Topic: Recent dadice.com development - page 6. (Read 7972 times)

I have to say I've been impressed with your posts recently. You have a knack for getting right to the core of the issue and making it clear. Good job!


I think I have done the right thing. DaDice's actions have raised red flag suggesting that they don't have the coins they claim to have. For me this makes it quite likely that they will pull an exit scam at some point. It's possible they are insolvent and hoping that players will lose enough on their site to make up the shortfall. That's likely how MtGox was operating too, insolvent and hopeful, and we all saw how that ended up. I think the right thing to do here is to raise the concern, link to the relevant information, and let each potential player make up their own mind.


You're suggesting that even if you strongly suspect a site to be insolvent and offering bets it can't safely afford, you shouldn't start asking questions until they actually stop allowing withdrawals? But by then it's too late and everyone has lost their money. Currently they're offering fixed 20 BTC payouts with a sub 1k bankroll. I've seen mention that the actual bankroll is 10x smaller, due to "kelly" multipliers, so maybe it's only 100 BTC in reality, and so could be wiped out in just 5 bets if the maximum payout doesn't automatically adjust. I don't know enough about how the site works to know if that's a real risk, but a little transparency in that regard would be useful. How can you safely offer 20 BTC payouts with such a small bankroll?


You're not looking hard enough. It's really the expected thing to do.


MtGox, dice.ninja, pirateat40, etc. all have good reputations before. And bad reputations after. We are currently "before". Should we wait until "after" to change our minds?


MtGox never did a proof of solvency, and it still isn't clear where the MtGox coins are, or how much they were supposed to hold in total. The best they did was asked Roger Ver to read this statement for them. He later made this apology for getting it wrong. This is why we need *proof* of solvency rather than just having some guy say "they're solvent". Bitcoin lets us do that easily, so why wouldn't we?


They have offered a series of weak excuses for why they couldn't show proof of solvency. That should be cause for concern for anyone who has coins with them. Businesses can run in an insolvent state, paying out all requested withdrawals, for a long time. But when they run out of funds it's over. See MtGox, or any Ponzi in history.


Proof of solvency proves solvency. It's in the name. It doesn't prove anything about trustworthiness. It simply proves that they still have the coins they were entrusted with. Isn't that worth proving? Isn't it alarming if someone who you trusted to look after coins for you refuses to show you that they still have them and makes up weak excuses about why they can't?


Their unwillingness to do the right thing and demonstrate their solvency is a warning sign that needs to be flagged. They way they reacted to the community requesting proof of solvency is another red flag. Nobody is telling them what to do. Rather, we are warning potential customers who might otherwise be unaware of DaDice's actions.

I think the same could be said of their other potential investors. I would argue that just because they are not allowing new investors to invest does not mean they are no longer accepting investor money.

Right, but their current investors are also grownups, right?  People can decide for themselves how to manage risk in their lives, with their money.  I think you guys are fine in having pointed out this controversy, but what more is there to say now?  As I said above, it all adds up to the fact that some people want them to prove their bankroll and they are not going to do it.  People can draw their own conclusions from these facts.  In the end, time will tell who was right.  Right?

@Sho, I hope my question doesn't get too buried in this thread: how long should the negative feedback stand in the case that all continues to go fine with dadice?

Shocking to read people accusing the dadice site which was said to be a trustworthy site before. Every gambling or dice site is definitely risky but to accuse some website without having any open scam accusation is weird. Hope this site never turns out to be a scam site and they keep paying their users as before and this speculation proves to be false. The campaign has really helped a lot of users  

Primedice were going to spend 50 BTC per month on the next signature campaign i recall stunna saying, i dont know why they didnt do the campaign in the end but i dont believe it was due to lack of funds.

I would disagree. The numbers simply do not add up for DaDice. The amounts being wagered at DaDice are simply not enough to cover their marketing costs of at least 8 BTC per month. Take a look at the marketing costs of DaDice verses that of BitDice or even PrimeDice. Bitdice is spending less then 2 BTC per month on marketing and they have a much higher volume. Even stunna only spends around 10 to 15 BTC per month on PD marketing and he has by far the largest BTC volume of bets.

AFAIK they have not forced their investors to divest and withdraw their investments so their current investors are still at risk.

Does shorena also in the default list? It's not good to give dadice OP neg trust because all is speculation now, no proofs show dadice is or will be scam.

Unless they have proofs can prove dadice is a scam, they can post a scam accusation thread, but not rate a red trust without evidence.

It started because they were taking investors.  However, they've closed that program now so it would seem that everyone has had their say here already and we should probably just see what happens.  Several folks have expressed the skepticism that because they refuse to show their funds, they may not actually have them.  However, dadice has stated that he's not going to bow down and do exactly what people tell him to do just because they demand it.  I can see both sides having merit.  I also don't like being told what to do.

Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll.  I think that's what this all adds up to.

I have a question for OP Shorena:  if, say, dadice continues to go along with no problems, how long will you let your negative feedback stand.  You admit that your feedback is speculative, I'm just curious about how long you think it should stand if things continue to go smoothly for them.

Well any casino could scam at any moment, thats not the thing, the thing is that they said they were in possesion of x amount of money and when asked for proof they refused, what conclusions do you get from that? Take in count they wont lose anything by showing proof.

So basically... they could scam? but they haven't? atm ive been very happy with my dealings at dadice.   Is the problem because they have investors people feel be more transparent? or that every dice site should be transparent about bankroll?

The thing is that they said the had x amount of money and now they dont want to prove it, of course just because you prove you have that amount doesnt mean you will scam but not proving it its worse isnt it? They also tried to use really shitty excuses wich makes it look even more suspicious, anyways their trust is already red

Proof of solvency can'r prove anything, scammers can also run away with funds after showing the proof, the proof is just shown to everyone, but it is not controlled by 3rd party, can't mean anything either.

Yeah right what a shitty argument, with that argument all ponzies are not scam because they all pay at first rigth? Their plan was and is to build trust to be able to steal the biggest amount of money (hopefully im wrong) but thats how it looks right now

i totaly agree with you.
i havent see anyone complaining about (lost funds,not recieved withdrawal or anything like that) so that what you are saying is just -.-.
if they dont want to make their bankroll public that is ok.
When AND if someone lost funds or didnt get withdrawal then you can start blaming them of scamming.
untill then i think its best to lock this thread and stop this lame talk.
regards.
-katerniko1

Wow, it looks really shady, they say one statement and when showing them they are wrong they come out with other different statement, it smells bad...

Here you go...



OKCoin Passes Proof of Solvency Audit > https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-okcoin-passes-proof-of-solvency-audit-752803





What other wrong excuses you got? We kinda been over all of them already..

No. Every dice/gambling site that accepts investments is transparent with their cold storage.

I don't see other sites also have the proof of solvency, but why they criticize dadice, but not other sites? If shows, the scammer can also run with your funds, so it doesn't mean anything.

Dadice has a good reputation before, I don't think they will scam players in the future, and dadice

And many big exchanges including OKcoin also refused to show the proof of solvency or cold storage, but it is still the largest exchange in the world. But how about mtgox? People knew mtgox wallets before mtgox bankrupt, it was still dead, lol.

Actually it is very strange they had a fixed max 20 coin profit too. How does that work with investors and kelly selections ? :s The max profit must be based on the invested amount and with the kelly selection the investor is selecting the max loss (= max profit for player) per bet he can have. This is how all dice invest sites work.

..

Just think how logical this fixed max payout is

A lot of people are missing the point here. Proof of solvency should still be shown, especially now.
If you have a max payout of 20 Bitcoin players will want to know that they can trust the site to payout if they come in and win 3 max bets in a row.
Showing you have funds at least lets them see you have the funds to payout on a win.

That's the last I will write in any of these threads. Good luck.