Topic: bustabit – The original crash game - page 82. (Read 61171 times)

Sums it up very succinctly. I agree with most of what you said, especially about the dwindling number of worthwhile bitcoin investing platforms. Oh well, nothing good ever lasts.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that Daniel probably doesn't care. The people that are really important, and that he really needs to please are gamblers, which are his actual customers. Bankroll investors are just a means to that end (i.e. make sure the limits are high enough, and the site can smoothly operate through huge profit swings, etc). And according to the stats, Daniel has already paid  investors  3875 BTC  for their services (i.e. averaged out to 176 BTC a month?).

Since I have no shame, and don't mind making an ass of my self speculating -- I'm going to guess he looked at that number, and realized since the size of the bankroll is already bigger than it needs to be -- and decided he'd rather just keep some of that money for himself. He probably realized he couldn't easily raise the %-of-wagered commission, because that would lower the max-profit by a lot, and put too much variance on investors who would be tempted to divest, which could create a vicious feedback cycle.  So switching to % of profit, makes a lot of sense. It means that max-profit will go *up* unless more than 1/3rd of the investors divest -- which seems highly unlikely (afaict, actually there's been 1 more btc invested than divested since he announced the change).

---


From a personal perspective, I'm a bit of two minds about it. It's sad to watch these great investing opportunities diminish (or even go away, like yolodice recently) but it's also nice to see these businesses mature too. The vast majority of crypto projects that ask for "investments" are so focused on getting investor money, that they lose sight of creating a viable business.

The EV compared to other sites is now lower, and you're right in that it comes with a lot of added security, trust, and peace of mind. devans is risking little to nothing (he loses nothing when players win, but takes 50% of the profit when players lose). At this point in time, I think that trade-off is worth it. The returns may not be excellent (10% a month is not that far from less risky cryptocurreny lending sites) but it's worth the name that bustabit has made for itself.

That being said, I don't think this will last long. I think as other casinos such as EtherCrash develop names for themselves and keep their EV attractive, investing in bustabit wouldn't remain the smartest idea. Another point to note is that investing in bustabit for most people has now become a lot less risky (judging by the percentage that the average investor will acquire and the recent monthly bankroll growth). That doesn't make it inherently bad, but it has started to fit a different investing profile, and not one usually associated the the risk of a casino bankroll. I personally am more of a risk taker, and when I invest in casino bankrolls, I look for moderate risks and a commensurate reward. I don't think this (albeit low-risk) investment is worth it if I get only half the reward (regardless of the safety aspect).

Hmm, I don't think that's the way investors look at it -- or at least not how I do.

When I look at a bankroll investment, I try calculate if I invest X ... what is my expected return? What is the expected variance? And how would I (roughly) quantify the counter-party risk (i.e. malicious or screw up sort of problems).

---

So trying to do rough calculations against BaB, I'd eye-ball the average volume as 400 BTC/day, which would give investors (after commission) an expected 730 BTC per year. 1 BTC would buy you ~0.015279% of the bankroll, so an investment has a rough expected return of 11.15% a year?



So it's considerably worse than yesterday (which was double that) and even less than when i originally invested (I was estimating 30-40% p.a. returns)  but counter-party risk is the real thing that scares me (i.e. is the real reason I have only invested a small fraction of my bitcoin in the bankroll and not the whole thing).

I also think all the smart investors appreciate the importance of diversification (especially in something ultra-high-risk like bitcoin-casino-bankrolling) so I imagine it's going to more just be an issue of changing how much they invest, as opposed to investing or not investing.

In terms of absolute bankroll growth, I'm sure yours excels, but in terms of percentage growth, maybe not. bustabit remains a great investment, but for smaller fish looking for a growth opportunity, bustabit has become 50% less attractive.

Also, the iPhone is one of the best products out there, and Apple charging $1,800 instead of $900 isn't unreasonable, but it's definitely a fuck you to consumers.

Their EV isn't investors' only consideration when choosing a casino. A casino might have more favorable investment terms than another and still offer less expected bankroll growth if it can't match its competitor's wager volume. And in terms of wager volume, bustabit is one of the most popular Bitcoin casinos today. I couldn't find your game's wager volume anywhere but I'm confident that in terms of expected bankroll growth bustabit is still very much competitive despite the lower EV.

With that in mind, I don't believe that 50% is unreasonable at all and bustabit is still a very attractive investment.

It's an interesting change, which appears to me to be purely motivated by making more money. Nothing wrong with that, of course (and I'm sure bustabit and investing in the bankroll will remain profitable for years to come). However, 50% is squeezing investors a bit, and it hamstrings the potential significantly. bustabit has been my go-to recommendation for Bitcoin investing, but it appears I may have to reconsider. I'll be divesting my small stake in bustabit and deploying it back into flashflip, which keeps the commission model (thus giving investors a 25% greater expected profit on each coin wagered).

Nevertheless, good luck with everything.

I've just deployed a fix for that issue. Thanks! 👍

Why do you say that having an offsite bankroll became more attractive? As with the previous commission structure, an offsite investment also increases both your share of the profits as well as the losses (including to the commission) equally.

"Return to Player (v2 only)" and "Commission" fields on the statistics page need to be updated. Looks like having offsite bankroll is even more attractive.


It's the best cryptocurrency gambling site on the market for both players and investors alike, it's unsurprising that devans would like to capitalize on that.

Hey,

Probably something you get asked a lot today but what made you change the investment scheme to this? Like what is the reason(s)?

Regards,
Paladin.

Effective immediately bustabit will charge the bankroll a 50% commission on future net profits instead of the previous 0.25% commission on all wagers. This will have the immediate effect of increasing the wager and profit limits for players while simultaneously decreasing variance for investors at the the expense of reducing their expected value.

Whenever the bankroll's profit exceeds its previous high point, bustabit will receive 50% of the profits beyond the high point. No commission is collected on profits below the high point. For example, say the bankroll's profit high point is 100 BTC, its current profit is 99 BTC and players combined lose a total of 4 BTC in a round. 3 BTC of that is net profit (exceeding the previous all-time high), so bustabit would receive 1.5 BTC and the remaining 2.5 BTC would go to the bankroll. The commission is charged in real time, so investors can continue to invest and divest whenever they like.

For players, nothing changes other than the wager and profit limits increasing by a third as mentioned above.

Thank you for the clarity.

Others have used those as excuses to selective scam users and leaving their funds in limbo but you have made it clear that is not the case with Bustabit/Bustadice.

Correct, bustabit never has and never will seize users' funds unless it's legally compelled to by a lawful court order. The only minor correction is that bustabit complies with all lawful court orders, not just those from a user's country of residence.

That being said, since you are from a prohibited jurisdiction I'm afraid I have to ask you to withdraw your funds and stop using bustabit and bustadice.

 
I am pretty sure that I remember to register an account, there was something like  "I have read and agree to the terms of service". I think the popup we all just saw is for users who have agreed to the old ToS to let them know there's now a new one. I can't find an archive of the old ToS, but if my memory is correct the only substantial is the account recycling?

Since everyone is talking about ToS, the one thing I feel is missing is an official policy on how investors are exposed to things like mistakes/hacks. For instance, there was that bug in the API that allowed someone to find out the current-game multiplier and bustabit paid for it (150 btc?) instead of investors. Is that an official policy? Presumedly if the loss was too big, at some point bustabit couldn't/wouldn't be able to pay for it (as after all, the point of investors is to lower/eliminate risk). As an investor, it'd be nice to know if there's an official policy on handling situations like this.

I don't remember there being any other ToS, either anywhere on the site or for new users (?), the one that popped-up on bustabit and bustadice is the first one I ever saw.

I'd like this clarified by Devans, specifically about Bustadice.

I might be wrong here (I had trouble finding the old ToS), but I'm pretty sure the only new term is actually that about accounts being recycled after 2 years of no use. I don't think BaB has ever allowed US users (and other places where online gambling is illegal) and has always dealt with it by asking them to withdraw their balance and refrain from using it in the future. I think just the new ToS makes it a bit clearer (like right at the top, instead of buried in the middle).

While I don't like the changes, I understand that they needed to be made.  Thank you for the detailed responses @Devans and an even bigger thank you for just being upfront and honest with us.

Hi, would like this clarified please:

I am from the USA and login from exclusively the USA. Under the new rules, can Devans state that funds under no circumstances will funds be seized/forfeited relating to being a US resident and/or logging in from the USA unless directed to by the US government?

And, assuming the above is answered favorably, will US residents always be able to access the site through US ips?

The real trick is, what is the "personal information" is regarding? For example, is storing the emails and passwords attached to a username considered a personal information? Does it have to be KYC? If not then does bustabit requires KYC by the law so they have to ask for it, if they have to ask for it then does that mean they have to comply with GDPR?

This goes round and round between each other, I think since they are not asking for KYC as far as I know, they don't have to comply with other laws as well, as long as they are legit and not stealing money (which we all know they don't) there is no need to comply with any law regarding certain one area for now, maybe ban USA gamblers because it is illegal for them but all rest (including EU) seems fine so far.