Another issue I forgot to mention:
On the test site I'd seen people switching their 'offsite coins' between 0 and (lots) every second or two. That's causing big swings in the max profit, and is really annoying for players to play against. You don't know from one second to the next whether you're going to be able to have your bet accepted or not.
The intention is for this new feature to allow investors to reduce their counterparty risk by keeping the majority of their coins offsite, and so I don't see any reason to allow people to change their offsite declaration repeatedly.
I'm thinking maybe allowing it to be changed 4 times per day or something like that would be sufficient, and prevent the kind of shenanigans we've been seeing. Maybe we need to always allow a "/cold 0" for use in cases of emergency, but once the 4 changes per day are used up, that's the only /cold value that will be accepted.
Thoughts?
Topic: Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest - page 61. (Read 454823 times)
I also think staking rewards should be distributed considering on-site investment only as well. The rationale is simply that even though the promised, off-site investment does count towards the site's total, they'd be collecting staking twice for CLAM that are only working once: in their own wallet, supposedly.
They aren't contributing, so they shouldn't count.
They are not contributing to the staking, but they are contributing to the max profit. I think however it is done, the incentivizes needs to align with pushing people to keep money offsite (which is beneficial to investors, Dooglus and the coin).
It's tough, really. I'm a pretty small holder myself, I'll admit, so for me, it's either JD staking or I wouldn't get anything. I'm definitely in the majority with that as well, which creates a bit of a complication when it comes to being objective on the matter.
You have to keep in mind, though, that the risk of investing has to be in line with the reward. Reducing our stake means there's the same risk for less reward. And we're dealing with not one volatile currency but two here, which already puts us at a high risk (and that's assuming I invested 20 CLAM and was able to withdraw more than I deposited). We have to hope that CLAM doesn't tank AND that BTC doesn't tank more.
Just lost a Bitcoin's worth or more (260 CLAMS) but at least it was fun. There goes my two month's savings lol
There are a few people that like to bet on DD (incuding me) and have fun. Was wondering if you could integrate a bot that tips - same as JD's chat-bot (tips only), or the chat-bot's commands fully? Would be awesome.
Another question is how to distribute the staking rewards. If there are two investors, both deposit 1000 coins, and one uses "/cold 3000" to increase his effective investment to 4000, he now has 80% of the bankroll, and gets 80% of all betting profits and losses. But what about staking rewards? Should he also get 80% of those? Or should they be split in proportion to the actual onsite invested amount, since those are the only coins that are earning staking rewards?
You should not allow users to increase their staking amount for offsite coins. Offsite coins are not staked by JD so they should not be credited towards those users. That would allow double dipping as someone already pointed out.
As long as variable kelly is available for all investors, I can see only one problem with the kelly multiplier idea, and I admit it is minor. Whales tend to win or lose in streaks. So you should always use max allowable kelly and put the smallest fraction you can on the site. If a whale loses, great you rack up, if a whale wins, you only lose your amount on the site. So you'll see a lot of fluctuations in max profit.
Pretty minor, thanks for all your work to make Just-Dice such a good site.
As everyone else so far has said, I agree that off-site coins should not count for staking rewards. They aren't contributing, so they shouldn't count.
Another question is how to distribute the staking rewards. If there are two investors, both deposit 1000 coins, and one uses "/cold 3000" to increase his effective investment to 4000, he now has 80% of the bankroll, and gets 80% of all betting profits and losses. But what about staking rewards? Should he also get 80% of those? Or should they be split in proportion to the actual onsite invested amount, since those are the only coins that are earning staking rewards?
You should not allow users to increase their staking amount for offsite coins. Offsite coins are not staked by JD so they should not be credited towards those users. That would allow double dipping as someone already pointed out.
As long as variable kelly is available for all investors, I can see only one problem with the kelly multiplier idea, and I admit it is minor. Whales tend to win or lose in streaks. So you should always use max allowable kelly and put the smallest fraction you can on the site. If a whale loses, great you rack up, if a whale wins, you only lose your amount on the site. So you'll see a lot of fluctuations in max profit.
