🌀 Galactix.io - Cosmic Crypto Casino 🚀 3000 Games! 🎰

[babygun]

Well, I agree with Icopress, it's not worth it to remove the requirement as there can be many cases of abuse once the requirement is removed but actually making the requirement to $500 could be still helpful as it's still not for everyone to reach or cross that $500 wagering requirement but the ones who are eager to mine token will get happy as they now have to wager just $500 instead of $1000 to begin mining the token.

Every requirement makes it harder for abusers, that's why they exist. And I think that $1000 is not a lot, we don't need to wager all that money at once. We just need to pay attention to this casino, deposit/play only here for a while and $1000 will be wagered at some point.

Galactix has some restrictions, unlike other casinos that have their own token. We can't mine the token while playing with a bonus, which is a stupid rule in my opinion... If we want a bonus, we can't mine, or vice versa. I like it when I can use all the features in the casino, and not have to choose whether to do this or that... that's why we choose where they gamble. If Galactix wants to attract more attention they should make some changes and deal with marketing on a higher level...

I forgot about the abuse part but it makes sense as people always find to way to exploit the system. Wagering a 1000$ is not a lot for you, but as small players it is already a steep requirement. I was just thinking: what about we leave the 1000$ requirement in place but you already start receiving the tokens from the first $ you wager? Once you reach 100 tokens (equals to 1000$ wagering), you start receiving the dividends.

[SamReomo]

Galactix has some restrictions, unlike other casinos that have their own token. We can't mine the token while playing with a bonus, which is a stupid rule in my opinion.

That's really a tough rule but there's no issue in such rule. If I'm not wrong then this rule also exist because Galactix team want to protect its token from the abusers. The ones who deposit money aren't the abusers and for good players it's not hard to wager $500 or even $1000. However, for small gamers it's still quite hard to complete $1000 wagering requirement, especially for the ones who deposit minimum amount to play at the casino.

[iv4n]

I forgot about the abuse part but it makes sense as people always find to way to exploit the system. Wagering a 1000$ is not a lot for you, but as small players it is already a steep requirement. I was just thinking: what about we leave the 1000$ requirement in place but you already start receiving the tokens from the first $ you wager? Once you reach 100 tokens (equals to 1000$ wagering), you start receiving the dividends.

As I wrote, we don't have to wager everything at once... it can take a little longer. I understand your suggestion, and it's not bad, it should be possible to mine with the first $1k. So when we wager $1k we get something from that.

Galactix has some restrictions, unlike other casinos that have their own token. We can't mine the token while playing with a bonus, which is a stupid rule in my opinion.

That's really a tough rule but there's no issue in such rule. If I'm not wrong then this rule also exist because Galactix team want to protect its token from the abusers. The ones who deposit money aren't the abusers and for good players it's not hard to wager $500 or even $1000. However, for small gamers it's still quite hard to complete $1000 wagering requirement, especially for the ones who deposit minimum amount to play at the casino.

I agree with you, it's a rule... but we don't need to like it. And it would be nice if you could explain to me how this rule protects Galactix tokens against abusers. Because you are a bit contradictory, you wrote "The ones who deposit money aren't the abusers". If you want to play with a bonus you have to deposit...

When we play with a bonus we have a bigger balance, so we can mine more with the same deposit. It sounds like a relief, but every deposit carries a big risk with it, and also a wagering requirement. I respect the rules that the casino has, but Galactix with this rule forces players to choose between bonuses and mining. Many players (including me) sometimes want to take advantage of all the opportunities, and that's why we prefer to choose places where it is possible.

[SamReomo]

I agree with you, it's a rule... but we don't need to like it. And it would be nice if you could explain to me how this rule protects Galactix tokens against abusers. Because you are a bit contradictory, you wrote "The ones who deposit money aren't the abusers". If you want to play with a bonus you have to deposit...

Yes, I guess you're right, and I admit that I somehow misunderstood your previous reply. The ones who avail bonus actually deposit money for it but since the bonus money is extra money and that can't be withdrawn without set wagering requirements and that's why it's not considered for token mining wagering requirement. However, I guess Galactix's own representative can explain it in a much better way and that's why I believe we should wait for their reply.

[Galactix]

Galactix has some restrictions, unlike other casinos that have their own token. We can't mine the token while playing with a bonus, which is a stupid rule in my opinion.

That's really a tough rule but there's no issue in such rule. If I'm not wrong then this rule also exist because Galactix team want to protect its token from the abusers. The ones who deposit money aren't the abusers and for good players it's not hard to wager $500 or even $1000. However, for small gamers it's still quite hard to complete $1000 wagering requirement, especially for the ones who deposit minimum amount to play at the casino.

We appreciate all the feedback and different perspectives on this! 😊  

Here’s why we can’t implement it this way:  

1. Mining would become too easy – If players started earning tokens from the very first wager, even without meeting the mining requirement, it would significantly increase the token supply early on. This would lead to inflation, which could reduce the long-term value of GLX and weaken the impact of dividends.  

2. Abuse and farming risks – One of the main reasons for the $1,000 requirement is to prevent abuse. If tokens were earned from the first wager, some users could exploit the system by making small, low-risk bets just to farm GLX without actually engaging with the platform in a meaningful way. This would hurt legitimate players who are mining fairly.  

3. Dividends would drop – A higher supply of GLX in circulation means that dividends would have to be split among more holders, which would reduce earnings for everyone. Our goal is to make dividends rewarding, and keeping mining exclusive to engaged players helps maintain strong returns.  

4. Encouraging real engagement – The current system is designed to ensure that players actively participate before mining begins. This isn’t just about preventing abuse—it’s also about building a long-term, sustainable economy where GLX retains value and isn’t easily farmed without meaningful play.  

We know the $1,000 requirement feels steep for smaller players, and we’re actively reviewing if there’s a way to make it more accessible without harming the balance of the system. But simply allowing mining from the first $1 wagered wouldn’t work without major risks to the token’s value and dividend structure.  

Thanks again for the conversation—these discussions help us refine our approach, and we truly appreciate all the input!

I agree with you, it's a rule... but we don't need to like it. And it would be nice if you could explain to me how this rule protects Galactix tokens against abusers. Because you are a bit contradictory, you wrote "The ones who deposit money aren't the abusers". If you want to play with a bonus you have to deposit...

Yes, I guess you're right, and I admit that I somehow misunderstood your previous reply. The ones who avail bonus actually deposit money for it but since the bonus money is extra money and that can't be withdrawn without set wagering requirements and that's why it's not considered for token mining wagering requirement. However, I guess Galactix's own representative can explain it in a much better way and that's why I believe we should wait for their reply.

The reason bonus funds don’t count toward GLX mining is because they aren’t real, risked funds. When a player deposits and receives a bonus, they are getting extra funds that can only be withdrawn after meeting wagering requirements. Since this bonus money isn’t truly at risk and has restrictions on withdrawals, it wouldn’t be fair to allow it to generate tokens the same way as real, wagered funds.  

If bonus wagering counted toward mining, it could easily be exploited by farming GLX with low-risk bets using bonus funds. This would inflate the token supply, devalue GLX, and reduce the dividends for all holders. The system is designed to reward genuine engagement and real risk-taking, which is why only real money wagers count toward mining.  

Our goal is to keep GLX mining fair and sustainable while ensuring that players who actively engage with the platform benefit the most.  

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[inspace]

Galactix, Hi! Let me give you some advice!

If you want to post multiple replies it is better to combine them into one, as according to the forum rules more than 24 hours must pass before you can post again.

[iv4n]

1. Mining would become too easy – If players started earning tokens from the very first wager, even without meeting the mining requirement, it would significantly increase the token supply early on. This would lead to inflation, which could reduce the long-term value of GLX and weaken the impact of dividends.  

Nonsense... mining is easy or difficult depending on one's balance. Bigger balance & bets = easier, and faster mining. Smaller balance & bets mean slow and difficult mining. So this rule of yours does not affect the difficulty of mining, you are denying players the opportunity to mine something with their first bets.

What exactly would lead to inflation? People mining more tokens? Playing more in your casino?

