I think the solution for this is to offer staking-only to those people, so you can continue to collect staking rewards (minus the 10% commission) without being involved in the bankroll at all.

It will take me a while to implement the staking-only feature. Until I do, I won't drop the maximum offsite multiplier below 25x.

so the max profit has halved, but the amount invested is still above 1,000,000.
Is this because not everybody was max leveraged?

23:40:33 INFO: 832,344 CLAM were dug up and 747,164 CLAM were staked for a total of 1,579,508 CLAM
23:40:33 INFO: Just-Dice's onsite bankroll of 1,126,021 CLAM represents 71.29% of that amount
23:40:33 INFO: the total bankroll of 41,993,841 CLAM is made up of 1,126,021 CLAM onsite and 40,867,820 CLAM offsite
23:40:33 INFO: the average multiplier (total / onsite) is 37.29x

Oh it's credited by auto exchange.
Did you change auto exchange target coin before?

Auto exchange coin is determined when your mined coin is about to be confirmed.
It seems like you once selected myriadcoin and one day you changed it to jackpotcoin.

What coin is set for auto exchange now?

We will check your account if there's error.

We know this blind like auto exchange would make you really stuffy.
We will add a dashboard to show your all coins, where and how much coins are waiting to be exchanged.

Hi
There was some error on validating darkcoin transaction id lately.

It's fixed now.
Sorry for inconvenience.

The sharp deterioration of the public finances in
many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”—
a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional
measure to restore debt sustainability. ¹
The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance
is possible and there is a belief that it will never be
repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen
by some as fair). There have been illustrious supporters,
including Pigou, Ricardo, Schumpeter, and—until he
changed his mind—Keynes. The conditions for success
are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks
of the alternatives, which include repudiating public
debt or inflating it away (these, in turn, are a particular
form of wealth tax—on bondholders—that also falls on
nonresidents).

There is a surprisingly large amount of experience to
draw on, as such levies were widely adopted in Europe
after World War I and in Germany and Japan after
World War II. Reviewed in Eichengreen (1990), this
experience suggests that more notable than any loss of
credibility was a simple failure to achieve debt reduction,
largely because the delay in introduction gave
space for extensive avoidance and capital flight—in turn
spurring inflation.

The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to
precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt
ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of
15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent
on households with positive net wealth.²

1. As for instance in Bach (2012).

2. IMF staff calculation using the Eurosystem’s Household
Finance and Consumption Survey (Household Finance and
Consumption Network, 2013); unweighted average.

[...] there is arguably negative consequences. If something has no positive side, and quite possibly a negative side, then it is only rational to get rid of it.

So a loss like the one we suffer now isn't distributed evenly over investors. So the losing investors will be unhappy. So the site will lose investors, which is bad for everyone.

That, in a nutshell, is my argument why invest-trading hurts j-d. And the complementary argument is: there's no good reason to *want* invest-trading: j-d already has a gambling mechanism. Investments should be just that: investments.

More importantly however, whatever you think the reason for this is, please look at nakowa's yesterday winning charts and tell me that there is no "exploitable" pattern to it:

You lose when you divest at +1000 and the profits go to +5000 and never come back.  Or invest at -1000 and profits drop to -5000 and don't come back.  But if they keep going past both your trigger points (-1000 and +1000, say) then you win, and the committed investors lose.

The edge should under no circumstances be changed.  The 1% edge is why just-dice has a market advantage and 2 million BTC wagered.

If he raises it, gamblers will instantly go play at a competitor with 1%.   Adjust the max bet if you'd like, but changing the edge would be a terrible business decision.