Pretty minor, thanks for all your work to make Just-Dice such a good site.
I think you can't give stacking reward to those who don't have the coins on just-dice, it would be very unfair for people who have their clam on just-dice because they would probably end up losing clam compared to just stacking their coins themselves and not be part of the just-dice bankroll.
When should this command be available? It will be fun. I bet there will be quite a few big investors that will keep their clam in the bankroll and there will not be that much daily moves in the just-dice bankroll but I bet the bankroll will grow a lot.
When should this command be available? It will be fun. I bet there will be quite a few big investors that will keep their clam in the bankroll and there will not be that much daily moves in the just-dice bankroll but I bet the bankroll will grow a lot.
There's a risk that if we pay too much for "offsite" coins, then everyone declares a lot of offsite coins, "because everyone else is doing it and I have to maintain my share", and then the whole site's bankroll is very vulnerable to being wiped out by a lucky whale.
So I think I agree with you, that we should split the staking reward according to the coins that are physically on deposit and invested. But I can see there is an argument for the alternative too.
So I think I agree with you, that we should split the staking reward according to the coins that are physically on deposit and invested. But I can see there is an argument for the alternative too.
That's precisely part of the issue, I based my logic on the premise that some, if not most, will declare more offsite coins than they actually have. Since we have no way of knowing the truth, we should level the playing field by rewarding only coins that are actually deposited.
I do foresee a run to declare close to the max amount of coins by people who desire to maintain their "stake" as you mentioned. Which, as you mentioned, will over-leverage people and make the site prone to wild swings in capitalization and max profit in case a whale comes in.
I also see the alternative that you mentioned, but I think the negatives outweigh the positives. By the way, could it be possible to separate staking from profit on the site, without doing a major re-design? For example, if profits are awarded based on online and offline coin amounts, but staking is rewarded only for online coins, then it seems like it would be more practical to separate the two income streams?
am convinced that staking should be given out based only on the coins that are actually invested on-site, and should not be leveraged. The logic is as follows: Investor puts in 1000 clam and does /cold 9000, there are two possibilities here, one is that he is truthful about his off-site holdings, or he isn't. If he is truthful, his coins will claim a stake as long as he has the client running, therefore he shouldn't be rewarded with a double-stake from JD. If he is not truthful, then he doesn't get stake from JD on imaginary funds.
Well, it depends on what we wish to reward. If truthfulness is what we're looking for then we don't want to reward people claiming to have coins offsite who really don't.
But if the most important goal is to encourage people to move their coins offsite, to remove the 51% attack risk, then perhaps letting people get paid twice for their offsite coins achieves that goal.
I'm in a funny situation here. I get 10% of all the staking rewards at the moment. The more the "/cold" scheme achieves my stated goal of moving coins offsite, the less I earn in staking commission.
There's a risk that if we pay too much for "offsite" coins, then everyone declares a lot of offsite coins, "because everyone else is doing it and I have to maintain my share", and then the whole site's bankroll is very vulnerable to being wiped out by a lucky whale.
So I think I agree with you, that we should split the staking reward according to the coins that are physically on deposit and invested. But I can see there is an argument for the alternative too.
I'm going to be offline for most of today. I will be back this evening.
I think having a maximum investment per person/IP address is not a good idea as it is possible to cheat and a big amount of money is relative to each person's situation.
It's better to leave the choice to the investors on how much they risk. The default risk should be 0.5%.
The stacking rewards should be rewarded in relation to the investment held on just-dice because that's the coins held on just-dice that bring those rewards. Also the CLAM offsite will already stack coins and some investors will want to keep their CLAM on just-dice to avoid having to keep the CLAM client online at all times.
The exchange risk limits the amount invested in just-dice and it's up to each one of us to make a decision of how much he wants to risk.
It's better to leave the choice to the investors on how much they risk. The default risk should be 0.5%.
The stacking rewards should be rewarded in relation to the investment held on just-dice because that's the coins held on just-dice that bring those rewards. Also the CLAM offsite will already stack coins and some investors will want to keep their CLAM on just-dice to avoid having to keep the CLAM client online at all times.
The exchange risk limits the amount invested in just-dice and it's up to each one of us to make a decision of how much he wants to risk.
I agree with the last caller. Only reward actual coins for staking. Otherwise it's a double dip. You get stake rewards for coins at JD and stake the same coins.
Doog, I saw you tinkering with Doge-dice yesterday and understand your busy schedule, thank you for taking the time to update us.
I think what you are experimenting with is very innovative and does potentially alleviate the risk for investors while adding another dimension to the entire risk/reward idea. I will think about what you said today and hopefully I can come up with a more insightful answer to your questions.
In the mean time, one thing I can say right away pertains to the staking: I am convinced that staking should be given out based only on the coins that are actually invested on-site, and should not be leveraged. The logic is as follows: Investor puts in 1000 clam and does /cold 9000, there are two possibilities here, one is that he is truthful about his off-site holdings, or he isn't. If he is truthful, his coins will claim a stake as long as he has the client running, therefore he shouldn't be rewarded with a double-stake from JD. If he is not truthful, then he doesn't get stake from JD on imaginary funds.
Like I said, I will think about the rest of your proposal and if I can add something further of value, I will certainly do that. I will also start keeping track of my account there and report my findings as time goes by.
Once again, I applaud you for not stopping to think about how you can better this experience for everyone, and for coming up with such ground-breaking ideas!
On a side-note, that still doesn't completely address my first questions above completely, but I understand you are busy so I will wait patiently, hopefully you can get to them at some point
Regards,
I think what you are experimenting with is very innovative and does potentially alleviate the risk for investors while adding another dimension to the entire risk/reward idea. I will think about what you said today and hopefully I can come up with a more insightful answer to your questions.
In the mean time, one thing I can say right away pertains to the staking: I am convinced that staking should be given out based only on the coins that are actually invested on-site, and should not be leveraged. The logic is as follows: Investor puts in 1000 clam and does /cold 9000, there are two possibilities here, one is that he is truthful about his off-site holdings, or he isn't. If he is truthful, his coins will claim a stake as long as he has the client running, therefore he shouldn't be rewarded with a double-stake from JD. If he is not truthful, then he doesn't get stake from JD on imaginary funds.
Like I said, I will think about the rest of your proposal and if I can add something further of value, I will certainly do that. I will also start keeping track of my account there and report my findings as time goes by.
Once again, I applaud you for not stopping to think about how you can better this experience for everyone, and for coming up with such ground-breaking ideas!
On a side-note, that still doesn't completely address my first questions above completely, but I understand you are busy so I will wait patiently, hopefully you can get to them at some point
Regards,
From 12/14/2014 -> 01/04/2015 you'd be up 22.29% if you invested and left it alone (in CLAMs, not accounting for change of value). So your number looks pretty accurate.
I made an account with an investment on Dec 12th, and will leave it untouched so I can monitor how it grows over time.
Here's the story so far:
Dec 12 2014 0.00% 100.00%
Dec 15 2014 3.64% 103.64%
Dec 22 2014 5.02% 108.85%
Dec 29 2014 2.09% 111.13%
Jan 5 2015 8.16% 120.20%
Jan 10 2015 5.26% 126.52%
I've tried a couple of times to read and reply to the big wall-of-text post, but didn't get to it yet.
I've been working on code to allow big investors to reduce their counter-party risk by declaring "offsite" coins that they want to invest.
It goes like this (in the prototype):
You have 10k coins. You want to invest them at JD, but you don't want to trust them to a dodgy dice site that might run off with them. You also don't want to contribute to the centralisation of all the CLAMs.
So you deposit 1000 coins, invest them, then in the chat you type "/cold 9000" which means "I have 9000 more coins in at home that I also want to invest". The site takes you at your word, adds another 9k to the bankroll, and you get to risk 0.5% of the 10k total on every roll from now on. The max profit on the site goes up an extra 180 in addition to the 20 it went up when you invested the 1000.
If the site does badly you'll take losses, and they come out of the 1k you deposited. If it ever gets to the point that you can no longer afford for the site to suffer a full max-profit loss without it driving your on-site investment negative, your "/cold" command will be undone, and you'll be left with just whatever is left of your initial 1000 coins invested.
This gives you all the benefits of depositing and investing your full 10k bankroll with only 10% of the counter-party risk.
I've put a rough prototype up at https://doge-dice.com/ for you to try it out. It spams the chat with INFO: lines about upcoming forced divestments and such like, which wouldn't appear in a final release, but I think they help make it clearer what's going on. It also gives you a target to aim for - "if I win just 2k more I can force out of their position" etc.
So I figure it's worth having people play around with it before making any decisions about how and whether to go live with it on JD. The test site uses worthless play coins. You get 100 free with every new account, and people are mostly happy to tip them to you if you run out. Please let me know if you discover any issues with it, and I'd like to hear comments and ideas about how it should be changed before going live on JD.
Currently you can set your "/cold" amount to be anything up to 199 times your actual onsite investment amount, meaning the total of onsite and offsite investments can be up to 200 times your actual onsite amount. Since you risk up to 0.5% of your investment per roll, that means that specifying the maximum of 199 times for the offsite amount is effectively saying you are prepared to risk your entire deposit per roll. That's clearly insane.
Some have suggested that I should pick a nice low maximum multiplier, like 10x or something. But I worry that if the maximum is half sensible then everyone will use it, whether they have coins offsite or not. What should the maximum be?
I notice that with this system there's no way to risk less than 0.5% of your deposit per roll. So how about if we lower the max-profit-percent to 0.1%, and increase the maximum multiplier to 1000x - this gives the same top limit, but allows ultra-conservative people the chance of running at 1/10 Kelly.
Another question is how to distribute the staking rewards. If there are two investors, both deposit 1000 coins, and one uses "/cold 3000" to increase his effective investment to 4000, he now has 80% of the bankroll, and gets 80% of all betting profits and losses. But what about staking rewards? Should he also get 80% of those? Or should they be split in proportion to the actual onsite invested amount, since those are the only coins that are earning staking rewards?
Lots of questions - hopefully I'll get some thoughtful answers...
I've been working on code to allow big investors to reduce their counter-party risk by declaring "offsite" coins that they want to invest.
It goes like this (in the prototype):
You have 10k coins. You want to invest them at JD, but you don't want to trust them to a dodgy dice site that might run off with them. You also don't want to contribute to the centralisation of all the CLAMs.
So you deposit 1000 coins, invest them, then in the chat you type "/cold 9000" which means "I have 9000 more coins in at home that I also want to invest". The site takes you at your word, adds another 9k to the bankroll, and you get to risk 0.5% of the 10k total on every roll from now on. The max profit on the site goes up an extra 180 in addition to the 20 it went up when you invested the 1000.
If the site does badly you'll take losses, and they come out of the 1k you deposited. If it ever gets to the point that you can no longer afford for the site to suffer a full max-profit loss without it driving your on-site investment negative, your "/cold" command will be undone, and you'll be left with just whatever is left of your initial 1000 coins invested.
This gives you all the benefits of depositing and investing your full 10k bankroll with only 10% of the counter-party risk.
I've put a rough prototype up at https://doge-dice.com/ for you to try it out. It spams the chat with INFO: lines about upcoming forced divestments and such like, which wouldn't appear in a final release, but I think they help make it clearer what's going on. It also gives you a target to aim for - "if I win just 2k more I can force
So I figure it's worth having people play around with it before making any decisions about how and whether to go live with it on JD. The test site uses worthless play coins. You get 100 free with every new account, and people are mostly happy to tip them to you if you run out. Please let me know if you discover any issues with it, and I'd like to hear comments and ideas about how it should be changed before going live on JD.
