According to
https://dicesites.com/moneypot the profit is 541.6 BTC, but 334.7 BTC (62%) went to the app owners and 126.4 BTC (23%) went to MoneyPot itself, leaving just 80.4 BTC (15%) for the investors. I'm not sure how that is worked out, but when investors are taking ~100% of the risk it doesn't seem fair that they get only 15% of the profit when the expected and actual profits are so close together. It's like the investors are paying an 85% commission on their profits.
What the actual f Dooglus? Blatant Libel?
It's not libel if it's true. I took the numbers from dicesites.com and calculated the percentages.
You know very well that we don't take that much commission and you are intentionally misleading our customers and directly hurting us on purpose (70 Bitcoin withdrawn immediately after your comment).
All I know is what dicesites.com told me. Is their information incorrect? Did the app owners not really take 334.7 BTC (62%) and did the site itself not take 126.4 BTC (23%) , leaving the investors only 80.4 BTC (15%) of profit? If the numbers on dicesites.com are incorrect you should work with them to fix the numbers rather than falsely accusing me of libel. I don't want to hurt you at all. But if people pulled out of the site when they learned that historically investors have only kept 15% of the profits then presumably that's because they didn't know the information before, and didn't like it. I think the expression is "don't shoot the messenger".
We take 20% of the house edge (less than Dean's 25% of house edge and 25% profit, or Bit-Dice's 30% of house edge), give 50% of the house edge to app owners (because there are multiple sites that investors connect to), and investors are subject to 30% of the house edge.
So you're telling me that investors should expect to lose 20% of their profits to you, and a further 50% to the app owners, and so rather than an effective 85% loss that seems to have happened they should "only" be losing 70%?
While Dean's 50% commission and bitdice's 30% commission are obviously pretty high, you're paying for the bankroll management and the game in a single payment. At moneypot you're paying 20% for the bankroll management and 50% for the game, making a total of 70% of the expected profit - that's the highest effective commission rate I've heard of.
I was kind of surprised that investors only kept 15% of their profits instead of the expected 30% when the actual profits were around 80% of the expected profits. Intuitively it seems that when the expected and actual profits are so close together then the investor's take (15%) should be close to their expected take (30%), rather than just half of it. But I guess that intuition is incorrect. The problem is that the house and the apps get their 20% and 50% cuts of the house edge first out of the actual profit, so if the actual profit is less than 70% of the expected profit there is no profit at all left for the investors.
Checking dicesites.com again now, I see:
total profit: 463.1 BTC
house commission: 127.6 BTC (27.6% of actual profit, 18.7% of expected profit)
application commission: 337.8 BTC (72.9% of actual profit, 49.6% of expected profit)
investors: -2.3 BTC (-0.5% of actual profit, -0.3% of expected profit)
Perhaps a better response would've been "Hey, our investors made 50% of what they should've. Yours only 30%" or something. ( I <3 twisting statistics)
That's pretty clever, if obscure. For those who missed the reference, Just-Dice's actual profit was only 30% of its expected profit. Just-Dice took a 10% commission on actual investor profits, so investors kept 90% of all the site profits. At moneypot the site and the apps together take 70% of the expected profit, so if the actual profit is 70% or less of the expected profit (as it currently is) the investors take a loss (as they currently do) even if the actual profit is positive (as it currently is).
If there are any factual errors in my statements, please point them out to me. I really am not aiming to spread misinformation about moneypot or about anything else for that matter.
