Developing out that takes for 1 guy 2-3 years, if done reasonably well. Budgets for a gambling site, even by looking at online sources, just for development should range into 250,000 and up, and 500,000 in marketing and reserves.  Your best bet is to lease it as a whitelabel, and that will cost you about 10-15k USD, not $5k.

Just my 2 cents.

Adzino,

Point taken: I meant both in direct numbers (M or B's), and in a percentage of transactions for bitcoin. I believe that basically no gambling company have any significant volumes of etherum, dash, monero etc.

I fully agree: there is no accurate statistics on the subject-matter, but I read an article from coindesk, from March of last year that stated 15%, but they didn't list sources.  A general question, may be tricky to answer - do anyone know what methodology is used by the transaction tracking companies to peg a transaction as gambling? Bloom filters, address clustering?

Again, I'm trying to find accurate statistics that I can source reference, but I realize that it may be futile.

Thanks guys!

Hello,

I'm looking for an associate developer for a C# project. Short description: It's a smart contract execution sandbox, with underlying cryptocurrency mechanism, using, in part event calculus to create the description of the smart contract.  The network part use a graph instead of asynch blocks for faster distribution.

It uses elliptic curve (as most other implementations) via bouncy castle's implementation, leaning on DAG (see Sergio D Lerner's articles) for faster and blockless transactions/execution model along with some nifty improvements.  Specifically, some items I have been working/theorizing on is PoS, and how it relates to partitioning, selecting partitions for execution without compromising security or other aspects.

It's a little side project I've been playing around with, but need some other helpful hands to push it along.  I chose c# because it's: easy to work with, many nifty tools and projects can be added, shortening development, it also have an execution sandbox that can be modified to achieve goals of smart contract execution,  and, most important for me: it's my preferred language and well versed in the execution environment/bytecode compliers of dot net.

In the next few weeks I intend to write up a short paper on some of the thoughts about this project.

Well spoken! Corrections are a necessity. If prices have increased from $8 to 400, it's quite clear that a correction will come.  I hold Etherum, and not a small stake either, but do I complain? Well, little perhaps, but it was expected.

If it's really 50-60% of the overall  btc economy, then it must be very large numbers. Question is then, of the 45 billion dollar gambling market, how much of that is crypto?  I talked to some payment processors, and large operators and they stated that now 10-15-20% are bitcoin (and other cryptocoins) of their overall transaction volume.  I know it's hard to find numbers, but when doing business reports, I sometimes try to go beyond pure conjecture at least
So if the gambling market is 45 billion and say 15% is crypto, is then the cryptogambling market ~6-7 billion? And if the 6-7 billion represents 50% of the total crypto market, is then the total crypto market, including darknets etc. 12-14 billion?   

Very interesting numbers indeed. I had thought the crypto-gambling market to be a bit smaller, maybe 1-2 billion. What say the community? My numbers make sense or are they off?

I found that some ICO's put in percentages, and one put in 65%, which I found to be high. I realize of course it depends on how counting is done, and that exchange transactions is by far the largest chunk of transactions. I read on coindesk I think 18 months ago that the author of that article determined it was 15%, without mentioning source or methods.

The reason why I am asking is due to that I write business reports, sometimes articles and have a general business interest in crypto-gambling, as I am involved with gambling myself. But as you pointed out, the anonymous nature make it harder to determine.   I had hoped there was some unknown method when the ICO whitepapers etc. had stated numbers. But then again, the ICO's seems to contain quite a bit of fluffed up data.

Hello,

Don't know if this is the right forum, but what is the gambling percenatge of the total crypto-economies?  I read in some ICO document, maybe it was Betkings that it was 60%. I read 15% somewhere else.

Anyone know an accurate number and statistical source?

I agree, to a certain extent.  ICO's is a way of this new economy. but many have pointed out that there are scamsters in the ICO arena, and that is also true. Scamsters is not to 'learn about crypto' but it's more a fundamental lack of due diligence and legal avenues in case they are scamsters.

My concern is that the scammy ICO's will cause issues with the valuation of the larger coins even, such as Bitcoin and ETH. The ICO's raise from small hoddlers, and then cash out = pricing collapse. When the price collapse then other investors looking for ICO's, will think they are getting a poor deal and thus stay on the sidelines until prices have been restablished.

When the IPO bubble blew up in the late 90's, it affected many companies, even some with very good and promising business ideas, and nobody could raise money at all, at any costs. I'm concerned about the overall industry, when legit, promising ICO's cant raise money and it cause the larger cryptos to collapse, we have a situation similar to that of the aftermath of the dot com's bubble blowing up - a large hangover that lasted years.

Cuban's investment is in Unikrn, which is a eSports betting company, not sportsbetting, so it's completly unrelated to Wagerr or any other sportswagering ICO/Company.

I think if he invested in ALL then he would have not made money, imho, as there was a whole bunch of completely crazy ico's that nobody put money in.  Gnosis for instance had a price of $30 officially i think but the dutch auction caused price of $60. It's close to 300 today.
So if the criteria would have been to invest in ICO's that had some type of prelisting arrangment for kraken,polinex etc. I would estimate that such a filtering criteria would have rendered a profit of approx 400-500%.
Yes, crazy. But...I bought into etherum when it started to rise in early March and now have well over that percentage in ROI.  The market overall has been awesome. So even if you had held on to your bitcoins from 1st of Jan, at a $1000 until today, at 2500, that is also 150%. 
If i had bought in say something like gonsis for my previous etherum stash at 1st of March, even if it had the success of gonsis, 500%, I'd view it as a failure, as i would have exchanged one asset, for another that grew slower.

So consider that also in your equation: risk, reward and what you give up to invest into an ICO.  Invest into ALL i think is foolhardy to say the least.

I agree that IOTA seems neat, but it honestly seems like a pipe dream. They expect to be a backbone to Internet of things, which would require a whole lot of industry connections.  The main author, Sergei Popov, wrote an awesome paper, I give him that, but I would like to see actual traction, industry collaborations, test cases being implemented.
For the most part, when I look at a company to invest, ICO or IPO, I look at the background of the main guys, and what have they done in terms of pre-sales, connections and so forth, along with their technology, I look at the main developers and see if they have actually ever successfully launched a product before. Being smart, good developer doesn't mean they have what it takes to make a consumer focused application and bring it to market.

I would love to set up a website and actually look critically on the ICO's, but would like to find a group of peers to help the due diligence process. There are so many out there, that it should just be possible to find the true cherrys and pick them for investment targets.  If anyone reading this asks the question: I don't think im an expert, but I have done development for 30 years, including cryptography, payment processing, banking infrastructure, consulting for venture capital companies and launched several companies that developed products. So I at least have some relevant experience.

As far goes generally about ICO's: the unregulated market is a two-edged sword. It make it easy for people/developers to raise money and its now the wild wild west. I'm a bit of libertarian with anarchistic tendencies; I don't like overbearing goverment regulation. But critical analysis of ICO's I do think is required to avoid people to fall into things that are not good investment targets or outright scams.

There are good automation tools for chrome etc. One issue is bot-prevention, i.e. captchas.  So while the program is not hard, the issue is cricumvention of anti-bot tools.

Xbiv,

I found your numbers interesting. Where did you derive the 'capitalization' from?  I.e. the 'real' numbers?

My bad, they do have some source code.  Not much, but something. However, disclaimer: I'm a developer with 30 years of experience. What they have is very rudimentary, and dont constitute something that could serve as to raise $185 million on.  So yes, I agree: extremely overvalued.  The issue with large software projects is that they are very risky. In the case of EOS, it's very ambitious indeed and have one single developer committing to it right now, and the source code doesn't seem very ample; a few weeks worth of work perhaps, if my very quick look through was accurate. Their documents list 5 different guys working on it, with one guy listed doing documentation. It hardly sound like a project that just raised 185 million, but more of a garage stage. Sorry to be blunt, guys. Now, if they manipulate the EOS token price up, and sell out more of their own founder stake, in addition to the 185 million they raise, then what? Sorry to sound alarmist, but if you raise 185 million dollars for a project, it is to actually then USE the 185 million for the project. With such a budget, I would have thought they would have headhunted 20 of the best developers, given them tokens and a hefty salary with large completion bonuses, along with business developers, documentation specialists, legal compliance team.  Instead, there are 5 guys listed; and just a single guy committing code to github.

Here are my 2 cents on scams and legalities; I don't say they have done such a thing but:
1. When an entity raises funds for a project, the funds are to be used to further the business. Right now, i don't see them committing the capital raised to fulfill the plan.
2. An entity run and operated and developed from US must be registered as a security. Calling it a decentralized app, a coin etc. doesn't help since its largely run as an enterprise and thus fulfills the so called Hayes test. It does give me concern that the guys running EOS is not quite experienced in business or law to take the business to a multi-billion entity when they make such mistakes. Legal action could even blow up the entire project.
3. Looking at their EOS document; I saw nothing how they would use the proceeds of the ICO. if they lift out cash from the ICO it would have been better for those guys to legally define cash-outs. When they have omitted it, from a legal standpoint, they are ill served at such omissions. If teh main guy have control of the Ether  account, and no corporation behind it, then he very well can be subject to income tax on 185 million dollars. If they have a corporation, then the money is either investment, and the security must have been registered, or it is income, and must be paid tax on it. It's either or.

I think you get the point. The guys look a bit green, especially for guys that just raised 185 million dollars worth.

Haha! Great one!

To answer the question: if you are a founder, then you should not even take out a salary. The ICO tokens you get is the compensation you should enjoy, and the tokens should be distributed in a vested form, with a long term vesting period and cliff issuance.   If you take out any salary, it should be well below market salary, imho. If you go over market salary, and you don't produce in the ICO, then investors can go after you legally.

Well put, Tom. Some ICO's are scams, others are not. Put the legwork in, look at the founders, the business plan, market cap, issuance, terms and most of all; see if they have a viable product before investing. Look at the multiple. For instance, I saw a filestorage ICO that had a market cap of high 100's of millions if not billions, no product to show for. Highly competitive market, no track record in the sphere for the founders. I stayed out. Look for track record, viability, a product demo, and the financials. If they can't produce good financials, a well thought out business plan and pro forma, then they are not even competent to run a multi-million dollar business.

That said: ICO's is an exciting vehicle indeed and I see that there will be companies that can truly make it. Point in case; etherum for instance that raised their ICO at 30 cents per eth. Growth of 1000x in a few years. Its the same as during the dot com boom. Many crap companies will be seeking capital, but its about finding the ones that make it big. The guys that invested in Amazon in late 90's would be happy today, the guys that invested in Earthlink; not so much.

Sorry for the thread hogging: I just wonder, how many of these ICO's would be deemed a security via the Howey test. It does seem like most want to derive value for the users via the work input, either through fees, the growth of the userbase using the token and other metrics. It does seem like pretty much any and all ICO meet the howey test for a security. I believe that is why many ICO's state that they don't take funds from US investors.

Awesome point, KingDS. People creating ICO's should realize the difference between an ICO and decentralized application, governance and that of a security.  There are people that want to use ICO's to raise funds now for 'normal' business ventures, such as properties, exploration and so forth. I believe an ICO is not the right vehicle for said activities but they would rather find themselves quickly in legal problems with entites such as the SEC and other governmental bodies.

It's a bit of 1999, when everyone wanted to add a .com behind their name, go public and raise money. The ICO's are unregulated, and so fast to promote so even worse. The way to 'stop' it, is not the answer, but hopefully, the investors in ICO's will start to do their homework. A few simple things:
1. Invest on trackrecord.
2. Look at founders.
3. Look at business plan and if they have functioning systems. Don't invest in a development project.
4. Look at eval. If an ico raise 1 million and have a float of 10% is the company worth 10 million? Can it be? Use math.  EOS for instance. 185 million raise, billion dollars in eval and they have shown nothing except a fluffed up whitepaper.

Just as a tidbit: I didn't invest in Etherum, after sitting with about 10,000 USD worth. I chose not to. Why? Buterins lack of track record, their budget was kinda silly '10 million for development' and so forth. So yeah, im strict and don't get it right, but im a conservative investor.  I also develop my own concepts, so i sink my money into my own projects, that I control, can see and truly believe in.

All i can say...wow. When looking at that transaction history...scary.  Have anyone of the readers here invested into EOS and what was the reason in doing so? The white paper looked good, granted, but it was basically just snippets from other papers, put togther nicely.  No code, no real info, just a sales pitch pretty much. Words, not substance.