Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest

[dooglus]

I know some of that dumping was caused by myself....  used the clams as collateral to short other coins.  got called so clams got dumped.  Wasn't intended.. 

Part of the exposure having clams margin traded, and able to be used as collateral on Poloniex.   

That's very interesting. It hadn't occurred to me that dumping could happen accidentally, as a result of a collateralized loan going bad.

So let's say you were shorting ETH using CLAM as collateral. That means you borrowed some ETH on the lending market and then sold it for BTC, hoping for the price to drop. When the price continued to increase your CLAM was automatically dumped for BTC, and that BTC was used together with the BTC from selling the ETH to buy back the ETH at the new higher price, and then the loan was repaid. So the lender gets his ETH back plus a little interest. You're out all your CLAM. So where did the value you lost go to? Other than the lender making a little interest, and the exchange making a little in fees, I guess the rest of your value ended up with ETH traders who bought cheap from you and sold back higher when you got margin called.

I find the mechanism both interesting and confusing. But also offtopic here I guess. So I'll shut up about it.

[chilly2k]

I know some of that dumping was caused by myself....  used the clams as collateral to short other coins.  got called so clams got dumped.  Wasn't intended.. 

Part of the exposure having clams margin traded, and able to be used as collateral on Poloniex.   

That's very interesting. It hadn't occurred to me that dumping could happen accidentally, as a result of a collateralized loan going bad.

So let's say you were shorting ETH using CLAM as collateral. That means you borrowed some ETH on the lending market and then sold it for BTC, hoping for the price to drop. When the price continued to increase your CLAM was automatically dumped for BTC, and that BTC was used together with the BTC from selling the ETH to buy back the ETH at the new higher price, and then the loan was repaid. So the lender gets his ETH back plus a little interest. You're out all your CLAM. So where did the value you lost go to? Other than the lender making a little interest, and the exchange making a little in fees, I guess the rest of your value ended up with ETH traders who bought cheap from you and sold back higher when you got margin called.

I find the mechanism both interesting and confusing. But also offtopic here I guess. So I'll shut up about it.

   That's exactly how it works.   I didn't lose all my clams but most of what I risked.  I still had about 20% of my collateral after it was all done.   Polo did a pretty good job keeping track of everything.  They have to account for multiple trades at the same time, IE they need to sell assets over several buy orders at different price.  At least I can lick my wounds and chalk it up to a learning experience. 

[ottodv]

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.

Couldn't you more or less implement this as a negative offsite amount?
People who want to go back to the old situation with no offsite would need to put -90% of their onsite coins as their "offsite" investment.

[Dabs]

Perhaps you could put withdraw limits on JD to help save the CLAM market.

Put it to a vote maybe?

The limit should be how much CLAM you actually have in your account. Not more. (Oh I wish I could withdraw more.)

[jaysabi]

Perhaps you could put withdraw limits on JD to help save the CLAM market.

Put it to a vote maybe?

The limit should be how much CLAM you actually have in your account. Not more. (Oh I wish I could withdraw more.)

He was being facetious and calling back the debacle over the whale digger and the notion that the ends justify the means and long as the ends is maintaining a high CLAM price. Obviously, no one is going to support a method of limiting withdrawing CLAMs you already own, and Doog (so far as I can predict) would never be so tyrannical as to suggest such a notion.

[Glucose]

Perhaps you could put withdraw limits on JD to help save the CLAM market.

Put it to a vote maybe?

It doesn't look like a good idea to me. People should be allowed to withdraw all they want and sell all they want.

Lower price is also the occasion to buy more if you already have clams / or for new users to enter into the clam market at a lower price.

[andulolika]

Perhaps you could put withdraw limits on JD to help save the CLAM market.

Put it to a vote maybe?

It doesn't look like a good idea to me. People should be allowed to withdraw all they want and sell all they want.

Lower price is also the occasion to buy more if you already have clams / or for new users to enter into the clam market at a lower price.

I also believe is a great chance to get cheap clams, its just a matter of time.

[dooglus]

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.

Couldn't you more or less implement this as a negative offsite amount?
People who want to go back to the old situation with no offsite would need to put -90% of their onsite coins as their "offsite" investment.

People who want no offsite just set their offsite amount to 0 - that works fine already.

I'm talking about people who want no bankroll risk at all, and only want to stake.

I could let them set their offsite to -1x ie. have their offsite amount be equal and opposite to their onsite amount, so they cancel each other out, but the problem is that your onsite amount changes as players win and lose, but your offsite amount is constant. So they wouldn't stay equal-and-opposite for very long.

[dooglus]

Obviously, no one is going to support a method of limiting withdrawing CLAMs you already own, and Doog (so far as I can predict) would never be so tyrannical as to suggest such a notion.

Of course.

[dooglus]

I was doing some speed testing by running a bot against the Just-Dice server. I made 1000 bets of 0.001 CLAM at 49.5% and ended up with a profit of 0.088 - 88 units profit over 1000 bets. That seemed pretty unlikely to me, so I ran a simulation of 100 players each making 1000 bets at 49.5% with a 1% house edge.

Only 2 of the 100 runs ended up with over 80 units of profit after 1000 bets (click charts to enlarge; the green line is the expected profit):

  

I extended the simulation to run for 100k bets for 100 users. Note how it takes almost 60k bets until all 100 players are running at a loss:

  

[andulolika]

I was doing some speed testing by running a bot against the Just-Dice server. I made 1000 bets of 0.001 CLAM at 49.5% and ended up with a profit of 0.088 - 88 units profit over 1000 bets. That seemed pretty unlikely to me, so I ran a simulation of 100 players each making 1000 bets at 49.5% with a 1% house edge.

Only 2 of the 100 runs ended up with over 80 units of profit after 1000 bets (click charts to enlarge; the green line is the expected profit):

  

I extended the simulation to run for 100k bets for 100 users. Note how it takes almost 60k bets until all 100 players are running at a loss:

  

The only thing i learned from that is that if an account seems unlucky run from it .

[dooglus]

The only thing i learned from that is that if an account seems unlucky run from it .

I think it's the wrong lesson. How it seems at the start is entirely unrelated to how it seems later on. For example, check out the highlighted line in this chart - it has a horrible start, but ends up doing pretty well:

  

The only thing lesson to take away from these charts is that the variance with a 1% edge is huge.

[andulolika]

The only thing i learned from that is that if an account seems unlucky run from it .

I think it's the wrong lesson. How it seems at the start is entirely unrelated to how it seems later on. For example, check out the highlighted line in this chart - it has a horrible start, but ends up doing pretty well:

  

The only thing lesson to take away from these charts is that the variance with a 1% edge is huge.

Most of the times you prove my stuff wrong lol.

[SebastianJu]

Anyone knows why CLAM price is going down ? Is there a new digger whale ? Anything I should know and I don't ?

Thx for your answers

Looks like someone withdrew around 7k from Just-Dice and sold it.

I see people in the Just-Dice chat complaining about how they feel betrayed by such behaviour. But shouldn't people be allowed to sell if they want to without incurring our wrath?

Sure they should be allowed. In fact those complaining complain only because the worth of their own clams are dropped and they can't sell it anymore now for the higher price... for the moment. So it really is not worth a complaint, when one would have no intention of selling at one point in time, which no one can say of itself, then it wouldn't matter what the price is. So these complaints are only saying someone other dropped my potential selling price.

Well, now it is a buying price.

Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.

[ranlo]

Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.

This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.

[SebastianJu]

Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.

This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.

The thing that happened with the digger was even worse. He pushed the price constantly, lowering his profits on the way even further by pushing others to go out.

On the other side, maybe selling such a huge amount of clams would have been too hard? Don't know if so big buyers are out there.

[ranlo]

Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.

This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.

The thing that happened with the digger was even worse. He pushed the price constantly, lowering his profits on the way even further by pushing others to go out.

On the other side, maybe selling such a huge amount of clams would have been too hard? Don't know if so big buyers are out there.

It's not hard. You just stagger the sales. With CLAM it's ridiculously easy due to volume. Basically, let's say you want to exit asap and the price is 0.001 BTC. You would list:

5% 0.001
5% 0.0099
5% 0.0098

and keep going down. Which does two things: 1) it creates a bit of a wall which usually pushes the price UP instead of down, and 2) minifies the damage done by a dump.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.

This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.

The thing that happened with the digger was even worse. He pushed the price constantly, lowering his profits on the way even further by pushing others to go out.

On the other side, maybe selling such a huge amount of clams would have been too hard? Don't know if so big buyers are out there.

It's not hard. You just stagger the sales. With CLAM it's ridiculously easy due to volume. Basically, let's say you want to exit asap and the price is 0.001 BTC. You would list:

5% 0.001
5% 0.0099
5% 0.0098

and keep going down. Which does two things: 1) it creates a bit of a wall which usually pushes the price UP instead of down, and 2) minifies the damage done by a dump.

it may minify it, but it won't minimize it

Minify is the Ministry of Wi-Fi in Orwell's sequel to 1984, tentatively titled, "Fast and Furious Google - or Mike Hearn's Revenge".  Plot summary - Mike Hearn drives down the A1 from London to Cornwall on the wrong side of the road.  Stops to pick up lead singer from Spice Girls cover band.  Catches STD, fired by R3, goes to work for Blockstream as Greg Maxwell's pool boy - arrested in Halted for trying to shoplift Raspberry Pi - bailed out by cypherdoc using Hashfast preferred stock.

[ranlo]

Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.

This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.

The thing that happened with the digger was even worse. He pushed the price constantly, lowering his profits on the way even further by pushing others to go out.

On the other side, maybe selling such a huge amount of clams would have been too hard? Don't know if so big buyers are out there.

It's not hard. You just stagger the sales. With CLAM it's ridiculously easy due to volume. Basically, let's say you want to exit asap and the price is 0.001 BTC. You would list:

5% 0.001
5% 0.0099
5% 0.0098

and keep going down. Which does two things: 1) it creates a bit of a wall which usually pushes the price UP instead of down, and 2) minifies the damage done by a dump.

it may minify it, but it won't minimize it

Minify is the Ministry of Wi-Fi in Orwell's sequel to 1984, tentatively titled, "Fast and Furious Google - or Mike Hearn's Revenge".  Plot summary - Mike Hearn drives down the A1 from London to Cornwall on the wrong side of the road.  Stops to pick up lead singer from Spice Girls cover band.  Catches STD, fired by R3, goes to work for Blockstream as Greg Maxwell's pool boy - arrested in Halted for trying to shoplift Raspberry Pi - bailed out by cypherdoc using Hashfast preferred stock.

I'm not seeing how Hearn is in any way related to CLAM... I've never heard of him being heavily invested in it.

[tspacepilot]

Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.

This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.

The thing that happened with the digger was even worse. He pushed the price constantly, lowering his profits on the way even further by pushing others to go out.

On the other side, maybe selling such a huge amount of clams would have been too hard? Don't know if so big buyers are out there.

It's not hard. You just stagger the sales. With CLAM it's ridiculously easy due to volume. Basically, let's say you want to exit asap and the price is 0.001 BTC. You would list:

5% 0.001
5% 0.0099
5% 0.0098

and keep going down. Which does two things: 1) it creates a bit of a wall which usually pushes the price UP instead of down, and 2) minifies the damage done by a dump.

it may minify it, but it won't minimize it

Minify is the Ministry of Wi-Fi in Orwell's sequel to 1984, tentatively titled, "Fast and Furious Google - or Mike Hearn's Revenge".  Plot summary - Mike Hearn drives down the A1 from London to Cornwall on the wrong side of the road.  Stops to pick up lead singer from Spice Girls cover band.  Catches STD, fired by R3, goes to work for Blockstream as Greg Maxwell's pool boy - arrested in Halted for trying to shoplift Raspberry Pi - bailed out by cypherdoc using Hashfast preferred stock.

I'm not seeing how Hearn is in any way related to CLAM... I've never heard of him being heavily invested in it.

Pretty sure it's some sort of sarcasm which the author just needed to get off his chest.  Seems the CLAM thread just happened to be the one open when TDFB needed to express himself.