To clarify the economics: the platform’s actual house edge is 2.5%.
So still it is 150% more and why would someone opt for it instead of playing at 1% house edge? I can see some novelty here but I do not think it is enough for players to switch.
Most sites which offer only one game are not doing well, players will play slots with much higher house edge but the experience factor is much greater there.
It is good that you have made it PvP, but still there is no skill involved thus it hardly matters.
Thanks for the thoughtful pushback — it’s fair criticism.
You're right that the fee is higher than a typical dice or Mines house edge, but the structure works fundamentally differently. In most casino games, all losses flow to the house. Here, 90% of every failed challenge goes directly to the current Champion, not to the platform. The Champion is effectively the “house” during their reign, earning from every challenger across the entire site.
On top of that, the Champion receives hourly dividends from the growing prize pool, so earnings continue even when there are no active challengers. That combination — direct earnings from losses + guaranteed hourly payouts — is why the 2.5% platform fee exists. It keeps the system sustainable while pushing almost all value back to players.
That said, this style of game isn’t going to appeal to everyone. It’s a new model and sits in a very different category from traditional low-edge RNG games. The appeal is less about grinding tiny edges and more about competing for a high-value throne position.
Appreciate you taking the time to challenge the idea — the comparison helps clarify what makes the format different.
Thanks for taking the time to review it. The similarity to Mines is only at the surface level. The core mechanic here is not a single-player click-to-survive game; it’s a competitive King-of-the-Hill structure where pattern recognition, counter-patterning, and meta adaptation determine how long you hold the throne.
The dynamics change completely because each challenge affects another player, not the house. Failed attempts feed the reward mechanism for the current champion, and the prize-pool model ensures economic continuity without relying on external liquidity. The ecosystem is essentially self-funding: player decision-making and challenge frequency define the payout curve.
Early adopters get to shape the emerging meta, which is where most of the novelty sits. Appreciate the feedback and the chance to clarify.
Liquidity will still be an issue here which is why I find this game unappealing primarily as of now. The whole early adopters part makes this sound like some sort of HYIP ponzi scheme even if that isn't really the case.
Your team needs to do something creative in order to try and boost the popularity of this game since sites like this one don't usually last long due to intense competition these days.
Totally fair point — early liquidity is the hardest part of launching any PvP-style system.
That’s actually the main reason the prize pool exists. Even in low-activity periods, the Champion still earns hourly prize-pool dividends, meaning the throne generates income even without constant challenges. Once activity ramps up, the second earning stream — failed challenges — kicks in and compounds the effect.
So the Champion earns in two ways:
1. Failed challenges from all users (90% to the Champion)
2. Guaranteed hourly prize-pool payouts, regardless of challenge volume
This ensures the core loop keeps functioning even before the platform reaches scale.
All that said, you’re absolutely right that this type of game isn’t for everyone. It’s a new concept, it doesn’t behave like slots or dice, and it relies heavily on meta-driven player behavior. Some people will vibe with that; others won’t — and that’s fine.
I appreciate the candid feedback. The goal here isn’t to make it sound like a HYIP or a money machine; it’s just a different mathematical model that becomes more interesting with competition. We’ll continue experimenting with creative ways to grow the player base responsibly.
