In online casino games, blockchain has a huge edge, but there is no reason for a clear market leader like BTC, so even if you see the potential of blockchain here, it’s still difficult to invest in the space...
With Sports Betting though, esp. with P2P, liquidity begets liquidity. So it’s an area where there will be a dominant market leader and blockchain has huge advantages over traditional sportsbooks.
IMO WGR is currently still the no.1 play in this space.
WGR Advantages
1. WGR brings privacy, transparency & safety to a $500 Billion industry of which 70% is on the black market.
2. No KYC and based on PIVX privacy tech
3. Constant development and communication since ICO & far ahead of any competitors in providing a true blockchain based solution.
4. Comparable volume to Augur (much better on like for like events) & better growth despite being 1/17th the valuation.
WGR Flaws
1. WGR doesn’t have a stablecoin or allow betting with an existing stablecoin.
(This is good for WGR demand but negative for gamblers who are making calculated bets only to see their fortunes dictated more by the rise/fall of WGR price and who struggle with liquidity if they wish to exit.)
- Some stablecoin solution is apparently planned for the future
2. WGR is currently not profitable. In theory 3% of all betting volume will be burned over time (due to house edge) but in practice WGR has minted an amount equal to 3% of all betting volume to date.
3. There is no per event limit, so when the fix is in, or an outsider gets lucky, WGR can experience huge mints which it lacks the ability to absorb/contributes to volatility.
Thanks for the kind comments, replying to some of your points, your cited figure of +3% of bets would include betting v1 totals which does not include the ongoing advancements of the Oracle layer with v2. These include faster odds updates and dynamic balancing, resulting in ever tighter risk management.
The net mint/burn since the launch of betting version 2 is only about +200k, and this can fluctuate greatly in the short term. Also, a 3% burn expectation is not correct, as half of bets on average will be lost/won, resulting in a net burn expectation of just under 1.5% over time (half of the burned portion of 6% fee).
Risk of excessive mints can be largely solved with dynamic balancing of risk and reliably sourced event data that is rapidly updated. As well, the opposite can also occur resulting in a large reduction of supply.