Currently you can set your "/cold" amount to be anything up to 199 times your actual onsite investment amount, meaning the total of onsite and offsite investments can be up to 200 times your actual onsite amount. Since you risk up to 0.5% of your investment per roll, that means that specifying the maximum of 199 times for the offsite amount is effectively saying you are prepared to risk your entire deposit per roll. That's clearly insane.
Some have suggested that I should pick a nice low maximum multiplier, like 10x or something. But I worry that if the maximum is half sensible then everyone will use it, whether they have coins offsite or not. What should the maximum be?
I notice that with this system there's no way to risk less than 0.5% of your deposit per roll. So how about if we lower the max-profit-percent to 0.1%, and increase the maximum multiplier to 1000x - this gives the same top limit, but allows ultra-conservative people the chance of running at 1/10 Kelly.
Another question is how to distribute the staking rewards. If there are two investors, both deposit 1000 coins, and one uses "/cold 3000" to increase his effective investment to 4000, he now has 80% of the bankroll, and gets 80% of all betting profits and losses. But what about staking rewards? Should he also get 80% of those? Or should they be split in proportion to the actual onsite invested amount, since those are the only coins that are earning staking rewards?
Lots of questions - hopefully I'll get some thoughtful answers...
Doog, I am a former investor in your Doge-dice.com site (I was known there as Fido) and I have a pertinent question that I didn't see anyone ask. Excuse me if I am repeating it, honestly I did not sift through all 183 pages here, but I did go through most.
My question pertains to your future plans about this site. CLAM is the currency of choice now, and until you restarted your website, almost no one was interested in this currency, relatively speaking. Your act of instating this as the only currency of JD actually caused a massive price spike. As a result, ~65% of the currency is invested here now.
Now, one of the main reasons you have cited for closing down JD and DD was that you were nervous about holding so much of people's money. However, on your blog post from June 23rd, 2014 you and Deb cited the main reason being the uncertainty around Canada's then-newly enacted regulations concerning money transmitting, online gambling, etc.
Part of my question then is, which one is it? If you closed your sites due to regulations, what has changed now? You are still in Canada from what we know, and the regulations that spooked you in the first place would very much still apply to your site; legally, it makes no difference if you accept CLAM or DOGE or BTC for investments, CLAM now has the status of a widely use means of exchange with a market cap of close to $1M and growing daily.
Second part of my question is, if your main reason for closing down your sites before was the stress from handling large sums of money, then how do you anticipate handling the situation when JD inevitably grows much bigger? Your top investor now, per your most recent blog post, already has ~50,000 CLAM invested, which is ~$75,000USD at current market prices. And that's just one person. Plus, the entire online gambling community has trust in you and will seek out your sites first and foremost to invest, so growth is all but guaranteed to continue further.
Which brings me to the main part of my question: the reasons that you cited for closing down DD and JD in the first place, it seems to me, still apply (or will apply soon again). What then? Will you abruptly shut down the site again? How will you handle it? The problem now is that if you were to do that again, the consequences will be catastrophic: people will make a run to exchange their now useless CLAM's for BTC and it will crash the price, wiping out a huge part of their funds. Forgive me for using the word "useless", I think the idea behind CLAM is great, but let's face it, CLAMS are mainly used and bought now so that people can gamble on your site. Your idea to use CLAM because they are more evenly distributed, while noble, will not prevent people from buying CLAM and driving the price up.
Now, some folks may say "well, if you want to be greedy and buy CLAMS only so you can invest here for a profit, that's your risk", and I will agree with a part of that, that's why I am asking these questions so that I can alleviate that risk to an extent. Doog, you may even claim that you don't care about large investors in here, and that you prefer not to have them, since you yourself have stated that you want this site to be mainly for fun.... why have the investment option at all then? Or why not cap it to a maximum per person/IP address, so that for the most part you will not hold too much of anyone's money?
I appreciate you taking the time to read this and consider my questions. You have given us no reason to doubt you, and I want to make it clear to everyone reading this that while being cautious due to the new challenges presented by the current course this site has taken, I believe in Doog, I think he is trustworthy, and he is the only person who owns such site that I would consider putting my money into, otherwise I wouldn't even bother asking these questions.
My question pertains to your future plans about this site. CLAM is the currency of choice now, and until you restarted your website, almost no one was interested in this currency, relatively speaking. Your act of instating this as the only currency of JD actually caused a massive price spike. As a result, ~65% of the currency is invested here now.
Now, one of the main reasons you have cited for closing down JD and DD was that you were nervous about holding so much of people's money. However, on your blog post from June 23rd, 2014 you and Deb cited the main reason being the uncertainty around Canada's then-newly enacted regulations concerning money transmitting, online gambling, etc.
Part of my question then is, which one is it? If you closed your sites due to regulations, what has changed now? You are still in Canada from what we know, and the regulations that spooked you in the first place would very much still apply to your site; legally, it makes no difference if you accept CLAM or DOGE or BTC for investments, CLAM now has the status of a widely use means of exchange with a market cap of close to $1M and growing daily.
Second part of my question is, if your main reason for closing down your sites before was the stress from handling large sums of money, then how do you anticipate handling the situation when JD inevitably grows much bigger? Your top investor now, per your most recent blog post, already has ~50,000 CLAM invested, which is ~$75,000USD at current market prices. And that's just one person. Plus, the entire online gambling community has trust in you and will seek out your sites first and foremost to invest, so growth is all but guaranteed to continue further.
Which brings me to the main part of my question: the reasons that you cited for closing down DD and JD in the first place, it seems to me, still apply (or will apply soon again). What then? Will you abruptly shut down the site again? How will you handle it? The problem now is that if you were to do that again, the consequences will be catastrophic: people will make a run to exchange their now useless CLAM's for BTC and it will crash the price, wiping out a huge part of their funds. Forgive me for using the word "useless", I think the idea behind CLAM is great, but let's face it, CLAMS are mainly used and bought now so that people can gamble on your site. Your idea to use CLAM because they are more evenly distributed, while noble, will not prevent people from buying CLAM and driving the price up.
Now, some folks may say "well, if you want to be greedy and buy CLAMS only so you can invest here for a profit, that's your risk", and I will agree with a part of that, that's why I am asking these questions so that I can alleviate that risk to an extent. Doog, you may even claim that you don't care about large investors in here, and that you prefer not to have them, since you yourself have stated that you want this site to be mainly for fun.... why have the investment option at all then? Or why not cap it to a maximum per person/IP address, so that for the most part you will not hold too much of anyone's money?
I appreciate you taking the time to read this and consider my questions. You have given us no reason to doubt you, and I want to make it clear to everyone reading this that while being cautious due to the new challenges presented by the current course this site has taken, I believe in Doog, I think he is trustworthy, and he is the only person who owns such site that I would consider putting my money into, otherwise I wouldn't even bother asking these questions.
I'd like to know this as well. I've had an internal battle since day one with holding CLAM since I agree that the price is almost solely (if not solely) due to JD, and being afraid that it'll shut down again, which would inevitably tank the CLAM price. Earning 150% profit in CLAM over a year means nothing it loses 95% of its value overnight due to a site shutting down.
Doog, I am a former investor in your Doge-dice.com site (I was known there as Fido) and I have a pertinent question that I didn't see anyone ask. Excuse me if I am repeating it, honestly I did not sift through all 183 pages here, but I did go through most.
My question pertains to your future plans about this site. CLAM is the currency of choice now, and until you restarted your website, almost no one was interested in this currency, relatively speaking. Your act of instating this as the only currency of JD actually caused a massive price spike. As a result, ~65% of the currency is invested here now.
Now, one of the main reasons you have cited for closing down JD and DD was that you were nervous about holding so much of people's money. However, on your blog post from June 23rd, 2014 you and Deb cited the main reason being the uncertainty around Canada's then-newly enacted regulations concerning money transmitting, online gambling, etc.
Part of my question then is, which one is it? If you closed your sites due to regulations, what has changed now? You are still in Canada from what we know, and the regulations that spooked you in the first place would very much still apply to your site; legally, it makes no difference if you accept CLAM or DOGE or BTC for investments, CLAM now has the status of a widely use means of exchange with a market cap of close to $1M and growing daily.
Second part of my question is, if your main reason for closing down your sites before was the stress from handling large sums of money, then how do you anticipate handling the situation when JD inevitably grows much bigger? Your top investor now, per your most recent blog post, already has ~50,000 CLAM invested, which is ~$75,000USD at current market prices. And that's just one person. Plus, the entire online gambling community has trust in you and will seek out your sites first and foremost to invest, so growth is all but guaranteed to continue further.
Which brings me to the main part of my question: the reasons that you cited for closing down DD and JD in the first place, it seems to me, still apply (or will apply soon again). What then? Will you abruptly shut down the site again? How will you handle it? The problem now is that if you were to do that again, the consequences will be catastrophic: people will make a run to exchange their now useless CLAM's for BTC and it will crash the price, wiping out a huge part of their funds. Forgive me for using the word "useless", I think the idea behind CLAM is great, but let's face it, CLAMS are mainly used and bought now so that people can gamble on your site. Your idea to use CLAM because they are more evenly distributed, while noble, will not prevent people from buying CLAM and driving the price up.
Now, some folks may say "well, if you want to be greedy and buy CLAMS only so you can invest here for a profit, that's your risk", and I will agree with a part of that, that's why I am asking these questions so that I can alleviate that risk to an extent. Doog, you may even claim that you don't care about large investors in here, and that you prefer not to have them, since you yourself have stated that you want this site to be mainly for fun.... why have the investment option at all then? Or why not cap it to a maximum per person/IP address, so that for the most part you will not hold too much of anyone's money?
I appreciate you taking the time to read this and consider my questions. You have given us no reason to doubt you, and I want to make it clear to everyone reading this that while being cautious due to the new challenges presented by the current course this site has taken, I believe in Doog, I think he is trustworthy, and he is the only person who owns such site that I would consider putting my money into, otherwise I wouldn't even bother asking these questions.
My question pertains to your future plans about this site. CLAM is the currency of choice now, and until you restarted your website, almost no one was interested in this currency, relatively speaking. Your act of instating this as the only currency of JD actually caused a massive price spike. As a result, ~65% of the currency is invested here now.
Now, one of the main reasons you have cited for closing down JD and DD was that you were nervous about holding so much of people's money. However, on your blog post from June 23rd, 2014 you and Deb cited the main reason being the uncertainty around Canada's then-newly enacted regulations concerning money transmitting, online gambling, etc.
Part of my question then is, which one is it? If you closed your sites due to regulations, what has changed now? You are still in Canada from what we know, and the regulations that spooked you in the first place would very much still apply to your site; legally, it makes no difference if you accept CLAM or DOGE or BTC for investments, CLAM now has the status of a widely use means of exchange with a market cap of close to $1M and growing daily.
Second part of my question is, if your main reason for closing down your sites before was the stress from handling large sums of money, then how do you anticipate handling the situation when JD inevitably grows much bigger? Your top investor now, per your most recent blog post, already has ~50,000 CLAM invested, which is ~$75,000USD at current market prices. And that's just one person. Plus, the entire online gambling community has trust in you and will seek out your sites first and foremost to invest, so growth is all but guaranteed to continue further.
Which brings me to the main part of my question: the reasons that you cited for closing down DD and JD in the first place, it seems to me, still apply (or will apply soon again). What then? Will you abruptly shut down the site again? How will you handle it? The problem now is that if you were to do that again, the consequences will be catastrophic: people will make a run to exchange their now useless CLAM's for BTC and it will crash the price, wiping out a huge part of their funds. Forgive me for using the word "useless", I think the idea behind CLAM is great, but let's face it, CLAMS are mainly used and bought now so that people can gamble on your site. Your idea to use CLAM because they are more evenly distributed, while noble, will not prevent people from buying CLAM and driving the price up.
Now, some folks may say "well, if you want to be greedy and buy CLAMS only so you can invest here for a profit, that's your risk", and I will agree with a part of that, that's why I am asking these questions so that I can alleviate that risk to an extent. Doog, you may even claim that you don't care about large investors in here, and that you prefer not to have them, since you yourself have stated that you want this site to be mainly for fun.... why have the investment option at all then? Or why not cap it to a maximum per person/IP address, so that for the most part you will not hold too much of anyone's money?
I appreciate you taking the time to read this and consider my questions. You have given us no reason to doubt you, and I want to make it clear to everyone reading this that while being cautious due to the new challenges presented by the current course this site has taken, I believe in Doog, I think he is trustworthy, and he is the only person who owns such site that I would consider putting my money into, otherwise I wouldn't even bother asking these questions.
Works pretty good with clams, fast confirm times.
It works very well but the investors have an exchange risk that they need to take into account.
This. If you invested soon after the site came online, you'd have earned about 10-15% total by now... but the exchange rate has dropped by over 60% since then, so you've actually lost about half of what you started with (you have more coins but they are worth a fraction of what they used to be).
I think it depends on when you got in... not sure when the site went active, but my clams are up in value by 160%, not including the investing or staking.
I think it totally depends on when you got in or out. Some people might have got in near the 0.01 price as well, and might be still even if they had their CLAM go up 160% up as well.
160% is the profit he made on the appreciation of the CLAM price since he bought them. Someone who invested CLAM when the site opened must have made something like 0.7%/day that is compounded so +26% in 33 days but someone who invest when the site opened and never reinvest or divested could answer more accurately; I bet dooglus invest 1, 10 or 100 CLAM when he opened just to have some statistics.
Last price is 0.0059 so to be up on your investment in just-dice, you need to have bought at 0.0074 or less (if the +26% figure is accurate but it's just an estimate) which is the case of most investors.
From 12/14/2014 -> 01/04/2015 you'd be up 22.29% if you invested and left it alone (in CLAMs, not accounting for change of value). So your number looks pretty accurate.
Works pretty good with clams, fast confirm times.
It works very well but the investors have an exchange risk that they need to take into account.
This. If you invested soon after the site came online, you'd have earned about 10-15% total by now... but the exchange rate has dropped by over 60% since then, so you've actually lost about half of what you started with (you have more coins but they are worth a fraction of what they used to be).
I think it depends on when you got in... not sure when the site went active, but my clams are up in value by 160%, not including the investing or staking.
I think it totally depends on when you got in or out. Some people might have got in near the 0.01 price as well, and might be still even if they had their CLAM go up 160% up as well.
160% is the profit he made on the appreciation of the CLAM price since he bought them. Someone who invested CLAM when the site opened must have made something like 0.7%/day that is compounded so +26% in 33 days but someone who invest when the site opened and never reinvest or divested could answer more accurately; I bet dooglus invest 1, 10 or 100 CLAM when he opened just to have some statistics.
Last price is 0.0059 so to be up on your investment in just-dice, you need to have bought at 0.0074 or less (if the +26% figure is accurate but it's just an estimate) which is the case of most investors.
Works pretty good with clams, fast confirm times.
It works very well but the investors have an exchange risk that they need to take into account.
This. If you invested soon after the site came online, you'd have earned about 10-15% total by now... but the exchange rate has dropped by over 60% since then, so you've actually lost about half of what you started with (you have more coins but they are worth a fraction of what they used to be).
I think it depends on when you got in... not sure when the site went active, but my clams are up in value by 160%, not including the investing or staking.
I think it totally depends on when you got in or out. Some people might have got in near the 0.01 price as well, and might be still even if they had their CLAM go up 160% up as well.
Jump to: