|
So how is this still paying 4.08% a year, what's the business model?
|
|
|
|
Our LTC bankroll took a serious hit last week but it's getting up again. It might take a while, but hey - investing is long-time, right?
Anyway, there a 3 things that should make investors' life a bit better:
1. The max bet profit is at 0.5% of each bankroll
As I announced earlier, I feel this is the right move that will make site profit more stable (so that investors can sleep better without worrying about their coins), yet still keep the amounts OK for players.
2. The commission on LTC investments is lowered from 50% to 35% till 31st December 2020
I'd be more than happy to lower the commission to zero, but the site still needs to pay referral bonuses and rakeback. At 35% more coins will go to the actual investors and hopefully help them recover after the recent losses.
3. Dilution fee concept is being abandoned
I've been waiting quite a while to give the dilution fee green light, but something did not feel right to me. I have finally decided to abandon this idea for a simple reason - I don't want to keep invested coins "locked-in" and penalize investors for any operations on their coins. IMO the dilution fee would do more harm than good.
Cheers,
Ethan
1. As long as this doesn't substantially affect how much is wagered, then it's fine. 2. This is very appreciated. I lost a lot during that run, it will still take some time to recover, but this will help. 3. I'm fine with this too as some users aren't "pure" investors but they also gamble sometimes, which is a behaviour that other investors benefit from. Related to this, you may consider granting points for investing as you did in the past, as this may also make some investors more willing to play. |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone still use this? What's your opinion? What about Coilend?
|
|
|
|
This is why dilution fees can be a good idea. Dilution fees would have at least spread some to the existing investors who got crushed and then had their shares reduced by the further investments.
I've been looking at the dilution fees again - and honestly, the data from the last few months shows that profit from the dilution fee would be really minimal (even negligible), while on the other hand it might stop some investors from playing, which could hurt long-term investors even more. I've seen many investors closing their investments, playing a bit and re-opening again. This is not rare and in the past it boosted site performance quite a lot - yes, some of them lost. So in the end I am leaning towards the opinion that the dilution fee would penalize the investors who divest to play, while it would not provide enough profit for long-term investors to justify it. This week Scott and me will discuss the commission model and if it can be improved, especially given the recent profit volatility and loses. Cheers, Ethan Well, if you change the system, don't do it in a way that reduces expected return to investors nor is unfavourable for those of us that lost a ton during that LTC massacre. I would say to just keep it as it is. |
|
|
|
It does make sense if you consider that YOLOdice has other costs too, such as rakeback which goes up to 30%. I'm sure they'd rather have investors handle that instead of hoping that players lose to pay rakeback. The alternate system (50% of net profits) also has it's own pros and cons. For example, if a player lost 50 BTC and then won it back, commission would get paid as if that player lost 50 BTC.
I'm fine with the system, it makes sense to me. It can simply be confusing, it was for me at first as I lost a lot during that LTC massacre. It will probably take years to recover from that. |
|
|
|
Not everyone would break even after wagering for quite some time, it is either you win or you lose but the fact is that alot more people actually lose so it would still be profitable for the investor
Of course, that's why I said short term. On the long run, investors make 0.5% of what the player wagers. I was just pointing out that the current system makes it possible for a player to be losing money or breaking even while investors are losing money, because of that constant 0.5% fee. I would say that short term for casino investment is one of the worst ideas out there for investment. Casino investment is a long term thing, I know a guy who works at a casino in an upper management type of position and when we talk he says that even the casino itself (which doesn't accept investments) doesn't make profit every day, they lose money some days and they win some days and the long story short is they do make a profit in the long term. There are times when they lose so much that 2 months profits are all erased, but then there are days when they make so much money that they could literally retire and never work again, it is really a wild wild ride. Only thing that makes sense in casino investment is to have it long term so you can both have the losses and wins so that you could be in profit, in short term you could just face losses. I'm not complaining about volatility caused by players winning, anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't invest. I'm just saying that the current commission system makes it possible for investors to lose money even when players aren't winning, which is strange. |
|
|
|
Not everyone would break even after wagering for quite some time, it is either you win or you lose but the fact is that alot more people actually lose so it would still be profitable for the investor
Of course, that's why I said short term. On the long run, investors make 0.5% of what the player wagers. I was just pointing out that the current system makes it possible for a player to be losing money or breaking even while investors are losing money, because of that constant 0.5% fee. |
|
|
|
|
That makes sense, I didn't consider that. Even if a player is just break even, it can be destroying investors because they are paying 0.5% of what that gambler is wagering. Expected value is positive, but short-term, investors could ironically be losing money when the player is also losing money.
|
|
|
|
When we announced the lowering of max bet profit a few investors added almost 1,000 LTC (maybe deciding that it's a good moment to invest) and existing investments' share shrank.
From that moment site profit increased a bit, but here's the thing: investors that had certain share in loses when the bankroll was going down had smaller share in profits when the profit was going up. The same happened with my investments, they lost disproportionally to site profit changes.
Investing in crypto games is never a guarantee of profit. There is a risk involved - and I strongly believe that people invest only what they can afford to lose. It's like with being the player - the odds however are in your favor, but it's still a game of chance. Shit happens. I believe credible sites care about investors' coins the best they can (I know I do), but even within the rules of the site big winnings can happen. Thankfully investing is a long-term game, and it usually pays off to those that are patient enough.
Cheers,
Ethan
How is it that before that player won so much I lost way more than I should based on the percentage of the bankroll that I had yesterday? It’s like if other investors divested just before that gambler started winning, leaving me “exposed” to the player. And then, after the player stopped winning, they invested. It’s as if those that divested knew that the player was going to win. |
|
|
|
|
I don't understand how that player is winning so much. It's not like they made a few gigantic bets and won them, they are consistently betting and making money, so it being just variance becomes decreasingly likely.
|
|
|
|
I lost in the last hours way more LTC than I should have lost based on my percentage of the bankroll (around 2.5 times as much). I'm at -61% ROI, but the bankroll didn't decrease that much. How is that possible?
It might be because there were a bunch of new large investments in the bankroll that took part in a lot of the upside and almost none of the downside. These investments are all up at least 10-15%:  And who made all those new investments, the gambler? I don't really understand what happened, it's like the gambler divested a lot, then started playing, crushing the rest of investors that stayed and now has reinvested again. |
|
|
|
|
I lost in the last hours way more LTC than I should have lost based on my percentage of the bankroll (around 2.5 times as much). I'm at -61% ROI, but the bankroll didn't decrease that much. How is that possible?
|
|
|
|
If the hot wallet is consistently empty, then it's obvious they are very conservative with the amount they keep there.
This situation is indeed not good for bitvest active players although I do believe that bitvest has their own policy about when to refill the hotwallet. Afaik bitvest has low number of staffs, probably lightlord is the only one who handle this job so once lightlord is having other things to do IRL then it will take longer time to refill the hotwallet. I'm not really sure if they have a system to notify owner whenever the hotwallet is getting close to empty. It will be good system so the situation of empty hotwallet can be minimized. That's fine. I would just keep bigger hot wallets to prevent this from happening too much. There's risk in a hot wallet being stolen but also in people losing interest in gambling or investing if they are annoyed about not being to withdraw as fast as they expect. |
|
|
|
|
If the hot wallet is consistently empty, then it's obvious they are very conservative with the amount they keep there.
|
|
|
|
It should have been hard to win so much as the max bet would be shrinking as he won. That should have slowed down the win rate as it dropped, yet he still managed to win 4600.
Exactly, that's why it's so impressive. It's like they have been targetting max profit and consistently winning (so I guess he was making big bets with a high probability of winning). |
|
|
|
|
How is that possible, was the player targetting and hitting the max profit all the time?
|
|
|
|
What's happened there with Litecoin players? My investment dropped to -76% ROI  they seem to have played some lucky bastards here and get a huge win, almost all LTC from casino bankroll. for a long time, we can't get a positive here, it will be difficult now to cover the loss. But maybe is now the right time to start LTC investment here. The candlestick must be green in the next days.  That's crazy. How is that possible, was the player targetting and hitting the max profit all the time? |
|
|
|
Please refill the BTC hot wallet.
You have reported this thing few time in the last few months, seems that the hot wallet is not filled with big amount of money so it is fast to get empty due to withdrawal requests by players. Does it mean that bitvest do refill the hot wallet once it is empty only? If so, I do think it is better if bitvest keep on refilling the hot wallet once the amount is less than xx amount so no players will complain about it several times. I agree, they should leave more money there, I have had to wait too much in several of my past withdrawals. |
|
|
|
|
Please refill the BTC hot wallet.
|
|
|
|
My doge investment at another site is doing almost the same similar profit, but it does vary a lot. I think people who play with doge take a lot more risk, that's the issue (or the feature of doge I guess from the investor's point of view). But I've seen people win huge too, so I'd be waiting for things to "average" out to house edge.
Which other site? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
