mostly something like ads, they just inform us, the consumers of the existence of that specific service, company, or business, they don't really state anything about how it works, is it trusted, is it worth it stuff like that. Reviews on the other hand state the personal experience of users which is rather reliable, even if we do consider how there are paid reviews since you can cross-reference the casino reviews from multiple sources.

If you were new to trading, I'd actually leave the market and basically ignore it. You can invest still but I highly suggest ignoring the market then since you'd probably react to every movement and end up losing your investment due to buying in and selling out often. If you don't want to or are scared then I suggest just leaving or just watching what happens instead so that in the next bear market, you're able to learn from what happened and have a bit of confidence in what you plan to do. Planning is really important imo in investments in seasons like this.

I consider it to be something becoming rather regular in almost all industries, not just in crypto casinos (or casinos in general). It's a process that can't be helped imo, especially if businesses were required to register under a legal license that the government issues (or a centralized group that manages it in general). It's actually a type of brainwash imo, it might be weird or odd right now but as people are gradually forced to do KYC in almost everything, they'd just end up accepting it in the end.

As for the second thing, I think KYC would still be involved even if login wallets were used. There may still be casinos that wouldn't put in KYC, but it'd only be a matter of time imo.

I don't think I've had any tbh. I've played with live dealers a few times but none of them really stuck for me, nor did I really ever want to actually interact with them (yes I hate socialization). I do interact with them if they start talking like I think it's basic courtesy to do so if they start it, but if they don't well I'm also perfectly fine with that. I just sit there and play while malding about how shtty my luck is for that day. I honestly would be bothered if it was over the top kind of dealer thing, heck I'm actually a fan of dealers, either male or female just wearing those neat clean types of clothing. The one that makes them look really really mature and clean and professional, just gives them the vibe of being able to talk to you and answer pretty much anything you throw at them.

I don't think any of the robbers indicated anything about being a gambling addict? This is just a case of robbers choosing to attack gambling casinos instead of anything else, which imo makes sense to rob from since well, it's a casino. If they see that the security that they have is less than what they can't handle, then they'd try to handle it ofc. I wouldn't put it past that they have no gambling experience, I reckon they at least have a bit but I still don't think their gambling tendencies are at fault here. They're just thieves at the core.

Doesn't seem like they actually lost out but rather instead their profits were less than expected? So I guess any of them weren't really losing anything nor have they really made any wrong general investment decisions since they still ultimately profited. It is kind of weird how they expected or thought of crypto as an easy way to make money, it may have been true foe the early days but I don't think it applies to recent times now, not to mention it also requires a lot of know-how on what to do to exactly profit.