I absolutely get the huge need for decentralised betting without AML/KYC restrictions and regional restrictions but the fact we have not seen anything valuable in this space despite such a huge demand speaks of the problems we are probably not aware of.
I have some questions for the development team.
1. Is the network functioning as a decentralised bookie or as a decentralised exchange (Betfair without central authority)?
I presume it is the latter. If so the biggest hurdle to running an exchange is providing liquidity. The network moat or competitive advantage that comes from liquidity is paramount with an exchange (ask anyone who tried and failed to start an exchange). With each additional bettor more value is created for players already using the platform.
Thus one needs liquidity and for liquidity market makers are essential.
Who will incentivise market makers to come? They need immaculate APIs to be able to run efficiently. Can this idea support it?
2. If it is working as a traditinal bookie who will be taking the other side of the bet?
Continuation of question 1)
If it is the masternode network than the only way this could function is by setting absolutely uncompetitive odds because smart money would pour in only on pricing mistakes thus extracting money out of the system and ignoring the rest.
And for average recreational Joe the punter what would be incentive to:
a) register at an unresposive and incredibly slow FIAT/Crypto exchange
b) buy BTC at a prremium
c) convert BTC to Wagerr at yet another crypto exchange
d) deal with unfriendly software to transfer Wagerr
only to lose it at the same odds that he could have lost it by typing in a credit card number with William Hill and betting within seconds or even with his remote control while watching the game live?
3. Where does the marketing come into play?
Is it planned in any way?
Without marketing the only guys you would attract are those that have no option to bet otherwise and the smart money. I fear that might be insufficient for a viable project.
4. Deflationary nature of Wagerr?
Economics 101 tells us that in a deflationary environment a tendency to hoard money emerges because of an expectation that it wiil have more value tomorrow.
So I could collect some Waggerr and simply increase its value by sitting on the fence while others punt it away.
How does that incentivise betting?
5. Live bettting?
Without live betting you are missing out on probably 80% of the revenue pro game.
Is your platform able to support live betting, namely almost instantenous settlement of wagers.
6. Authority in live betting suspensions?´
Live betting without someone watching the game with no delays and having the authority to suspend a football match market when a goal is scored, a penalty awarded or a red card flashed becomes a blood bath for those not on the front of an arms race to have the fastest access to the platform.
Is that implementable in this model?
7. Decentralised exchange without Wagerr token?
Why would not someone build a decentralilsed betting platform on an existing PoS coin instead of going through ICO if it was lucrative to build such a platform that would incentivise the operators to run the nodes.
It is clear why Wagerr does not do it. They want to cash in right now regardless if the project fails.
Topic: [ANN] [ICO] [WGR] | Wagerr | The Betting Blockchain | Bounties - page 179. (Read 237365 times)
Less than 3 million to go and Round 18 will get knocked out. Looks like it'll be another day or less before Wagerr will move onto the next round. The ICO is still moving at a nice pace.
More excitement to pot me up at Round 19? Sort of fun announcement?Shall we have a party to celebrate the ICO? I'll bring the hot chicks next door.
Less than 3 million to go and Round 18 will get knocked out. Looks like it'll be another day or less before Wagerr will move onto the next round. The ICO is still moving at a nice pace.
If this is not a rare star threatening other competitors, who cares to launch such desperate sabotage?
Though I have some doubts as well, I've put a bit of money into this project and will put a bit more within a few days. I work for one of the biggest gambling operators in the world within the European gaming industry, in a role that requires me to know a bit of everything, though not CS. I believe the project has potential because of the possible target groups that are out there, I.E:
1) Regular European players who wants higher odds or not to deal with KYC and regulation. Head to head betting with 2% fee means 1.96 in odds on line betting, that's .6/.7 higher than regular odds being offered by all regulated operators across the continent.
2) Any players who's received limits on regulated operators. Though it's only a very small segment, these players are good bettors who often places many bets, they should work well for a site where there's a set fee and your bets are matched up vs other players instead of playing against the house - there's no incentive to not want them as customers.
3) Minors, there are plenty of 16-17 year old's out there who wants to bet.
4) Any player from a market where online sportsbook services aren't available, I.E lot of the US.
5) Any sportsbettor who believes in the value coupling. This goes for myself, I don't bet a lot, but I'd have no reason not to bet on Wagerr when I do place the occasional bet.
6) Wagerr looks like it'll feature daily fantasy sports, people like these products and DFS is a growing market. Just as in #1, a lower fee than competitors and therefore more value added to the prizepool will entice some players.
Wagerr will probably never be a industry leader, speed is a huge factor and an average bet settle time of 60 minutes is too much for many players, but there's a large segment of potential customers who could accept this since they don't have access to any regulated operator. What I'm mostly worried about is the possible huge push back from the industry in the regulated markets. Wagerr.com could get ISP blocked in a lot of countries and it would hurt the accessibility for players a lot.
Lots more stuff to talk about regarding the project, and there are many of your concerns I haven't addressed at all - I'll be trying to join the debate here from now on as much as possible, but it's getting late and it'll have to be another day
Edit: Quoted the wrong member, was supposed to be YodaYoda.
/Curly
Thank you. This is quite a productive comment. Many things pointed out here to be improved and taken care of. No worries. They are very smart and opened team. I absolutely trust them.
If this is not a rare star threatening other competitors, who cares to launch such desperate sabotage?
Though I have some doubts as well, I've put a bit of money into this project and will put a bit more within a few days. I work for one of the biggest gambling operators in the world within the European gaming industry, in a role that requires me to know a bit of everything, though not CS. I believe the project has potential because of the possible target groups that are out there, I.E:
1) Regular European players who wants higher odds or not to deal with KYC and regulation. Head to head betting with 2% fee means 1.96 in odds on line betting, that's .6/.7 higher than regular odds being offered by all regulated operators across the continent.
2) Any players who's received limits on regulated operators. Though it's only a very small segment, these players are good bettors who often places many bets, they should work well for a site where there's a set fee and your bets are matched up vs other players instead of playing against the house - there's no incentive to not want them as customers.
3) Minors, there are plenty of 16-17 year old's out there who wants to bet.
4) Any player from a market where online sportsbook services aren't available, I.E lot of the US.
5) Any sportsbettor who believes in the value coupling. This goes for myself, I don't bet a lot, but I'd have no reason not to bet on Wagerr when I do place the occasional bet.
6) Wagerr looks like it'll feature daily fantasy sports, people like these products and DFS is a growing market. Just as in #1, a lower fee than competitors and therefore more value added to the prizepool will entice some players.
Wagerr will probably never be a industry leader, speed is a huge factor and an average bet settle time of 60 minutes is too much for many players, but there's a large segment of potential customers who could accept this since they don't have access to any regulated operator. What I'm mostly worried about is the possible huge push back from the industry in the regulated markets. Wagerr.com could get ISP blocked in a lot of countries and it would hurt the accessibility for players a lot.
Lots more stuff to talk about regarding the project, and there are many of your concerns I haven't addressed at all - I'll be trying to join the debate here from now on as much as possible, but it's getting late and it'll have to be another day
Edit: Quoted the wrong member, was supposed to be YodaYoda.
/Curly
Wagerr Round 18 just passed the half way mark. Last chance to pick up Wagerr at 9 cents a piece. Those getting paranoid and questioning every little thing should just leave cryptocurrency and leave your money in your less than 1 percent interest savings account.
If this is not a rare star threatening other competitors, who cares to launch such desperate sabotage?
They'd be well-suited to hire some full-time, experienced devs with this ICO money along with a 'gambling consultant' ie. someone well-respected in Vegas to help them with the actual book-making side
I come from the European and offshore gambling industry. I did develop some game concepts for slots producing companies in the past, so I'd say that they can't get a 'well respected Vegas' type consultant. Why? The online gambling situation in Vegas is non-existent. Second, they are mentioning things like 'there is a 400 billion dollar illegal betting industry' and mentions it in the sense they want to penetrate the illegal gambling industry. Due to several legal precedents, such as developers etc. being indicted for aiding and abetting illegal gambling ops, I sincerely doubt a Vegas type consultant will help them out. i truly hope the project pans our for your sake, Jeep, but I have my sincere doubts. They now raise 'further rounds', like 10 million is not enough? Sounds more and more like a cash grab.
Does anyone have any background on the lead developer, Robert Christensen? What projects has he been involved with, etc etc. I googled him but nothing really came up which is pretty concerning
Read my post. As an expert in gambling, I find the entire paper, their lack of a playable platform and that the lead guy, David Mah, is a 'health care professional', smells badly. I think none of these guys are actually pros, and the paper itself, leads me to believe that they have no experience what so ever in gambling. Even if Christensen is an ok developer, doing a large, enterprise scale gambling software is a multi-year project, with multi-million investments required. Do you guys want to invest in something that's ready to go, or a development project that _maybe_ launches in a couple of years?
Does anyone have any background on the lead developer, Robert Christensen? What projects has he been involved with, etc etc. I googled him but nothing really came up which is pretty concerning
In terms of investment, on what term do you guys expect the value of a Wagerr token to exceed the ICO price? At the moment there doens't seem to be an overwhelming interest, otherwise the ICO would have been long completed (like when BAT and BNC had their ICO).
Is this a mid/long term investment?
I'm thinking of joining the ICO.
Is this a mid/long term investment?
I'm thinking of joining the ICO.
I'm not a big basher of other guys projects, but honestly, I think this Wagerr sucks. As a background: I develop gambling software for a living, have run operational companies for 15+ years, and am well versed in cryptography, cryptocurrencies, and related themes. I thus believe I uniquely qualified to break down what wagerr is.
1. The head guy is in the 'medical field' in Australia. Chiropractor or holistics? Who knows. His professional background in gambling? In development? Non-existent.
2. In the whitepaper, he writes that his solution will help players to 'avoid violence' among other things. It lend me to question: what type of gambling have this person engaged in? It seems like he must have been engaging with loan-sharks that let guys wager on credit that then would break the legs of a guy that don't pay back. Again, who knows, but after 17 years in the field, I have never heard a player being subject to a physical attack. It's online gambling, people.
3. Immature platform. As another poster stated, a key element to succesful wagering platform is a inviting and fast user interface, nice features and general ease-of-use. It seems like they are a long way from having a mature platform. They stated among this in their 'road map'.
● Event Chat Addon
● Rematch Function/friend challenge
● Dynamic Odd Balancing
● Moneyline betting
● Season winner/champions bets
Moneyline betting is a key factor of sportswagering. As is 'Season winner' or Futures. Dynamic odd balancing, i assume they means Odds. It is indicative they have no idea how to do basic bookmaking and making sure they have as little liability as possible.
So, while it's not in my habit; I will make a bold prediction: Wagerr won't amount to much of anything, as it seems like they don't have the first clue about sportsbetting, complete novices. Another example of an ICO that is just fishing for money based on a pipe dream.
Hi,
Although this project sounds interesting at first sight, and it's the first decentralized sports betting platform that seems to have clear goals, I have some doubts about this project being a success, besides the price of the token or the amount of money raised during the ICO.
As far as I'm concerned, the biggest value seems to be the oracle masternode, where anyone holding a certain amount of tokens will be able to act as the bookmaker and earn half of the fee that bettors pay (still not sure about the exact requirements for this oracle masternode).
I will try to focus in the main aim of this company, which is to compete against existing sportsbooks, and create an edge for players to move to this platform.
There are two types of bettors, which are mug players and professionals.
The mug players will always need the following requirements for a new sportsbook:
- User friendly, easy to use interface
- Welcome bonuses. This is the typical catch that most bookies use (in many cases it means a cost for companies, due to bonus abusers).
- PROPAGANDA, and by this I mean mainstream advertising, as all the scam, worldwide known bookmakers do, which makes mugs feel their money is safe playing with them (doesn't really matter if it really is safe, the perception is key here), and they are getting the best deal (usually they are getting the worst deal, but then again, they don't care). This will be expensive, and wagerr will have to compete against billion dollar companies.
- Easy to deposit/withdraw money. Here I see the biggest problem, since mugs are not generally used to crypto, and are pretty skeptical (those who are even familiar to this industry). Even more with the volatility of the market.
- Feeling of being "safe" using the company. This again is related to propaganda, and since cryptocurrencies are not known for good things among general public, I see a very difficult task here to convince people to "risk" their money and avoid current easy-to-use options.
The professionals will need the following things:
- LOW JUICE (low fees), and therefore bigger payouts.
- LIQUIDITY, which is 100% linked to low juice (see PINNACLE business model)
- safe deposits and withdrawals
- No limits/bans on winning accounts
As far as I'm concerned, the lowest fees are 2% on head to head betting and 4% on multi-user betting (this does not beat some of the current leading exchange bookmakers such as matchbook (1%), Smarkets (2%).
The fee for direct chain betting (I guess this is typical "bet against the house odds" system) is 6%, which certainly won't be even close to beating main asian bookmakers, neither in fee nor liquidity.
In case wagerr is thinking about implementing a mode where people can bet against the system, this is a huge risk, and here is why.
Most bookmakers profit from a large number of mug players, and are not able to compete against professionals. In order to still be profitable companies, what they do is limit winning accounts.
If wagerr is planning on decentralized betting, without identity verification and other KYC procedures, they need to be among the very few companies that are profitable against professionals (this would be very expensive, as they would need to hire the best traders and attract the best market makers), otherwise they will be eaten out by value bettors and arbers.
I guess you might think that decentralizing the service is an advantage against current companies, but I will explain you why I think it is not necessarily that way.
Mug players are losing players, who don't even care enough to pay attention to this (this is the vast majority of players), and as I mentioned before, they just need to be brainwashed with very expensive propaganda, welcome bonuses and user friendly interface.
Professionals currently have access to companies who offer huge limits (impossible to replicate by wagerr under their current terms) and lower fees.
They can use reputable and trusted betting agents to access anonymously to many of these companies, and even deposit and withdraw using bitcoin if they want further anonymity.
With all this being said, the cherry of the pie, which are the oracle masternode, is useless without the ability to bring money to the platform, and therefore liquidity.
By no means I'm saying that investing in this token will not be profitable in the short term, since it's a pretty hyped project, but I would not expect this company to be successful in the mid-long term under the current conditions.
Although this project sounds interesting at first sight, and it's the first decentralized sports betting platform that seems to have clear goals, I have some doubts about this project being a success, besides the price of the token or the amount of money raised during the ICO.
As far as I'm concerned, the biggest value seems to be the oracle masternode, where anyone holding a certain amount of tokens will be able to act as the bookmaker and earn half of the fee that bettors pay (still not sure about the exact requirements for this oracle masternode).
I will try to focus in the main aim of this company, which is to compete against existing sportsbooks, and create an edge for players to move to this platform.
There are two types of bettors, which are mug players and professionals.
The mug players will always need the following requirements for a new sportsbook:
- User friendly, easy to use interface
- Welcome bonuses. This is the typical catch that most bookies use (in many cases it means a cost for companies, due to bonus abusers).
- PROPAGANDA, and by this I mean mainstream advertising, as all the scam, worldwide known bookmakers do, which makes mugs feel their money is safe playing with them (doesn't really matter if it really is safe, the perception is key here), and they are getting the best deal (usually they are getting the worst deal, but then again, they don't care). This will be expensive, and wagerr will have to compete against billion dollar companies.
- Easy to deposit/withdraw money. Here I see the biggest problem, since mugs are not generally used to crypto, and are pretty skeptical (those who are even familiar to this industry). Even more with the volatility of the market.
- Feeling of being "safe" using the company. This again is related to propaganda, and since cryptocurrencies are not known for good things among general public, I see a very difficult task here to convince people to "risk" their money and avoid current easy-to-use options.
The professionals will need the following things:
- LOW JUICE (low fees), and therefore bigger payouts.
- LIQUIDITY, which is 100% linked to low juice (see PINNACLE business model)
- safe deposits and withdrawals
- No limits/bans on winning accounts
As far as I'm concerned, the lowest fees are 2% on head to head betting and 4% on multi-user betting (this does not beat some of the current leading exchange bookmakers such as matchbook (1%), Smarkets (2%).
The fee for direct chain betting (I guess this is typical "bet against the house odds" system) is 6%, which certainly won't be even close to beating main asian bookmakers, neither in fee nor liquidity.
In case wagerr is thinking about implementing a mode where people can bet against the system, this is a huge risk, and here is why.
Most bookmakers profit from a large number of mug players, and are not able to compete against professionals. In order to still be profitable companies, what they do is limit winning accounts.
If wagerr is planning on decentralized betting, without identity verification and other KYC procedures, they need to be among the very few companies that are profitable against professionals (this would be very expensive, as they would need to hire the best traders and attract the best market makers), otherwise they will be eaten out by value bettors and arbers.
I guess you might think that decentralizing the service is an advantage against current companies, but I will explain you why I think it is not necessarily that way.
Mug players are losing players, who don't even care enough to pay attention to this (this is the vast majority of players), and as I mentioned before, they just need to be brainwashed with very expensive propaganda, welcome bonuses and user friendly interface.
Professionals currently have access to companies who offer huge limits (impossible to replicate by wagerr under their current terms) and lower fees.
They can use reputable and trusted betting agents to access anonymously to many of these companies, and even deposit and withdraw using bitcoin if they want further anonymity.
With all this being said, the cherry of the pie, which are the oracle masternode, is useless without the ability to bring money to the platform, and therefore liquidity.
By no means I'm saying that investing in this token will not be profitable in the short term, since it's a pretty hyped project, but I would not expect this company to be successful in the mid-long term under the current conditions.
The biggest issue with your post is you are wrong.. The 2% fee is against the winning payout.. MEANING that its 1% against the total bet... meaning that it absolutely either beats or at the very least ties the lowest fees out there.
Thanks for your opinion tho, but regulation will only get worse. As governments grow, their power and reach will only increase, centralized systems will be shafted first. Like it or not Wagerr is a really great use case for what is already a starving world, that in my opinion only going to get worse.
Well, my point is not wrong because most betting exchanges measure their fees either in winning part of the bet, or in the stake (or sometimes the higher of both). This is taken for granted.
Even though fee being on winning bets means the true cost is lower, it does not really mean it is 1% on payout, as that depends on the odds you are playing. Low odds will have fees under 1% of your total payout and higher odds will have higher fees.
This would be very good if it applied both to head-to-head and multi-user (twice the fee from head to head).
Take into account that existing bookies don't distinguish between these two types of bets, as your stake can be matched entirely by one player, or by as many players as it's necessary (or not every bet entirely matched).
By the way, this certainly does not beat the lowest fees in the market, and will have trouble beating highest liquidity as well.
However, what I consider to be a bigger issue about the business model is unlimited chain betting, as the system is proposing an easy way to avoid being banned.
As I mentioned before, very few bookies where you bet against the system are sharp enough to be profitable against pro players, and 99% of them avoid them by limiting accounts.
Their chain betting model has fees that are too high to compete against industry leaders, but low enough to offer value and create arbitrage opportunities.
In their white paper, they say the following:
"Peerless direct chain betting.
Peerless betting does not require a complementary transaction to forge a contract. Any bettor can initiate a contract on chain, which the Wagerr network is programmed to pay out if the bettor wins.".
This is a very risky behavior, as tokens will be generated to pay winning players, and believe me that without account limits they will most probably attract many arbitrage bettors and value investors who will make them lose money (big time).
There are still many countries where online gambling is not taxed, so decentralizing the industry will not be a fast procedure.
It's true on the other hand that regulation is horrible and will get worse for most people (ask people who use skrill and neteller how they feel about CRS and their money being safe), but in my opinion, it will be more likely to see consolidated and profitable bookies add bitcoin as payment method, and even as currency for betting, either directly or through betting agents, than a project like this or any other existing one being successful.
Anyhow, time will tell us if this project can attract at least a portion of the huge betting industry.
Let's hope some day we can see a decentralized bookie worth using, either this one or any other one, as it will be amazing news for so many people who bet on sports for a living.
A classic take from someone who trusts centralized systems. Go ahead keep all your money/fiat/bitcoin on a site that is controlled by and held by a single entity or person. If you want to roll the dice be my guest, sounds like you are a betting man as is anyhow so it makes sense. Just don't come complaining when the government freezes it, or the company just ups and walks away with it, or gets it taken from them.
This project takes advantage of the power of decentralization better than almost all that i have seen out there to date. (at least in proposal)
"If you don't hold the keys, you don't own the coin." or dollars for that matter as well...
What a bunch of nonsense. Are you even capable of reading before replying?
Who said I trust centralized systems? Did I not say, and I quote "Let's hope some day we can see a decentralized bookie worth using, either this one or any other one, as it will be amazing news for so many people who bet on sports for a living."?
Decentralized betting will be positive for absolutely every single bettor on earth, but it has to be done properly, and offer a clear edge to take out of business billion dollar companies, who spend millions on propaganda and brainwashing.
The fact that I want something to happen does not mean that I think it will happen, and that seems to be the biggest mistake you are making, mixing feelings with reason.
I find your post SoyLaCasa very thought out and valuable.
You raise valid concerns for the project.
Do not get upset by criticizing illiterates who resort to name calling like "centralists" or "fiatists" because you do not automatically swallow anything that the well intended ICO community spits out. Standard tactic of the left to silence you out as soon as you don't align with their world dogma.
I was wondering along the same lines.
Does Wagerr act as a decentralised classical bookie with set odds or a decentralised odss exchange (for example decentralised Betfair)?
Would like to see a response from Wagerr team to your concerns.
I believe they will use both, where head to head and multiplayer are in the form of an exchange (I don't really understand the need to put them as different things, rather than acting as a regular exchange), and chain betting means betting against the system.
1000 coins for me at round 4.
I hope that 2$/coin is something that can been done in 2 months.
Roadmap is very important and should be followed.
I hope that 2$/coin is something that can been done in 2 months.
Roadmap is very important and should be followed.
Hi,
Although this project sounds interesting at first sight, and it's the first decentralized sports betting platform that seems to have clear goals, I have some doubts about this project being a success, besides the price of the token or the amount of money raised during the ICO.
As far as I'm concerned, the biggest value seems to be the oracle masternode, where anyone holding a certain amount of tokens will be able to act as the bookmaker and earn half of the fee that bettors pay (still not sure about the exact requirements for this oracle masternode).
I will try to focus in the main aim of this company, which is to compete against existing sportsbooks, and create an edge for players to move to this platform.
There are two types of bettors, which are mug players and professionals.
The mug players will always need the following requirements for a new sportsbook:
- User friendly, easy to use interface
- Welcome bonuses. This is the typical catch that most bookies use (in many cases it means a cost for companies, due to bonus abusers).
- PROPAGANDA, and by this I mean mainstream advertising, as all the scam, worldwide known bookmakers do, which makes mugs feel their money is safe playing with them (doesn't really matter if it really is safe, the perception is key here), and they are getting the best deal (usually they are getting the worst deal, but then again, they don't care). This will be expensive, and wagerr will have to compete against billion dollar companies.
- Easy to deposit/withdraw money. Here I see the biggest problem, since mugs are not generally used to crypto, and are pretty skeptical (those who are even familiar to this industry). Even more with the volatility of the market.
- Feeling of being "safe" using the company. This again is related to propaganda, and since cryptocurrencies are not known for good things among general public, I see a very difficult task here to convince people to "risk" their money and avoid current easy-to-use options.
The professionals will need the following things:
- LOW JUICE (low fees), and therefore bigger payouts.
- LIQUIDITY, which is 100% linked to low juice (see PINNACLE business model)
- safe deposits and withdrawals
- No limits/bans on winning accounts
As far as I'm concerned, the lowest fees are 2% on head to head betting and 4% on multi-user betting (this does not beat some of the current leading exchange bookmakers such as matchbook (1%), Smarkets (2%).
The fee for direct chain betting (I guess this is typical "bet against the house odds" system) is 6%, which certainly won't be even close to beating main asian bookmakers, neither in fee nor liquidity.
In case wagerr is thinking about implementing a mode where people can bet against the system, this is a huge risk, and here is why.
Most bookmakers profit from a large number of mug players, and are not able to compete against professionals. In order to still be profitable companies, what they do is limit winning accounts.
If wagerr is planning on decentralized betting, without identity verification and other KYC procedures, they need to be among the very few companies that are profitable against professionals (this would be very expensive, as they would need to hire the best traders and attract the best market makers), otherwise they will be eaten out by value bettors and arbers.
I guess you might think that decentralizing the service is an advantage against current companies, but I will explain you why I think it is not necessarily that way.
Mug players are losing players, who don't even care enough to pay attention to this (this is the vast majority of players), and as I mentioned before, they just need to be brainwashed with very expensive propaganda, welcome bonuses and user friendly interface.
Professionals currently have access to companies who offer huge limits (impossible to replicate by wagerr under their current terms) and lower fees.
They can use reputable and trusted betting agents to access anonymously to many of these companies, and even deposit and withdraw using bitcoin if they want further anonymity.
With all this being said, the cherry of the pie, which are the oracle masternode, is useless without the ability to bring money to the platform, and therefore liquidity.
By no means I'm saying that investing in this token will not be profitable in the short term, since it's a pretty hyped project, but I would not expect this company to be successful in the mid-long term under the current conditions.
As far as I'm concerned, the lowest fees are 2% on head to head betting and 4% on multi-user betting (this does not beat some of the current leading exchange bookmakers such as matchbook (1%), Smarkets (2%).Although this project sounds interesting at first sight, and it's the first decentralized sports betting platform that seems to have clear goals, I have some doubts about this project being a success, besides the price of the token or the amount of money raised during the ICO.
As far as I'm concerned, the biggest value seems to be the oracle masternode, where anyone holding a certain amount of tokens will be able to act as the bookmaker and earn half of the fee that bettors pay (still not sure about the exact requirements for this oracle masternode).
I will try to focus in the main aim of this company, which is to compete against existing sportsbooks, and create an edge for players to move to this platform.
There are two types of bettors, which are mug players and professionals.
The mug players will always need the following requirements for a new sportsbook:
- User friendly, easy to use interface
- Welcome bonuses. This is the typical catch that most bookies use (in many cases it means a cost for companies, due to bonus abusers).
- PROPAGANDA, and by this I mean mainstream advertising, as all the scam, worldwide known bookmakers do, which makes mugs feel their money is safe playing with them (doesn't really matter if it really is safe, the perception is key here), and they are getting the best deal (usually they are getting the worst deal, but then again, they don't care). This will be expensive, and wagerr will have to compete against billion dollar companies.
- Easy to deposit/withdraw money. Here I see the biggest problem, since mugs are not generally used to crypto, and are pretty skeptical (those who are even familiar to this industry). Even more with the volatility of the market.
- Feeling of being "safe" using the company. This again is related to propaganda, and since cryptocurrencies are not known for good things among general public, I see a very difficult task here to convince people to "risk" their money and avoid current easy-to-use options.
The professionals will need the following things:
- LOW JUICE (low fees), and therefore bigger payouts.
- LIQUIDITY, which is 100% linked to low juice (see PINNACLE business model)
- safe deposits and withdrawals
- No limits/bans on winning accounts
As far as I'm concerned, the lowest fees are 2% on head to head betting and 4% on multi-user betting (this does not beat some of the current leading exchange bookmakers such as matchbook (1%), Smarkets (2%).
The fee for direct chain betting (I guess this is typical "bet against the house odds" system) is 6%, which certainly won't be even close to beating main asian bookmakers, neither in fee nor liquidity.
In case wagerr is thinking about implementing a mode where people can bet against the system, this is a huge risk, and here is why.
Most bookmakers profit from a large number of mug players, and are not able to compete against professionals. In order to still be profitable companies, what they do is limit winning accounts.
If wagerr is planning on decentralized betting, without identity verification and other KYC procedures, they need to be among the very few companies that are profitable against professionals (this would be very expensive, as they would need to hire the best traders and attract the best market makers), otherwise they will be eaten out by value bettors and arbers.
I guess you might think that decentralizing the service is an advantage against current companies, but I will explain you why I think it is not necessarily that way.
Mug players are losing players, who don't even care enough to pay attention to this (this is the vast majority of players), and as I mentioned before, they just need to be brainwashed with very expensive propaganda, welcome bonuses and user friendly interface.
Professionals currently have access to companies who offer huge limits (impossible to replicate by wagerr under their current terms) and lower fees.
They can use reputable and trusted betting agents to access anonymously to many of these companies, and even deposit and withdraw using bitcoin if they want further anonymity.
With all this being said, the cherry of the pie, which are the oracle masternode, is useless without the ability to bring money to the platform, and therefore liquidity.
By no means I'm saying that investing in this token will not be profitable in the short term, since it's a pretty hyped project, but I would not expect this company to be successful in the mid-long term under the current conditions.
you did not include overrounds in your estimates.
i'm guessing "matchbook (1%), Smarkets (2%)" is what the website take from the winnings.
if this is correct, wagers take from the winnings is 2% of 2% of the winnings.
That's simply wrong, overrounds are the house edge, which they intend to make 2% on winning amount for head to head, 4% on winning amount for multi-player, and 6% on winning side for chain betting.
What might be confusing is that 2% on winning side is not always the same amount for a given stake, as it depends on the odds you bet on.
You are misleading people with this made up 2% out of 2%, and you can clearly see out of their whitepaper that fees are taken from winning side, not 2% of winning side.
"7.13 Fee Structure
Network fees are imperative for the Wagerr network to succeed long term. Where the fees go and how they are distributed to the network depends on the types of transactions and protections in place.
Bet & General Network fees
● Head to Head betting 2% winning side
● Multi-User betting 4% winning side
● Peerless Direct chain betting 6% winning side
● Network transaction fee 0.0001
● Bet Minimum of below 1 Wagerr bet fees triple"
It's still not excessive house edge, just average, with no extra value over most competitors, and a slight disadvantage against some industry leaders.
Then again, it will be hard to get general public to use cryptocurrency tokens to place their bets, at least in the short term and under wagerr's terms.
let me simplify,
2 equal teams, team A and B
bet 100 on wager. you win 98
in sportsbook sites to be able to beat wager, you will have see decimal odds like below
team A : 1.98
team b : 1.98
i've not seen this kind of odds in a sportsbook
in exchange sites with 1% fee to be able to beat wager, you will have see decimal odds like below
team A : 1.9898
team b : 1.9898
possible but extremely unlikely.
That's not right.
2% fee is more like 1,96 / 1,96, if what you mean is the house edge, but that only applies to chain betting, since it's where the house offers the odds for you to bet on, so at 6% it would be about 1,887 / 1,887.
Anyways, absolutely no bookie in the world applies the exact same edge to all events, and even to all markets within each event, so expect their 6% fee to be on most liquid ones.
The 2% fee on head to head and multi user means extracting that percentage from what you win (not the total payout).
Usually, if the liquidity is high enough, you can even see 1,99 / 1,99, but that is not a matter of what odds the house is offering, as it's what people are willing to pay for their choice on both sides. In this case, with odds of 1,99, saying you place a bet of 100$ and you win the bet, your fee would be (100*0,99*0,02).
In lower liquidity events you will more likely see 1,9 / 1,7 (if there are bets on both sides at all). The fee they charge would remain a 2% on winning amount, but your odds will be horrible.
I don't really care that much about the guy who just constantly writes over my comments with useless arguments, it's obvious that if he knew a thing about betting he would at least try to prove me wrong.
The problem is when people who are trying to invest their money into a project are fooled by this type of people, who are probably paid to hype the project, or fully invested in it.
Anyways, investing is a matter of analyzing where you put your money, and I hope my comments at least help people thinking about putting their money in wagerr do a little in depth research.
this project is nice under radar, hype didnt even start.
I hope they market this beast after ico beyond imagination, they sure have the money now.
I hope they market this beast after ico beyond imagination, they sure have the money now.
Wagerr to $100/token someday?
You are probably asking too much, but never say never. Actually the ICO price is 0.09$ more or less.. The total supply is 200kk so 100$ is not an irrealistic goal for a long term. Let's see how this project proceed..
Wagerr to $100/token someday?
In terms of investment, on what term do you guys expect the value of a Wagerr token to exceed the ICO price? At the moment there doens't seem to be an overwhelming interest, otherwise the ICO would have been long completed (like when BAT and BNC had their ICO).
Is this a mid/long term investment?
I'm thinking of joining the ICO.
Is this a mid/long term investment?
I'm thinking of joining the ICO.
Wagerr already completed their initial goal too quickly. So they extended another 10 round because of interest. The price is higher in each round so it's normal i guess.
Despite the current massive crash and sabotages， the ICO is still going strong!
Prejudice, motives, emotion and fear blind us from seeing the truth.
In terms of investment, on what term do you guys expect the value of a Wagerr token to exceed the ICO price? At the moment there doens't seem to be an overwhelming interest, otherwise the ICO would have been long completed (like when BAT and BNC had their ICO).
Is this a mid/long term investment?
I'm thinking of joining the ICO.
Well, I see Edgeless and see they are up to 50ish mil. This one is priced at 10 mil (Is this a mid/long term investment?
I'm thinking of joining the ICO.
i think?). So I definitely can see the upside due to low market cap. There will be growing pain no doubt such as getting it listed on an exchange, which should be priority. Now if gambling projects get another upswing then even more upside, IMO.Jump to: