What I remember is investing in a bankroll of a cryptocurrency casino.
It’s profit increased for 12 million $, and no where was it stated that the casino was going to sell crypto for FIAT and let people gamble in FIAT instead of crypto (which would assume you have nothing to do with crypto anymore), so please explain to me how the hell does your bankroll increase for 12 million $ (trifold) and you still get the same FIAT amount as when you invested when your assets are valued in FIAT and not in crypto.
The way it was done seems to have been specified and clarified up front, so on one hand, there was nothing illicit or inappropriate about it (I was not involved in the ICO, but I assume the info on the ICO screen describing the process was available).
On the other hand, the way it was done, there was literally no reason for anyone to invest in the IPO. The money you put in was converted to FIAT and then held for you in FIAT where you can only redeem at it at 10% per quarter. You get the benefit of casino profit, but you could get that by simply buying BKB after the fact. Since exchanges will always have it at a discount, buying BKB in the exchange would always be done at a better price than buying through the IPO, under any circumstance. In fact, lots of people investing in the IPO actually *lowers* the return-on-investment because a larger portion of the value of BKB is the original $0.092 that can has a rate of return of 0%.
If only 10% as many people would have invested, BKB would have started at $0.0096, but had the same absolute increase in value from casino profits, meaning 10x the percentage return.
I think it either *should* have been set up the way you describe (invested in the full bankroll) or there was no real reason for anyone to invest in the ICO. If you wanted, say, $1000 ownership in the casino, you'd have been better off buying it in an exchange at a discounted price.