2. Abuse and farming risks – One of the main reasons for the $1,000 requirement is to prevent abuse. If tokens were earned from the first wager, some users could exploit the system by making small, low-risk bets just to farm GLX without actually engaging with the platform in a meaningful way. This would hurt legitimate players who are mining fairly.  

Ok, that is your answer and I partly agree with it... but let's be honest here. What farming?
It would be nice if someone could explain to me what the benefit is of making small, low-risk bets just to farm GLX? And what does "fair mining" mean? All of us who register and deposit money mine fairly with every bet, and for every $10/$20 wagered we get one token. And is it fair of you that you don't give anything for wagering our first $1000?

3. Dividends would drop – A higher supply of GLX in circulation means that dividends would have to be split among more holders, which would reduce earnings for everyone. Our goal is to make dividends rewarding, and keeping mining exclusive to engaged players helps maintain strong returns.  

What? Your goal is to attract more people who will play more & mine more... Dividends are dropping if we don't constantly mine, it's logic. And dividends are rewarding to those who mine (risk their money gambling). So it's a bit funny that you pointed out that "dividends would drop"...

4. Encouraging real engagement – The current system is designed to ensure that players actively participate before mining begins. This isn’t just about preventing abuse—it’s also about building a long-term, sustainable economy where GLX retains value and isn’t easily farmed without meaningful play.  

Is this some kind of joke? We (players) actively participate from the moment we deposit money! There is no "easy mining" and other nonsense that you wrote... We (players) risk money playing, for the wagered money we get tokens and that's it. Is our play meaningful or not, why the fuck is that your business? You provide games and we play as we wish to play.

The reason bonus funds don’t count toward GLX mining is because they aren’t real, risked funds.

They aren't real?

When a player deposits and receives a bonus, they are getting extra funds that can only be withdrawn after meeting wagering requirements.

Wait, they are real and it's called extra funds?

It's funny because I already explained everything, but you were too lazy to read, or maybe you are an "I know everything better" person... in any case, most of what you wrote doesn't make any sense to me who is "mining" casino tokens for years.

Good luck!

[inspace]

Hello friends, we have published a new raffle! Hurry up to take part in the exciting contest! 

🌀 Galactix.io | Bitcoin Block Dice 🎲 Prize $50 🎲

Try your luck, join the raffle!

We wish you good luck!

[Alone055]

Nonsense... mining is easy or difficult depending on one's balance. Bigger balance & bets = easier, and faster mining. Smaller balance & bets mean slow and difficult mining. So this rule of yours does not affect the difficulty of mining, you are denying players the opportunity to mine something with their first bets.

No offence, but you are probably a bit confused about all this when the terms are pretty simple to understand. That $1,000 requirement does increase the difficulty of mining because someone who hasn't reached that amount in wagers won't be able to mine tokens, and they are not denying players the opportunity to mine but they are rewarding more active and engaging players which is fair, imo.

What exactly would lead to inflation? People mining more tokens?

Exactly. Does that even need an explanation? Take this as an example: if anyone is allowed to mine tokens right from the beginning of their journey with Galactix, and if there are 20,000 players each wagering $10, 20,000 tokens will be mined. On the other hand, if only players who have wagered $1,000 or more are allowed to do so, and only maybe 6,000 among the 20,000 have reached that target, there will only be 6,000 tokens mined if they wager $10 each.

2. Abuse and farming risks – One of the main reasons for the $1,000 requirement is to prevent abuse. If tokens were earned from the first wager, some users could exploit the system by making small, low-risk bets just to farm GLX without actually engaging with the platform in a meaningful way. This would hurt legitimate players who are mining fairly.  

Ok, that is your answer and I partly agree with it... but let's be honest here. What farming?
It would be nice if someone could explain to me what the benefit is of making small, low-risk bets just to farm GLX? And what does "fair mining" mean? All of us who register and deposit money mine fairly with every bet, and for every $10/$20 wagered we get one token. And is it fair of you that you don't give anything for wagering our first $1000?

You realize that a wager doesn't necessarily mean an amount that you've lost, right? It is an amount that you've bet, and a person can possibly reach a $1,000 wagering limit with only $50 or less, even if the odds for that would be low. I can reach a wagering requirement of $20 with only $5. So, don't you think a system where everyone is allowed to get tokens for wagering only $10 will be highly abused since completing wagering requirement, especially if they are low, is not that difficult?

The reason bonus funds don’t count toward GLX mining is because they aren’t real, risked funds.

They aren't real?

Do you consider a bonus as real money? You deposit $20, get $20 as a 100% deposit bonus, so you now have $40, but you only deposited $20. Where did the remaining $20 come from since you didn't deposit that much? A bonus is basically like a free pass for you to try and win something. That's why you get a wagering requirement with a bonus because it's not real, but if you put in efforts and your efforts work, they reward you for it by allowing you to withdraw it.

[iv4n]

....

Ok... before everything else, show me how much money you wagered and how many tokens you mined.

No offence, but you are probably a bit confused about all this when the terms are pretty simple to understand. That $1,000 requirement does increase the difficulty of mining because someone who hasn't reached that amount in wagers won't be able to mine tokens, and they are not denying players the opportunity to mine but they are rewarding more active and engaging players which is fair, imo.

No offense, but you didn't read what I wrote... that $1000 requirement doesn't do shit! What is the difficulty of mining? So you are running a mining rig and there is difficulty? We are gambling here, wagering is mining... And this casino denied all the players their first $1k wagered. For what? Some abuse, and you talk about "increase of mining difficulty"... You don't even know what you are talking about.

Exactly. Does that even need an explanation? Take this as an example: if anyone is allowed to mine tokens right from the beginning of their journey with Galactix, and if there are 20,000 players each wagering $10, 20,000 tokens will be mined. On the other hand, if only players who have wagered $1,000 or more are allowed to do so, and only maybe 6,000 among the 20,000 have reached that target, there will only be 6,000 tokens mined if they wager $10 each.

If those 20k players wager $10 they will have some dividends and they will get a share of it, in some other casino, but in this casino, they will get nothing for their wager. By the way, do your math.... 20k tokens don't worth shit in the long run. So tell me again who will create 20k accounts and wager $10 on each of them (deposits, fees, etc) to earn $1 daily, are you joking?

You realize that a wager doesn't necessarily mean an amount that you've lost, right? It is an amount that you've bet, and a person can possibly reach a $1,000 wagering limit with only $50 or less, even if the odds for that would be low. I can reach a wagering requirement of $20 with only $5. So, don't you think a system where everyone is allowed to get tokens for wagering only $10 will be highly abused since completing wagering requirement, especially if they are low, is not that difficult?

That is the system. For every $10 wagered on slots you get 1 token, for $20 on live & in-house games get you 1 token... what are you abusing here? We play and as we play & wager we earn... Again you don't even know what you wrote here.

Do you consider a bonus as real money? You deposit $20, get $20 as a 100% deposit bonus, so you now have $40, but you only deposited $20. Where did the remaining $20 come from since you didn't deposit that much? A bonus is basically like a free pass for you to try and win something. That's why you get a wagering requirement with a bonus because it's not real, but if you put in efforts and your efforts work, they reward you for it by allowing you to withdraw it.

You are crazy... I'm not sure if you have never played with a bonus, or if you are just young & without any experience. In any case, you are totally wrong. But I dare you to post your wagering and your GLX balance, just so we can see how experienced gambler you are and how much you really like this system.

PS Since this bonus is so good for you why don't you tell us your experience?

[Alone055]

Ok... before everything else, show me how much money you wagered and how many tokens you mined.

Bro, I don't need to show anything, and it's not even necessary for understanding simple facts about the system.

No offense, but you didn't read what I wrote... that $1000 requirement doesn't do shit! What is the difficulty of mining? So you are running a mining rig and there is difficulty? We are gambling here, wagering is mining... And this casino denied all the players their first $1k wagered. For what? Some abuse, and you talk about "increase of mining difficulty"... You don't even know what you are talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I know we are not talking about mining Bitcoin here, and there are no rigs involved. What I meant was that the requirement makes it harder for players to mine tokens. Besides, platforms create such systems so that they can reward active engagement, which would encourage other players to engage more actively. It's not like you get something extra for wagering $1,000 everywhere and not getting it here. If another platform let's you have tokens without such a requirement, they can and that's their choice and they know how they need to manage their system, but in reality, it's simple to understand that such a requirement will only allow more engaged players to get tokens and then dividends.

If those 20k players wager $10 they will have some dividends and they will get a share of it, in some other casino, but in this casino, they will get nothing for their wager. By the way, do your math.... 20k tokens don't worth shit in the long run. So tell me again who will create 20k accounts and wager $10 on each of them (deposits, fees, etc) to earn $1 daily, are you joking?

That was only an example, and I didn't mean that a single person will create 20k accounts and abuse the system that way, what I was saying was that a basic requirement will reduce token production, and anyone would know that less supply and higher demand means a higher value, so if there are less tokens being mined/created, its value will be higher.

That is the system. For every $10 wagered on slots you get 1 token, for $20 on live & in-house games get you 1 token... what are you abusing here? We play and as we play & wager we earn... Again you don't even know what you wrote here.

You make a $5 bet on dice, win it, and now have about $9.97 or something. If you minus the house edge, you wager $5 more and win it, your balance now is $14.94, and you have already wagered $10. Now, you can use that amount to even reach $100 in wagered amount, so you are getting 10 tokens with only $5 as your initial investment. That is how it creates inflation because someone who creates an account, and starts mining tokens right away, so the supply gets inflated really quick, if there is a requirement, only older and more engaged users will be able to do that.

You are crazy... I'm not sure if you have never played with a bonus, or if you are just young & without any experience. In any case, you are totally wrong. But I dare you to post your wagering and your GLX balance, just so we can see how experienced gambler you are and how much you really like this system.

PS Since this bonus is so good for you why don't you tell us your experience?

I don't need to show anything for me to understand how these things work, and bonuses aren't only available on Galactix. You can't bend the fact that bonuses aren't real money, if they were, you would be allowed to withdraw it right away.

[iv4n]

I don't need to show anything for me to understand how these things work, and bonuses aren't only available on Galactix. You can't bend the fact that bonuses aren't real money, if they were, you would be allowed to withdraw it right away.

Bro', you already showed your knowledge and experience... and if you wish answers to your words just read my comments again, maybe that will open your mind.

And yes bonuses and mining tokens with wagering are not only available on Galactix, so I chose other casinos, like many others. I played here because of some promotions managed by some people I respect, but since then I haven't deposited, and I will not. So good luck with attracting players with these rules...

[Galactix]

Friends, a new twitter post for you! 🌀

🎰 Here is a Quick dive in finding your way in our Galactix Platform;

• What is the GLX Token? 🔥

✅- GLX is the native cryptocurrency of http://Galactix.io 👈, designed to reward players for wagering and playing. The more you bet, the more GLX you accumulate—it’s that https://t.co/x6udIRj2cF

[SamReomo]

Thanks again for the conversation—these discussions help us refine our approach, and we truly appreciate all the input!

You're most welcome! I hope you people will keep those conversations in your mind and you might somehow refine your approach so more and more low amount players should also be able to mine the token! Best of luck!

[nakamura12]

Thanks again for the conversation—these discussions help us refine our approach, and we truly appreciate all the input!

You're most welcome! I hope you people will keep those conversations in your mind and you might somehow refine your approach so more and more low amount players should also be able to mine the token! Best of luck!

This would be good for low amount players since there are other players who doesn't have lots of money. If I gamble for example but if I have money that isn't small in my local currency but when it converted to dollar then it's only small amount like $10-30.

[Galactix]

1. Mining would become too easy – If players started earning tokens from the very first wager, even without meeting the mining requirement, it would significantly increase the token supply early on. This would lead to inflation, which could reduce the long-term value of GLX and weaken the impact of dividends.  

Nonsense... mining is easy or difficult depending on one's balance. Bigger balance & bets = easier, and faster mining. Smaller balance & bets mean slow and difficult mining. So this rule of yours does not affect the difficulty of mining, you are denying players the opportunity to mine something with their first bets.

What exactly would lead to inflation? People mining more tokens? Playing more in your casino?

2. Abuse and farming risks – One of the main reasons for the $1,000 requirement is to prevent abuse. If tokens were earned from the first wager, some users could exploit the system by making small, low-risk bets just to farm GLX without actually engaging with the platform in a meaningful way. This would hurt legitimate players who are mining fairly.  

Ok, that is your answer and I partly agree with it... but let's be honest here. What farming?
It would be nice if someone could explain to me what the benefit is of making small, low-risk bets just to farm GLX? And what does "fair mining" mean? All of us who register and deposit money mine fairly with every bet, and for every $10/$20 wagered we get one token. And is it fair of you that you don't give anything for wagering our first $1000?

3. Dividends would drop – A higher supply of GLX in circulation means that dividends would have to be split among more holders, which would reduce earnings for everyone. Our goal is to make dividends rewarding, and keeping mining exclusive to engaged players helps maintain strong returns.  

What? Your goal is to attract more people who will play more & mine more... Dividends are dropping if we don't constantly mine, it's logic. And dividends are rewarding to those who mine (risk their money gambling). So it's a bit funny that you pointed out that "dividends would drop"...

4. Encouraging real engagement – The current system is designed to ensure that players actively participate before mining begins. This isn’t just about preventing abuse—it’s also about building a long-term, sustainable economy where GLX retains value and isn’t easily farmed without meaningful play.  

Is this some kind of joke? We (players) actively participate from the moment we deposit money! There is no "easy mining" and other nonsense that you wrote... We (players) risk money playing, for the wagered money we get tokens and that's it. Is our play meaningful or not, why the fuck is that your business? You provide games and we play as we wish to play.

The reason bonus funds don’t count toward GLX mining is because they aren’t real, risked funds.

They aren't real?

When a player deposits and receives a bonus, they are getting extra funds that can only be withdrawn after meeting wagering requirements.

Wait, they are real and it's called extra funds?

It's funny because I already explained everything, but you were too lazy to read, or maybe you are an "I know everything better" person... in any case, most of what you wrote doesn't make any sense to me who is "mining" casino tokens for years.

Good luck!

1. Mining would become too easy
You argue that mining difficulty is determined by a player’s balance and bet size, not by whether it starts from $1 or $1,000. That’s true on an individual level, but on a system-wide level, allowing everyone to mine from the first $1 wagered would rapidly flood the market with GLX tokens. That is inflation. If tokens are too easy to obtain, their value drops, making dividends less rewarding for everyone. The requirement ensures that only actively engaged players contribute to the token economy before benefiting from mining. 

And yes, playing more means mining more—that’s exactly how it’s designed. But removing the requirement would mean players can mine GLX with no engagement barrier, leading to rapid oversaturation. If you think that won’t affect token value, take a look at what’s happened to other in-house casino tokens that allowed unrestricted farming. 


2. Abuse and farming risks? 
You ask, "What farming?" Simple. Without restrictions, a player could deposit, make minimal risk bets (for example, betting both red and black on roulette), and grind out GLX with near-zero financial risk. That’s farming. Players who actually take risks and engage in real gameplay are not in the same category as those exploiting loopholes to farm tokens for free. 

"Fair mining" means that tokens should be earned through real engagement, not risk-free exploitation. If there were no requirement, someone could create multiple accounts, wager tiny amounts, and rack up tokens with no real play involved. That does hurt legitimate players by devaluing the token economy. 

3. Dividends would drop? 
This one’s simple math. Dividends are distributed among GLX holders. If mining is unrestricted, the supply of GLX increases rapidly. More supply means more people to share the dividend pool, which lowers individual earnings. 

And no, dividends don’t drop if you don’t mine constantly—they drop if the total circulating supply becomes too large. The requirement is in place to prevent excessive, uncontrolled token creation, which would lower everyone’s long-term earnings. 

4. Encouraging real engagement?
Yes, real engagement starts the moment you deposit and play—but that’s not the issue. The issue is ensuring that mining remains sustainable and that token generation doesn’t spiral out of control. You say, "We play as we wish to play." Exactly. And we set up the system so that the token economy remains balanced while you do that. 

The requirement isn’t about dictating how you play—it’s about making sure GLX retains its value over time. If we let everyone mine from day one, we'd be setting up a system where token inflation outpaces platform growth, leading to lower dividends, a weaker token, and an economy that collapses under its own weight. 

5. Bonus funds aren’t real? 
You know exactly what this means. Bonus funds aren’t the same as real funds because they come with restrictions. They aren’t freely withdrawable, and they only become real after wagering requirements are met. 

If bonus funds counted toward mining, players could deposit, grab a huge bonus, and farm GLX risk-free. That destroys token value and rewards abusers instead of real players. This is why literally every dividend-based casino with its own token follows a similar rule—because allowing bonus farming is an easy way to kill a token economy. 




If you mined casino tokens for years then you should already understand why these systems can’t be left wide open unless you want to devalue the token into the ground. The $1,000 requirement exists to protect long-term players, dividends, and the integrity of the token. 

If you don’t like the rule, that’s fair. Feedback is always welcome. But calling it "nonsense" without understanding the economic impact doesn’t change the fact that this system is built for sustainability, not for quick farming. 

Good luck to you too. 

[iv4n]

Without restrictions, a player could deposit, make minimal risk bets (for example, betting both red and black on roulette), and grind out GLX with near-zero financial risk. That’s farming. Players who actually take risks and engage in real gameplay are not in the same category as those exploiting loopholes to farm tokens for free.  

With near-zero financial risk! There you go...

I dare people to exploit Galactix. Deposit, play roulette, and place bets on red and black... I hope that some people will try it (and by the way, this is just one of the ways for faster mining, I can show you other ways for other games...) and share the experience with all of us. Near-zero financial risk... you are funny. All those "near-zero financial fisk" strategies are riskier than slots!

I will not bother with you anymore, I stand my ground. You just repeated the same lines, but as you can see there is no logic in your words and I can't bother to explain everything again... What happens when the ball lands on zero? And what happens with a player's balance when the ball lands on zero a few times in a row & +10 times in 50 bets? Near-zero financial risk, what a joke... like most of the other things you wrote.

PS By the way, if someone accepts the challenge, deposit money, and play only black & red roulette, don't worry, the casino won't ban you and tell you that you are harming their economy. They want more players who will mine more... it's their business, people to deposit & play.

PSS... Don't forget that as players we choose where we deposit & play, and we choose based on what the casino offers us and what the conditions are.

[Alone055]

This would be good for low amount players since there are other players who doesn't have lots of money. If I gamble for example but if I have money that isn't small in my local currency but when it converted to dollar then it's only small amount like $10-30.

It's understandable for everyone to get a share of the pie, but I think the system is pretty transparent and has clear rules, which indicate that it's for the long-term players that stick with the casino and not those who would only play and play it safe to mine some coins and don't stay long term. One can argue that it's not possible but we all know how some people abuse systems with bonuses and stuff only to gain benefits.

If I'm a player who has been using Galactix for some time, I must have already wagered more than $1k by now, and I can enjoy the tokens that are mined when I wager on the platform and I'm getting that privilege because I'm a regular and long-term gambler of the platform.

[Text]

It's understandable for everyone to get a share of the pie, but I think the system is pretty transparent and has clear rules, which indicate that it's for the long-term players that stick with the casino and not those who would only play and play it safe to mine some coins and don't stay long term. One can argue that it's not possible but we all know how some people abuse systems with bonuses and stuff only to gain benefits.

If I'm a player who has been using Galactix for some time, I must have already wagered more than $1k by now, and I can enjoy the tokens that are mined when I wager on the platform and I'm getting that privilege because I'm a regular and long-term gambler of the platform.

Yeah I see your point that loyalty should definitely be rewarded and it's fair that those who consistently wager more get better benefits. At the same time I get where nakamura12 is coming from cause like me a smaller player also that want to feel like we have a chance to benefit even if we can’t wager as much. I think a good balance between both could make the system more inclusive while still keeping it fair for long-term players.

[SamReomo]

This would be good for low amount players since there are other players who doesn't have lots of money. If I gamble for example but if I have money that isn't small in my local currency but when it converted to dollar then it's only small amount like $10-30.

Yes, the low amount players will be able to mine the token if the approach is refined but I still believe that low amount players will misuse the token and they might devalue the token at much fast rates. However, refinement could still be helpful for the most players and that's a positive point.