CrazyJoker has made changes that I believe more accurately show the risks of depositing on his site.
Waiting on the OP before removing the negative trust.
Topic: Clear abuse of DefaultTrust by Vod [RESOLVED] (Read 2941 times)
I agree with Dooglus:
if the invested amount plus a 40% profit is not received by the site within 120 hours, the player will lose his entire bet.
Done.if the invested amount plus a 40% profit is not received by the site within 120 hours, the player will lose his entire bet.
I have changed the text to Total Paid including Commission, so that no confusion arises.
There is still confusion there! To a reasonable person, that still sounds that you paid out that money to the user.
I want to see that number display the actual money paid back to users. People need to see that money going in does NOT equal money going out. They need to see your site is making a profit. In your FAQ, you can explain the difference between the Total Invested and the Total Paid out is the site profit. Right now it looks like no is losing money on your site - which is not true. It is deceiving.
Thanks.
It seems players did not like this increase of minimum bet amount from 0.001 BTC to 0.01 BTC. So, I am changing it back to 0.001 BTC again.
So no explanation at all to why you jumped the minimum deposit up ten fold? Just FYI, if there is no legit business reason for doing this, this is very scammy behavior. I would suggest you don't do it in the future either.
Now, will you please remove the feedback ?
I agree with Dooglus:
if the invested amount plus a 40% profit is not received by the site within 120 hours, the player will lose his entire bet.
There is still confusion there! To a reasonable person, that still sounds that you paid out that money to the user.
I want to see that number display the actual money paid back to users. People need to see that money going in does NOT equal money going out. They need to see your site is making a profit. In your FAQ, you can explain the difference between the Total Invested and the Total Paid out is the site profit. Right now it looks like no is losing money on your site - which is not true. It is deceiving.
Thanks.
So no explanation at all to why you jumped the minimum deposit up ten fold? Just FYI, if there is no legit business reason for doing this, this is very scammy behavior. I would suggest you don't do it in the future either.
if the invested amount plus a 40% profit is not received by the site within 120 hours, the player will lose his entire bet.
I have changed the text to Total Paid including Commission, so that no confusion arises.
There is still confusion there! To a reasonable person, that still sounds that you paid out that money to the user.
I want to see that number display the actual money paid back to users. People need to see that money going in does NOT equal money going out. They need to see your site is making a profit. In your FAQ, you can explain the difference between the Total Invested and the Total Paid out is the site profit. Right now it looks like no is losing money on your site - which is not true. It is deceiving.
Thanks.
It seems players did not like this increase of minimum bet amount from 0.001 BTC to 0.01 BTC. So, I am changing it back to 0.001 BTC again.
So no explanation at all to why you jumped the minimum deposit up ten fold? Just FYI, if there is no legit business reason for doing this, this is very scammy behavior. I would suggest you don't do it in the future either.
I have updated the FAQ...
That can not be done. Because, that way new users will be deprived to get paid by the bankroll. The main attraction of this game is that, unlike a classical Ponzi, new users may also get paid by old users. If I break that, it would be no different than other Ponzi games. But, interestingly, you'd find whoever has tried to take over the board by a series of small bets have ultimately lost out.
It's hard to say what the main attraction is. There seems to be no shortage of people willing to play traditional Ponzi games, even the dishonest "double your money guaranteed" ones that are clearly going to scam. I think that even if you do as I suggest, your game is still quite different than traditional Ponzis in that failing to pay out a single user in full doesn't break the whole scheme. I don't think it's true that "That can not be done" as you claim.
You have all the information needed to reconstruct the game don't you? All it seems you would need is a list of the timestamps and sizes of each bet. Don't you have a log of that?
Thanks for the vouch. I dont know if Vod will be satisfied with all these explanations and changes made.
For dice sites, bet gets placed every second. Here the life of a bet is 120 hour. So, naturally % of commission needs to be higher to make the project viable.
"Vouch" isn't what I did. I don't have any idea how trustworthy you are, and so cannot vouch for you. From what I've seen it's quite plausible that you're not running a scam.
I don't think you're doing 10 times more work than an average dice site owner does. I don't see how the fact that bets can take multiple days to settle means it's fair to take a 10% cut. But that's none of my business. So long as you make it clear that you take 10% of the turnover it's up to the potential players to decide whether to play or not.
[ Edit: it seems to me that making bets all-or-nothing just encourages people to place a long series of minimum bets instead of a single large bet, because then they can get paid out partially. You should pay out whatever is in the bankroll when a bet expires to simplify things. ]
That can not be done. Because, that way new users will be deprived to get paid by the bankroll. The main attraction of this game is that, unlike a classical Ponzi, new users may also get paid by old users. If I break that, it would be no different than other Ponzi games. But, interestingly, you'd find whoever has tried to take over the board by a series of small bets have ultimately lost out.
It's hard to say what the main attraction is. There seems to be no shortage of people willing to play traditional Ponzi games, even the dishonest "double your money guaranteed" ones that are clearly going to scam. I think that even if you do as I suggest, your game is still quite different than traditional Ponzis in that failing to pay out a single user in full doesn't break the whole scheme. I don't think it's true that "That can not be done" as you claim.
I'd prefer a little more transparency in this game. Maybe show the bankroll after each "paid" status as well as the number of the bet which enabled that older bet to be paid out. Players have to decide whether they trust the operator not to run with their coins, just as they do with any other gambling game (provably fair or not). Probably fairness makes cheating detectable, but can't prevent it happening.
I was trying to show the bankroll, but it seems this is not possible in the way the game is designed. I have not stored bankroll anywhere. I just dynamically calculate it by subtracting 'Total Paid' from 'Total Invested' and keep comparing it with pending balance. So finding old bankrolls is very difficult. But, in case someone has any doubt, he can take a snapshot of the board before he places bet and then find the bankroll against which his bet status changed to paid/expired by the following forumula...
previous bankroll + total invested after his bet and before the status change - total paid after his bet and before the status change
previous bankroll + total invested after his bet and before the status change - total paid after his bet and before the status change
You have all the information needed to reconstruct the game don't you? All it seems you would need is a list of the timestamps and sizes of each bet. Don't you have a log of that?
tldr: IMHO this isn't a scam (it's just a gambling game with a whopping 10% house edge and in which the operator can potentially cheat by betting against himself).
Thanks for the vouch. I dont know if Vod will be satisfied with all these explanations and changes made.
For dice sites, bet gets placed every second. Here the life of a bet is 120 hour. So, naturally % of commission needs to be higher to make the project viable.
"Vouch" isn't what I did. I don't have any idea how trustworthy you are, and so cannot vouch for you. From what I've seen it's quite plausible that you're not running a scam.
I don't think you're doing 10 times more work than an average dice site owner does. I don't see how the fact that bets can take multiple days to settle means it's fair to take a 10% cut. But that's none of my business. So long as you make it clear that you take 10% of the turnover it's up to the potential players to decide whether to play or not.
The 10% commission is taken from the Total Returned and it can easily be verified by any player who has an account the site. When logged in, if you click on the bet ID, it'll show you the bet details. That clearly mentions that the To be Returned amount is not what gets added to the user's account. 10% gets deducted from it and and then it gets added. When we refer someone, 5% goes to OP and 5% come to us. Nothing is taken if user loses a bet and all remains in the bankroll.
Ah, so the Total Returned is not really the Total Returned.
I have changed the text to Total Paid including Commission, so that no confusion arises.
I have met almost all the requirements for transparency within my technical boundary. Can you please remove the -ve feedback now ?
Edit: It appears the OP has increased the minimum playing amount by tenfold. 
Just increased the minimum bet amount from 0.001 BTC to 0.01 BTC. Hopefully it does NOT affect anyone and make the game more interesting for all...
It has been changed back to what it was...
It seems players did not like this increase of minimum bet amount from 0.001 BTC to 0.01 BTC. So, I am changing it back to 0.001 BTC again.
I'll look at it again in my morning. If the OP wants to be more realistic with his site, and clearly list the risks associated with his game (he doesn't even state you can lose coins!) then I can reconsider my trust.
As I can see, you are posting in the forum again, but NOT here. Are you reconsidering the trust you have left or planning to leave it as is ?
I think some of the ideas the community has left here have merit.
1) Display the bank balance after each transaction - this way everyone can see if you are being honest or if you are slowly building up a balance to disappear with (because that's what ponzis do)
2) Display a link to the blockchain transaction after each deposit/withdrawal.
3) Make it clear on the website when and how a player can lose what they have deposited.
1) Explained above to Dooglus about the technical challenges to get this done. Just correcting you a little bit about a wrong understanding. In this site Bankroll does not only grow. It goes up as old users get paid by new users and goes down as new users get paid by old users. So, unlike classical Ponzis my Bankroll will never grow to something with which I can run away. My profit increases only when more people get paid.
2) Game is played from site wallet. So, there is no blockchain proof possible for that. Though, I have created a Proof of Payment page - www.crazyponzi.com/proof.php
3) Explained above to Dooglus about the change made in FAQ. I have also added an explicit message in Sign UP...
Quote
CrazyPonzi.com is a gambling site and by playing here you can win as well as lose all your deposit. By signing up you agree with the following...
1. Gambling is allowed in your jurisdiction.
2. You are 18+.
3. You understand the risks of gambling.
1. Gambling is allowed in your jurisdiction.
2. You are 18+.
3. You understand the risks of gambling.
-snip-
I personally don't consider any kind of Ponzi to be scammy unless they are selling it as guaranteed profit. Most of them promise to return X% profit within Y time because the are great at trading / mining / whatever. If they make it clear that you only get paid if enough people join after you, then that turns it into a game where everyone knows the risks, and I don't see anything wrong with that. This game has a FAQ:
I think that's good enough. The English could be improved, and I'd like to see it explicitly state that you either get paid out in full or not at all. At first I was thinking I'd get whatever was in the bankroll when my bet expired, up to the full 140% but apparently that isn't the case. But that's a nit pick.
I have updated the FAQ...I personally don't consider any kind of Ponzi to be scammy unless they are selling it as guaranteed profit. Most of them promise to return X% profit within Y time because the are great at trading / mining / whatever. If they make it clear that you only get paid if enough people join after you, then that turns it into a game where everyone knows the risks, and I don't see anything wrong with that. This game has a FAQ:
Quote
3. So, what is the catch ?
A: Every single investment will expire after 120 hour. Hence every player needs to have more players investing after him before the investment expire. The best way to do this is to spread the word about www.CrazyPonzi.com to as many bitcoiners as possible using your referral link shown in the dashboard.
A: Every single investment will expire after 120 hour. Hence every player needs to have more players investing after him before the investment expire. The best way to do this is to spread the word about www.CrazyPonzi.com to as many bitcoiners as possible using your referral link shown in the dashboard.
I think that's good enough. The English could be improved, and I'd like to see it explicitly state that you either get paid out in full or not at all. At first I was thinking I'd get whatever was in the bankroll when my bet expired, up to the full 140% but apparently that isn't the case. But that's a nit pick.
[ Edit: it seems to me that making bets all-or-nothing just encourages people to place a long series of minimum bets instead of a single large bet, because then they can get paid out partially. You should pay out whatever is in the bankroll when a bet expires to simplify things. ]
That can not be done. Because, that way new users will be deprived to get paid by the bankroll. The main attraction of this game is that, unlike a classical Ponzi, new users may also get paid by old users. If I break that, it would be no different than other Ponzi games. But, interestingly, you'd find whoever has tried to take over the board by a series of small bets have ultimately lost out.I'd prefer a little more transparency in this game. Maybe show the bankroll after each "paid" status as well as the number of the bet which enabled that older bet to be paid out. Players have to decide whether they trust the operator not to run with their coins, just as they do with any other gambling game (provably fair or not). Probably fairness makes cheating detectable, but can't prevent it happening.
I was trying to show the bankroll, but it seems this is not possible in the way the game is designed. I have not stored bankroll anywhere. I just dynamically calculate it by subtracting 'Total Paid' from 'Total Invested' and keep comparing it with pending balance. So finding old bankrolls is very difficult. But, in case someone has any doubt, he can take a snapshot of the board before he places bet and then find the bankroll against which his bet status changed to paid/expired by the following forumula...previous bankroll + total invested after his bet and before the status change - total paid after his bet and before the status change
tldr: IMHO this isn't a scam (it's just a gambling game with a whopping 10% house edge and in which the operator can potentially cheat by betting against himself).
Thanks for the vouch. I dont know if Vod will be satisfied with all these explanations and changes made.
For dice sites, bet gets placed every second. Here the life of a bet is 120 hour. So, naturally % of commission needs to be higher to make the project viable.
I'm trying to work out a personal policy to determine when a ponzi should be flagged as a ponzi - so that everyone is treated equally.
I think one of the guys you're arguing with misinterpreted "personal" here. You mean personal to you, not to the person running the Ponzi game.
My personal policy is that a Ponzi is a scam if it is deceptive, and not if it isn't.
If you run a Ponzi and say "we will double your deposit in 24 hours for as long as we can; deposits will be doubled in the order they are received; if we ever go 7 whole days without being able to afford to double a deposit, we will shut down and keep what's left over" then that's OK.
If you run exactly the same Ponzi but describe it as "we guarantee to double your deposit in 24 hours; we can do this because we whore out our grandmother; and she's really hot, man" then that's not OK.
The 2nd kind is by far the more common, with the owner swearing blind that he has some magical way of doubling any amount of money, and look, here's proof because we just doubled a deposit of 0.001 BTC...
Edit: It appears the OP has increased the minimum playing amount by tenfold.
The way he has it set up makes it best for the player to split his bets up as small as possible, to maximise the chance that at least some of them will be successful. He should change that, and in doing so remove the incentive for people to make lots of tiny bets.
The 10% commission is taken from the Total Returned and it can easily be verified by any player who has an account the site. When logged in, if you click on the bet ID, it'll show you the bet details. That clearly mentions that the To be Returned amount is not what gets added to the user's account. 10% gets deducted from it and and then it gets added. When we refer someone, 5% goes to OP and 5% come to us. Nothing is taken if user loses a bet and all remains in the bankroll.
Ah, so the Total Returned is not really the Total Returned.
-snip-
I'd prefer a little more transparency in this game. Maybe show the bankroll after each "paid" status as well as the number of the bet which enabled that older bet to be paid out. Players have to decide whether they trust the operator not to run with their coins, just as they do with any other gambling game (provably fair or not). Probably fairness makes cheating detectable, but can't prevent it happening.
tldr: IMHO this isn't a scam (it's just a gambling game with a whopping 10% house edge and in which the operator can potentially cheat by betting against himself).
I'd prefer a little more transparency in this game. Maybe show the bankroll after each "paid" status as well as the number of the bet which enabled that older bet to be paid out. Players have to decide whether they trust the operator not to run with their coins, just as they do with any other gambling game (provably fair or not). Probably fairness makes cheating detectable, but can't prevent it happening.
tldr: IMHO this isn't a scam (it's just a gambling game with a whopping 10% house edge and in which the operator can potentially cheat by betting against himself).
Id like to hope that its not a scam as well, but as you said cheating would be hard to detect. Also thanks for the reminder of the lengthy chain. It got to me way after this was still a point that I had to look at the complete series of bets to figure out the actual bankroll at that time. More information would definitely do good. If logged in it gives you the time the bet was placed, which help understand the events a little better.
-snip-
I think some of the ideas the community has left here have merit.
1) Display the bank balance after each transaction - this way everyone can see if you are being honest or if you are slowly building up a balance to disappear with (because that's what ponzis do)
2) Display a link to the blockchain transaction after each deposit/withdrawal.
3) Make it clear on the website when and how a player can lose what they have deposited.
I think some of the ideas the community has left here have merit.
1) Display the bank balance after each transaction - this way everyone can see if you are being honest or if you are slowly building up a balance to disappear with (because that's what ponzis do)
2) Display a link to the blockchain transaction after each deposit/withdrawal.
3) Make it clear on the website when and how a player can lose what they have deposited.
The way I understood the game is that the play off-chain, thus 2 would not work.
One other thing that makes me not trust CrazyPonzi. On the front page he says:
Total Returned + Bankroll equals the Total Invested!
Where is the 5%-10% the system is supposed to take?
The numbers are being manipulated somewhere.
-picture-
Code:
Total Invested: 28.8602 btc
Total Returned: 28.7858 btc
Bankroll: 00.0745 btc
Total Returned: 28.7858 btc
Bankroll: 00.0745 btc
Total Returned + Bankroll equals the Total Invested!
Where is the 5%-10% the system is supposed to take?
The numbers are being manipulated somewhere.
-picture-
Profit is part of total returned, which is indeed phrased misleadingly. It should probably be deducted and put in a separate box.
One other thing that makes me not trust CrazyPonzi. On the front page he says:
Total Returned + Bankroll equals the Total Invested!
Where is the 5%-10% the system is supposed to take?
The numbers are being manipulated somewhere.
Code:
Total Invested: 28.8602 btc
Total Returned: 28.7858 btc
Bankroll: 00.0745 btc
Total Returned: 28.7858 btc
Bankroll: 00.0745 btc
Total Returned + Bankroll equals the Total Invested!
Where is the 5%-10% the system is supposed to take?
The numbers are being manipulated somewhere.
No. The numbers are not being manipulated anywhere. Just because you have failed to understand the game logic, you are terming it as a SCAM.
The 10% commission is taken from the Total Returned and it can easily be verified by any player who has an account the site. When logged in, if you click on the bet ID, it'll show you the bet details. That clearly mentions that the To be Returned amount is not what gets added to the user's account. 10% gets deducted from it and and then it gets added. When we refer someone, 5% goes to OP and 5% come to us. Nothing is taken if user loses a bet and all remains in the bankroll.
Moreover, as I can see, you have alleged that OP has increased minimum amount of bet. Increase of mimimum amount of bet does not skyrocket the bankroll, because as in one hand it'll increase the Total Invested, on the other hand it'll increae the Total Returned too. So, the bankroll will remain as is as that is always the difference between Total Invested & Total Returned.
You are just picking up non-issues to wrongly justify your feedback. I wonder why you are silent about obvious scams and trying to malign an honest site. Below are a few example of obvious scams...
CryptoPyramid: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/cryptopyramid-480605
CryptoMMMCom: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/cryptommmcom-511134
One other thing that makes me not trust CrazyPonzi. On the front page he says:
Total Returned + Bankroll equals the Total Invested!
Where is the 5%-10% the system is supposed to take?
The numbers are being manipulated somewhere.
Code:
Total Invested: 28.8602 btc
Total Returned: 28.7858 btc
Bankroll: 00.0745 btc
Total Returned: 28.7858 btc
Bankroll: 00.0745 btc
Total Returned + Bankroll equals the Total Invested!
Where is the 5%-10% the system is supposed to take?
The numbers are being manipulated somewhere.
The problem with OP is that, like all heros, he has a fatal flaw. He can't bring himself to believe he's a scammer, whereas the truth of the matter is that he probably is.
Tell me about. I'm currently dealing with an anonymous account pretending to be a fake charity with an imaginary business he promises he will register sometime in the future.
This is how he justifies himself:
Quote
There is absolutely nothing illegal, wrong, improper, inappropriate, or misleading about what I'm doing.
Over 50% of respondents in two polls (one created by me, one created by him) stated his name was misleading. (he doesn't care)
Holding donations solicited fraudulently while you have an anonymous account is also inappropriate. (he doesn't care)
This time you are getting clearly personal, which is absolutely unexpected from someone in DefaultTrust. You can not deny the fact that OP contacted you first and when he did not get any response from you and found that you are still posting in the forum, then only he created this thread and contacted your DefaultTrust sponsors. How come you claim that someone will be -ve trusted because of some personal policy you'll create at some point of time ?
Nothing personal about it - although your post seems personal against me.
The OP does not clearly state to a reasonable person that you can lose all your coins. It says your investment will expire after 120 hours, but what does that mean? I'm glad you feel that is "good enough" but I'd like to see more - especially since he promotes his ponzi as Transparent and Secure (lol).
I'm working on a policy to apply to all ponzis but until I decide on a clear definition, I still want to protect this community and his ponzi is a scam. He recently upped his minimum bet by a factor of 10. He's also a newer account with no vested interest. He could easily disappear with the coins, re-register a new domain and start all over. With his minimum bet increase, he'll now do it 10x earlier.
Why ? Otherwise wont that be a partial judgement ? Should DefaultTrust judgement be served like this way ?
In a perfect world, all ponzis will be treated to the same scrutiny. I'm working towards that perfect world, and I hope you will give me time.
Otherwise, logically you should leave -ve feedback on every dice site operator that accepts investment in the bankroll.
I hope I don't have to do that - it would be a lot of needless work.
I'm trying to work out a personal policy to determine when a ponzi should be flagged as a ponzi - so that everyone is treated equally. One of the ways they wouldn't be flagged was if they clearly stated for a reasonable person that they could lose all their money and that a return is not guaranteed. (OP does not do that.)
Not sure what personal policy you are talking about and whether that fits to DefaultTrust. First of all, the site clearly states that it is a A bitcoin gambling game. Is not it enough to say that a player could lose as well ? Moreover, as Dooglus pointed out, it is mentioned in their FAQ as well (though I'd expect the statement to be more clear)...
This game has a FAQ:
I think that's good enough.
Quote
3. So, what is the catch ?
A: Every single investment will expire after 120 hour. Hence every player needs to have more players investing after him before the investment expire. The best way to do this is to spread the word about www.CrazyPonzi.com to as many bitcoiners as possible using your referral link shown in the dashboard.
A: Every single investment will expire after 120 hour. Hence every player needs to have more players investing after him before the investment expire. The best way to do this is to spread the word about www.CrazyPonzi.com to as many bitcoiners as possible using your referral link shown in the dashboard.
I think that's good enough.
Since the OP called me out as an abuser and contacted my default trust sponsors, I don't feel removing the trust until my policy is developed is an appropriate thing to do - I think the community should stay involved.
This time you are getting clearly personal, which is absolutely unexpected from someone in DefaultTrust. You can not deny the fact that OP contacted you first and when he did not get any response from you and found that you are still posting in the forum, then only he created this thread and contacted your DefaultTrust sponsors. How come you claim that someone will be -ve trusted because of some personal policy you'll create at some point of time ?
Otherwise, logically you should leave -ve feedback on every dice site operator that accepts investment in the bankroll.
I hope I don't have to do that - it would be a lot of needless work.
I'm trying to work out a personal policy to determine when a ponzi should be flagged as a ponzi - so that everyone is treated equally. One of the ways they wouldn't be flagged was if they clearly stated for a reasonable person that they could lose all their money and that a return is not guaranteed. (OP does not do that.)
Since the OP called me out as an abuser and contacted my default trust sponsors, I don't feel removing the trust until my policy is developed is an appropriate thing to do - I think the community should stay involved.
Edit: It appears the OP has increased the minimum playing amount by tenfold.
Just increased the minimum bet amount from 0.001 BTC to 0.01 BTC. Hopefully it does NOT affect anyone and make the game more interesting for all...
The problem with OP is that, like all heros, he has a fatal flaw. He can't bring himself to believe he's a scammer, whereas the truth of the matter is that he probably is.
Otherwise, logically you should leave -ve feedback on every dice site operator that accepts investment in the bankroll.
I hope I don't have to do that - it would be a lot of needless work.
I'm trying to work out a personal policy to determine when a ponzi should be flagged as a ponzi - so that everyone is treated equally. One of the ways they wouldn't be flagged was if they clearly stated for a reasonable person that they could lose all their money and that a return is not guaranteed. (OP does not do that.)
Since the OP called me out as an abuser and contacted my default trust sponsors, I don't feel removing the trust until my policy is developed is an appropriate thing to do - I think the community should stay involved.
Edit: It appears the OP has increased the minimum playing amount by tenfold.
Just increased the minimum bet amount from 0.001 BTC to 0.01 BTC. Hopefully it does NOT affect anyone and make the game more interesting for all...
I'll look at it again in my morning. If the OP wants to be more realistic with his site, and clearly list the risks associated with his game (he doesn't even state you can lose coins!) then I can reconsider my trust.
As I can see, you are posting in the forum again, but NOT here. Are you reconsidering the trust you have left or planning to leave it as is ?
I think some of the ideas the community has left here have merit.
1) Display the bank balance after each transaction - this way everyone can see if you are being honest or if you are slowly building up a balance to disappear with (because that's what ponzis do)
2) Display a link to the blockchain transaction after each deposit/withdrawal.
3) Make it clear on the website when and how a player can lose what they have deposited.
I think, the community including QuickSeller, Shorena & me almost agreed that this is not a scam, though it has a few drawbacks that every dice site that accept investment in bankroll do have.
Even dooglus summarized it as not a scam...
tldr: IMHO this isn't a scam (it's just a gambling game with a whopping 10% house edge and in which the operator can potentially cheat by betting against himself).
As a community, we suggested some improvements that joker may consider to implement. But, that does not hold us the right to tag him as a scammer anymore. QuickSeller, Shorena & Dooglus all are in DefaultTrust and they voted against terming joker as a scammer. Moreover, one of the reason that you are in DefaultTrust now is because Dooglus trusted you. IMHO, irrespective of whether joker implement the changes or not, you should remove the -ve feedback or at least change it to neutral. Otherwise, logically you should leave -ve feedback on every dice site operator that accepts investment in the bankroll.
I'll look at it again in my morning. If the OP wants to be more realistic with his site, and clearly list the risks associated with his game (he doesn't even state you can lose coins!) then I can reconsider my trust.
As I can see, you are posting in the forum again, but NOT here. Are you reconsidering the trust you have left or planning to leave it as is ?
I think some of the ideas the community has left here have merit.
1) Display the bank balance after each transaction - this way everyone can see if you are being honest or if you are slowly building up a balance to disappear with (because that's what ponzis do)
2) Display a link to the blockchain transaction after each deposit/withdrawal.
3) Make it clear on the website when and how a player can lose what they have deposited.
Jump to: