That's a bold faced lie.
You were the first investor because you knew when it was launching and originally received 10% dilution fees from everyone.
I was certainly an early investor, but I don't see how that changes anything -- especially on account that Daniel reimbursed everyone for the 10% dilution fees out of pocket. Anyway, my net profit/loss from dilution fees is pretty negligible. Not sure exactly, but I suspect it's < 1% of my investing loss (which with hindsight my investment has been the single biggest financial mistake of my life  ) But I'm not going to complain, I knew the risks and based on the current volumes it's seems pretty likely the site will get out of the red in the next 6 months (in fact, I've recently seen it in positive profit briefly twice so far during the crazy whale action). Regardless, I really don't know what more you expect. The site is already running with no commissions, did a pretty big refund to investors and lowered the worst-case kelly. If you're not prepared to absorb (a lot of) variance, don't join the bankroll. |
|
|
|
Let me guess who that reasonably large investor is...
Could it be you? The former site owner?
Yes, I was speaking about myself when I said: "as a reasonably large investor in the bankroll". And just to be clear, I am doing it own volition (not as part of the sale or anything) and under the same terms as everyone else. I'm a bit of a fan of +EV deals, and trust Daniel with the amount I have invested. (Although don't take that as an endorsement). I've only invested what I'm ok with losing, (which is a real possibility with an extreme variance investment like BaB and an angry whale). I've also similarly invested in other casino bankrolls in the past (as well as things like margin lending), when I thought it made sense. |
|
|
|
A site owner, who cannot finance his own game, taking a profit while the investors that finance the entire operation take a loss will never sit right with me.
Hm? Well Daniel hasn't been taking a commission for a while now. But as a reasonably large investor in the bankroll, I would have no problems even if he was. His job is to keep the site running, improve it, keep bringing in players etc. And it's investors job to eat the variance. He shouldn't really need to worry about things out of his control (like if players or investors are getting unlucky) While I would never encourage people to invest (after all, it's more of a good-odds gamble than anything) it seems like a perfectly reasonable arrangement to me, with investors having no commitment and an expected 75% of the sites profit. And in fact, I think is more beneficial for the long-term prospects of the site (e.g. if you want to start hiring and have an advertising budget .. having a stable income is pretty important). But I think it's worth emphasizing, the whole reason the site gives investors so much of it's expected profits is precisely as compensation for risks like this. Assuming there's no funny business happening, I don't think anyone has any legitimate reason to be complaining. |
|
|
|
But I can't imagine they can be too far apart in the amount they request inorder to process a withdrawal since they are instant and not in batch payments as other sites offer to their users.
Both bustadice and bustabit now offer users the choice between instant and batch withdrawals (depending if they want the money instantly, or would rather wait and save on fees). The fees for both sites should generally be pretty much identical, but I suspect "batch withdrawals" in bustabit are a bit faster, as it's a high volume site. But really, both sites have a pretty state of the art deposit/withdrawal system  |
|
|
|
Please explain the investment option better. What does "investors can secure some of their funds" what does that mean? How is an off-site website going to keep out funds in our control? How much funds are in our control? As far as I understand our funds are in your control since we deposit it into your wallet. What is the minimum investment amount?
Let's say you have 10 BTC that you think is a good idea to invest in bustabit, you could just deposit it all and let bustabit manage it. But the alternative is you could deposit some of it (say 5 BTC) and then tell bustabit "btw i have 5 BTC offsite that I want to risk" and bustabit will increase your exposure (and the site's bankroll, and thus max-profit) by the "offsite" 5 btc. The benefit of using the offsite, is that you fully retain control of it (you literally never even send it to the site). But the downside is you also risk getting "margin called" (basically if ever a max-win would result in your onsite being negative, you get margin-called and the site forcable sets your offsite to 0). And then if you don't put more money in the bankroll you can potentially miss out on any recovery. There's pro's and cons to both approaches. I would err on the side of using offsite if you plan on checking in on your investment on a dailyish basis. But if you want to leave it and come back 3 months later, I'd definitely just forget about the whole offsite thing. Min investment amount is 0.01 BTC i believe. Be warned though, there's really a ridiculous amount of variance. A couple days ago, I watched an ~800 btc swing in profits. I would treat it as a bet with good odds, more than a traditional investment. |
|
|
|
I think in the near future bustadice will adopt these feature since fees are getting higher and gamblers complain much about this. It is just that at this point in time some important issues must be settled first before looking into other matters, but we will go through this.
It's worth noting that bustadice/bustabit is already fully segwit compatible (although uses p2sh wrapping for compatibility) and has what is without a doubt the most advanced deposit/withdrawal system in bitcoin fullstop, and is able to pass that cost-savings is passed directly to users. Right now you can do a queued withdrawal for 1.7 bits (~0.016 USD) or an instant withdrawal for (~0.083 USD). And those fees aren't subsidized, that's actually at-cost thanks to a crazy amount of optimizations The issue is just that there is currently no bech32 address support, but the trivial way to do it (which might take an hour of coding) can potentially come at a bit of a privacy hit to the hot wallet, so it's worth waiting and doing it properly (i.e. making sure the site can both send to and receive from bech32 addresses, and occasionally use them for change). |
|
|
|
|
It's now up a net of 50 BTC. I think that makes for like an 850 BTC swing. New record?
|
|
|
|
|
Sending to native segwit addresses (i.e. a bech32 address) is pretty easy, but what a site like bustadice probably really wants to is (occasionally) also use bech32 change addresses in order to make it difficult to ever reliably tell what is change and what is the "destination". If you can prevent the identification (and creation) of change enough, you can pretty much break tracking services that primarily rely on wallet clustering to work.
Definitely a cool feature to add though
|
|
|
|
Would be nice to see some public stats appearing and that, as I think BaB has been doing like >4000 BTC a day for the last few days  My site tracks the stats again since a few days: https://dicesites.com/bustabit Wagered is indeed massive, 8135 BTC on just last Friday. Note: profit on my site is not yet in sync with on-site profit (not sure why, probably need to do some commission recalculation.) Oh very cool! Didn't know stats were (yet) exposed. |
|
|
|
How has a site that is only 1 week old lost 35% and allow for people to get margin called at 2+ leverage when you preach safe bankroll measures?
Bustabit is a site with ~4 years of history and a huge player base. I think without a doubt it is the bitcoin casino with the most volume, at the moment. Allowing bets bigger than 1 BTC was very frequently requested by the whales, and now it has been done for the first time -- there is a lot of action. So honestly there's no surprise there's been huge swings. I saw dozens of rounds that had more than 20 BTC in play. I mean, when I ran the site there was at least one month with swings significantly over 400 bitcoin. As an investor, I would brace for swings much bigger than that now as the volume and bet sizes right now seems to be dwarfing what we previously had I'd honestly be extremely cautious about using offsite unless you're prepared to watch your investment a lot, and top up your investment as needed. There's nothing really safe about investing in a casino bankroll (that's why the casino offers it: it pays you in in EV to eat the variance) so using offsite for anything other than lower your counter-party risk is something I'd strongly advise against. --- There were some excellent simulations created by another investor (which was sent to me privately, so I'm not sure if I can share). But there's really a non-negligible chance that you can easily lose the majority of your investment due to the swings. If you can afford that risk, it's a pretty good deal (imo) as there is some great expected bankroll growth and expected profit prospects. But it's certainly not a charity, the entire reason that the site is willing to give up 75% of it's expected profit is because it can't (or doesn't want to) take that risk itself. |
|
|
|
Does this mean that anyone who had offsite investment of 2 or 3 leverage lost all of their original investment?
Not quite sure, but there's been some pretty insane volume and variance happening. I think the site profit swung between -350 and 0 and back to -80 in a day. (or something like that?). Would be nice to see some public stats appearing and that, as I think BaB has been doing like >4000 BTC a day for the last few days I did notice that my stake % in the bankroll did jump a little, so I'm guessing that at least someone got margin-called. |
|
|
|
|
@dragonmaster2 actually, counter-intuitively from a maths point of view it doesn't really matter about the max-bet. What really affects the house, is actually the "attempted profit" they are trying to get. As an example, if you go to bustadice.com you are able to bet 2000 btc in a single bet (and take a ~98% chance of winning 20 BTC) or 1 bitcoin @ 21x!
The reason it largely doesn't matter, is because the house edge (1%) is based on the amount you bet, rather than on what you are trying to win. So if someone bet 2000 BTC to win 20 BTC, they would be "paying" 20 BTC in expected loss to the house. And if someone bet 1 BTC to attempt to win 20, they would be "paying" 0.01 BTC in EV to have a chance to win the same amount.
So from the house's perspective (at least in terms of expected bankroll growth) these two factors eliminate each other, meaning you should restrict the max-profit not the max bet.
So that raises the question: If the max-bet doesn't matter, why would bustabit even restrict it at all? Why doesn't it let people bet 2000 BTC like bustadice? And the answer to that is because as bustabit is a multiplayer game, someone winning a lot (in terms of frequency) can have a really big impact on other players, due to the stop loss for the casino (the forced cash out). Imagine that without the max bet rule, 2 whales were betting 1300 BTC a round (at 1.01x). This means every game would have a "force point" at 1.01x .. which would ruin the game for everyone else.
So that's the logic behind the max-bet rule, even though it doesn't really affect the risk per se
|
|
|
|
If 0.75% is the kelly, are you not worried that double that might be too high? The bankroll just lost over 200 btc to a player running 2 accounts to repeatedly hit that combined 1.5%.
Just for some background, twice the kelly isn't totally arbitrary. The kelly is the point in which your expected bankroll growth is maximized, risky any more passed that means you are over-risking funds and have less expected growth (but more expected profit). Once you get to 2x the kelly, your expected bankroll growth is 0. Anything passed that point puts you in negative expected bankroll growth (basically guaranteeing the house will bust if it's constantly being used). At least historically on bustabit, when there was a whale playing trying to hit max profit it was almost on a single account and they were the only one. The new system is designed to allow them to do that, without affecting anyone else (i.e. a single account can't ever force everyone to cash out) -- however if there's multiple accounts aiming at max profit like we saw yesterday, it kind of backfires a little. Honestly, I think what bustabit really needs is a bigger bankroll at the moment. |
|
|
|
Secondly, I'd love to see some stats. I'm sure Ryan has access to them, I wonder if he'd share what % of players on BaB were at -.5% or worse lifetime for the bonus. Since those are the only players that this change helps and you are claiming that this change helps well over 50% of the players.
I can compute when I have the time -- but honestly, for the vast majority of gamblers removing the bonus and the 0x was the right thing to do. When I did some analysis of who was playing for bonuses, I realized there's really only a handful of people doing so. The vast majority of people are simply playing and gambling to have fun. And of those people playing for bonuses, they were pretty much totally dominated by two bot-owners (who had several bots) that were exceedingly good at bonus play. One of which didn't have a huge bankroll, and couldn't play high-stakes and the other guy who net'd about 1.1M USD profit in a 1 year period. I think it's fantastic that people are taking the game so seriously and doing exactly what it was designed for -- but I think the mistake was that a 1% bonus was small enough that casual players assumed it wasn't worth worrying about. There's definitely a lot of potential for pvp gambling games, but I think the important thing is ensuring that people fully realize how competitive it is |
|
|
|
|
Congratulation on the smooth launch. I know bustabit is in capable hands!
|
|
|
|
I'll post here to avoid the speculation rule Maidenvoyage was looking to withdraw ~109 Bitcoin from Moneypot to buy into the BetKing ICO back in June/July 2017.
Moneypot didn't let him withdraw and forced him to remain invested in Moneypot with the promise that if Moneypot didn't earn enough profit from player losses to pay back Maidenvoyage the full amount he lost (31 btc?) since investing in Moneypot that they would pay this amount from their own pocket.
If they didn't have 31 BTC then it was obvious that a site with no traffic would not generate enough profit to pay that back or that you could pay out of your own pocket with the huge increase in Bitcoin price from July to December.
It's now February and Moneypot didn't make enough profit to pay back Maidenvoyage and they haven't paid out of their own pocket either.
Since July Moneypot tried to do an ICO, presumabley this was the plan to raise the funds to pay back Maidenvoyage by December, but it failed to raise the amount needed and was cancelled.
Then there was the merge with MonsterByte that again, I assumed would pay Maidenvoyage his losses with the funds they raised in their own ICO but that doesn't seem to be the case and it looks like MonsterByte might not even own or want to work with MoneyPot now.
I can't see how Moneypot can ever recoup 140 Bitcoin to pay back Maidenvoyage, certainly not by some debt token for a site with no traffic.
I think that Moneypot should send all Bitcoin they own to an address and sign a message proving they own the funds.
If they don't want to make the address public for whatever reason I, Ryan or dooglus can verify the signature and at least Maidenvoyage can get an idea of the maximum he might be able to recoup based on the reserves Moneypot has.
So that part I don't get, is what happened to the rest of guys money? So let's forget about the ~31 bitcoin of "investing loss" (be it by over-leverage, or related to the drama of not revoking db access to the former dev) and it's understandable that they could never recover that even despite their best efforts. But surely at the very least they can give him at least 100 of those bitcoin back, and an IOU for the rest? |
|
|
|
However I believe this whole fiasco regarding MP, starting from when Ryan owned it is evidence that the business model to run a casino with a community funded bankroll is not a sustainable business model.
I very much disagree. I'm sure there's better examples, but the one I am familiar with is bustadice.com which launched ~4 months ago with a community funded bankroll. Players have had access to a pretty cool gambling game, investors have done ok (up 62.9 BTC) and bustadice itself has made 19.98 BTC in commissions. When you consider the expenses (other than Daniels time and energy) are very minimal -- it really is a very sustainable business. Even if you assume there's going to be no player growth, it'll still probably end up clearing 500k USD/year in profits. It might not be mega-money, but it certainly a sustainable business model. There are simply too many competing interests for this model to succeed. The added competing interests of the app owners only amplified this issue.
Again, I'm going to disagree. Gambling is a huge industry, and it's such a scalable business. An extra player is pretty much pure profit. I will say having competing interest of app owners definitely makes it more challenging and stressing to manage and it's easy to feel like you have too many masters to serve. But I believe at it's core MoneyPot has a fundamentally strong business model. |
|
|
|
I think this balance of yours is gone since the site has been reloaded into it's next version for a couple of weeks now. From what I understand your old account will no longer be accessible and you were to create a new one if you wanted to continue using the site. Sorry to tell you this but wanting to save on the withdrawal fees cost you your $100 worth of bitcoin you left in your account.  Huh? This is definitely not true. No one's balance or details or anything has been affected. Any money on the site (even if it's been inactive for 3 years!) is still completely and instantly available. And FWIW, the withdrawal fees now are extremely low. It's currently 34.34 bits (~0.28 USD) to do a (non-instant) withdrawal that gets processed within a few hours or so. And if you want the withdrawal instantly, it's an extra 139.38 bits (like 1.15 USD) |
|
|
|
For reference, here was my post that was deleted: Being bound by an NDA means that you're explicitly not allowed to reveal all the details.
Ok, fair enough. So let me try establish what has been made public: * maidenvoyage deposits ~143 bitcoin * maidenvoyage wants to withdraw * maidenvoyage is asked to, and agrees to sign an NDA * maidenvoyage is not able to withdraw * moneypot will not discuss, citing the NDA Is this correct? Or am I missing something? So obviously the full story hasn't been made public, but looks incredibly incriminating on the surface. Especially combined with previously moneypot's recent decision to arbitrarily void it's agreement to buy back rubies. As it's obvious that maidenvoyage wants to talk publicly and get his money back, would you be willing to suspend the NDA if maidenvoyage also agrees to do so? I don't really think it's reasonable for them to delete my post and pretend it doesn't exist, so I've left them some trust feedback to make it visible. |
|
|
|
All other users that have an available balance are being paid out as explained previously. All announcements made recently remain the same.
Would you be willing to clear up why this user (with +100 btc) has not been paid out? When this drama happened last year, I believe the official reasoning was that in exchange for not withdrawing until the end of the year he would be given some fixed return (  ). I won't speculate as to why you made him sign an NDA, but a little bit of transparency would go a long way. I strongly believe everyone here (including me, and I'm sure maidenvoyage) wants MoneyPot to succeed (and not to mention, it's the only way everyone is made whole). But you are operating in a business and industry that is almost completely defined by trust. When I ran bustabit, in my time I presided over some pretty epic failures (not the least which included getting hacked). In each instance I was radically transparent about what happened, how the failures occurred and what I did to fix them. To the best of my knowledge, there was no lasting damage as people are very understanding that mistakes can occur but they understandably want certain assures. So I really think unless you can be clear, straight forward and honest with people -- it is quite literally impossible for your business to survive. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
