OK, thanks for clearing that up.

To further clarify:

You sell 30% of the company (BK) to investors for 2000 BTC (supposing again that the ICO sells out)
You (DN) keep 70% of the company, and 2000 BTC.

So BK has no BTC, DN has 70% of the shares and 2k BTC, and the investors have 30% of the shares.

Do I have it right so far?

If so, let's proceed. I'm guessing here, but is this how it works?

* DN gives BK an interest-free loan of 2k BTC to use as its bankroll.

* BK pays its expenses out of the 2k bankroll. The bankroll grows and shrinks as players bet.

* Each 3 months (or however often dividends end up being paid), you check whether the bankroll is over 2k or not.

* If it is, you pay out the excess to shareholders. 30% to the public investors, 70% to DN.

* If it isn't, you pay no dividends for that period and wait for the bankroll to grow back over 2k before paying anything out.

* If BK is ever sold to a new owner, it pays back the 2k BTC loan to DN. If the bankroll is less than 2k at the time of sale, the shortfall is made up from the sale price so that DN's loan is repaid in full.

* After repaying the loan, the money left over from the sale is paid out to the shareholders. 30% to the public, 70% to DN.

I don't think I've seen you refer to the 2k in BTC's bankroll as a loan from DN to BK, but I don't see what else it could be. It doesn't belong to BK. It belongs to DN, who sold 30% of the company in exchange for 2k BTC. Is it a loan? Is it interest-free?

Everyone has already been forcibly divested.

If you're asking about the shares, I think the situation is that you will be able to sell your shares so long as you can find someone willing to buy them from you.

Why you shouldn't trust screenshots 100% of the time:



I'm not saying I know for certain that RichGang did this, I'm just saying it's possible. He does seem to have an agenda, you know. For all I know, it's possible that Dean really did say this - in that case, consider this a PSA. Take "evidence" like this with a grain of salt.

So, let me make sure I have this straight - it would operate like this:

Hypothetically:

Starting Bankroll = 2,000
1st Quarter Profit = 300
1st Quarter Expenses = 10
Ending Bankroll = 2,290

290 BTC to distribute
30% x 290 = 87 BTC to shareholders
90% x 290 = 203 BTC to Dean

Is this correct?

I have not commented in any of these threads due to the massive number of people calling me a Dean puppet when calling out dodgy casino startups, but I have been asked to comment on this by the few reasonable people in the community that I speak too. People who are represented on both sides of the fence. As someone who runs a serious business and who has completed both sale of shares and capital raising and also invested in a few capital raising opportunities on the Australian listed securities, I understand how this would be confusing to those folks who just want to invest bitcoin in something safe and can’t see why Dean is profiting from this. I’m going to try and explain the concept here and what Dean needs to do in planning.

As we know, there is nothing purely safe in bitcoin and even the biggest of legitimate companies get robbed. And a bitcoin casino comes with its risks too. BetKing has proven itself to be secure. The persona behind BetKing has proven to be trust worthy and anyone making claims to discredit this long standing is just taking a grudge. Probably due to Deans zero tolerance to trolls (yes he is a grumpy bastard, but that’s ok, steve jobs was a prick too and lots of people invested in his vision). Regardless, I do not see this as a scam to take 2000BTC. This does not look like the case here, he is simply looking to capitalize on the brand he has built up over the last few years. Like it or not, but Doog removing bitcoin from just-dice had people seeking new places to put money and at the time there were many scam dice sites pop up to take advantage of this. Dean ended up with a good chunk of the leftover funds and has proven that he can be trusted with them. But you can make your own minds up and either put your money into other ventures and just watch BetKing play out (no pun intended).
Now for the investment itself. There is two ways to propose this, one is to sell 30% of the shares in an IPO and the current shareholder gets the sale of shares – this is how the real markets work. You build a business and you exit by selling, you don’t give that money back to the investors by putting it into the business, you take it as your return on the risk and hard work you put in. That’s just how selling something you own works. If the market agrees with your price, you sell, if not, you don’t. It’s really that simple. If you don’t agree with the price, don’t buy in. If you do agree, then buy in. There is no reason to discredit anyone for their decision to sell something they own.  

The second method is to raise capital in the business by diluting current shareholders with more shares. Commonly the current shareholders have a chance to buy these shares at a discount and if they refuse, non shareholders can buy in at a price depicted by the company – dean offered everyone a chance for a discount since he has no other shareholders other than himself. What happens is, these newly created shares go into the total and you end up with dilution. Shareholders also end up with more capital in the business because this capital sits on the balance sheet. And also, capital raising doesn’t have to meet any minimum, they just create the number of shares needed. Some cases a capital raising can be oversubscribed and the company creates more shares to take advantage. Simple to understand.  
Now let’s look at this case, since it is a different case to a standard business. To operate with high returns, the casino needs a bankroll, without crowd funding, the bankroll is 0. BetKing has always had a 0 balance sheet. Distributions are paid immediately and nothing is banked. But the brand has value in its ability to recognize a return on investment. i.e, if I invest, I will immediately start receiving a substantial return. My shares still hold value too, and I could sell that to someone who whats to also hold shares and receive the same return. Shares are valued based on equity + profit*<return factor>. It’s not depreciated to 0 value just because you own shares in a business with a balance of 0 (it’s all about potential returns). You price the shares via what’s known as a Price to Earnings ratio (P/E). 10 times is a normal number, 20 times is common for sustainable business, and 30+ times P/E is common for globals like apple and microsoft. And this changes based on how much you get just sticking your money in the bank and what the expected future earnings look like.

The current shareholder could now choose to dilute held shares and raise capital in the business by issuing more shares. Or just sell the shares and take the proceeds as a sale of shares. In the case described, Dean is selling 30% of his asset to the public. He would then take 100% investment as his own. Now comes the question of bankroll. In this case there is still 0 on the balance sheet, and this needs to be a positive number to ensure the casino can take bets. Dean could elect to loan the invested funds to the bankroll for a fixed term and all generated profit stays in the bankroll. And hopefully over time the bankroll pays off the load. Shareholders then retain that value in their shares but don’t see any instant returns.

If Dean chooses the capital raising via a dilution of shares, he will still own 70% of the total company value, including what’s on the balance sheet and in the case of 2000bitcoin, he would own 1400btc in equity. It means that the company will be able to use this equity and pay distributions when it sees the bankroll being too high. Thus giving investors an instant return on investment. Or it could keep all profits in on the balance sheet and the share value would increase due to increased equity. Either way, shareholders are seeing value.

Whichever way Dean decides to slice it, the result doesn’t change, shares in the business are worth what people are prepared to pay. And if you think it’s not worth it, then don’t invest.

I was asked if I am investing in it. I will not be investing in it on the initial offer, mostly because I have money tied up in other things (Kim Dot Coms mega2 is one thing I pounced on). I would never invest more than 1% of total net worth into bitcoin related investments anyway, because I see they can generate big returns but also have a high-risk profile. Take that for what it’s worth. After some time, I may be in the market of buying shares off other investors that want to liquidate. And I am sure there are others watching this, and thinking the same thing. These shares could indeed command a higher price in the future but I would prefer to wait it out for now till other investments pay off.

I have spoken to Dean and he is working on a more detailed response to this and will decide on the direction. Whichever way he goes, I think it’s great for those with some spare coin to be part of. And those who need liquid capital, should invest in more short term opportunities. Doog has the liquid investment in clams and is also trusted. Now we all have an option to be a shareholder or just a crowd funder in a crypto casino and I can see that as only positive after the past few years of casino scams.

Yeah, thats kind of the point, not everyone will understand it or agree, but there is a freedom of choice. Even the people who may want to invest might think its over valued. Which is also ok, they will just not invest. Once all is said and done, it will either be successful with the right Venture Capitalist folk or it wont. Then dean can ask why, and investors can tell him. Then he can either elect to try again in a different way, or not try again. Not every IPO/ICO is successful even in the real world of markets. I doubt the casino is going away anytime soon and investors will have opportunities to get into it after Dean fine tunes his offer. The current offer actually looks ok, but lets see if dean can put together a nice prospectus to clear the air. This is a far better investment than most shit I see online. Its actually less risk than my investment in Meganet, but meganet has potential to create much greater gains. https://hacked.com/kim-dotcom-talks-about-meganet-his-blockchain-based-p2p-internet/

What doesn't look good to you might look good to others, for every seller on the stock market there is a buyer and this is why having both sides views differ is a good thing. The average bitcoiner socialist are always looking for instant gratification, when in reality, investing in a business is about a long term view and holds risk. This is why investing in business is not for everyone. The same goes with the bitfinex ordeal. they offered their own coin to cover the loss and would buy it back slowly (share buy back scheme). There were a few people who purchased at low cost, to those who thought bitfinex was dead. Now those buyers are profiting. The risk was intense, but the payout is also quite good and worth it to some savvy investors.

Regarding the above point, the 2k btc is a representation of the value of 30% of the company value, not the whole value. Dean also have mentioned that if the raised amount is 2000 btc, he has to sold the whole company at ~8000btc so that the 30% of investors will at least get back their original amount.

So in this case, assuming it successful raised 2.1k btc which will represent the 30% of the company, dean will automatically has the '70% stocks' worth of 4.9k. And this create also a bigger problem, the investors are not just investing to try to grab a bit in the profit like the old ways of betking. Now they also have to consider the estimate price of the whole betking and invest accordingly, otherwise if it is overvalue, it will turn out the 30% share will be traded lower than the ICO price and if dean want to raise more amount by selling his own share, it will 'add' more shares into the existing 30% market and further diluate the market.

This is the just the individual risk assessment that i made for myself.

Most of that is incorrect. I'll address your last point first. If dean sells his 70% shareholding, there is no dilution, there is still 100% shareholding, someone else gets the profits. If one person buys the 30% then decides to buy the other 70% they get then entire thing, they haven't diluted themselves at all. 1btc in profit is still split over all available shares. Current shareholding still gets the same return.

Now for the sale and value. Company valuation is a pretty intense field and there are people who dedicate their lives to valuations of companies. Houses are the same, a valuation is built on what the equity is worth plus the earnings. Lets use Amazon as an example since it fits this discussion. Amazon, for years, has lost money. Over this time it gets money to stay afloat from investors. If creates a new capital raising offer and investors buy into it. Even though this has been happening, and the company makes no profit, its share value still increases, because the general market believes they have a great potential in making money. So they raise capital and on each capital raising the existing shareholders benefit from that added equity. BetKing has no equity but has ability to make profit, investors are buying into this profit machine. The machine will always have value as long as it makes profit. The share value is in this profit generation ability.

Lets look at Musk and his Tesla business, Tesla just started making profit, but he sold shares in a company that was making a massive loss. How? Investors believed this business was going to be huge and risked their money on getting some of the action. This happens all the time on the stock market. Some go broke (dot com boom collapse - if you are old enough to remember) and life goes on. BetKing is a bit different to a startup and is more akin to the Amazon example where there is a brand and revenue. In Deans case most of the revenue goes to profit, in Amazons case the profit goes to R&D and business expansion.

There are hundreds of examples of selling something with no revenue and its all about the brand and ability to bring in future returns. Look at the facebook IPO, no profit, but worth billions. The value in investors on facebook was the huge userbase and potential to generate serious amounts of money. Meganet will have burnt all its investor funds within 12months, and if they don't produce a product, maybe they will raise more capital, and everyone will be happy. if they go broke, everyone is sad, but thats the risk they took when putting money in it.

Here is how you value betking. Get your future projections, subtract the operating costs (dean will further detail these I hope) and you have an income potential. say 600btc - 100btc = 500btc per year. total company valuation is 6666.666666btc (dean has a sense of humour - who would have thought). That's 7.5% return on valuation per year.  The share value will always be retained, but like all shares could go up for down based on market demands.

Say that you want a higher return of 20% per year on your risk. Then you will need the casino profit to be 1333BTC year. Now, if you don't think that will happen, you just don't invest and look for your 20% return trading forex or something with similar high risk. I personally think 10 to 15% is a return worth investing in - since that's hard to get in current markets.

As you can see, the amount someone invests, and moreso if someone invests, all depends on their personal risk profile. If you have a low tolerance for risk or you expect 100% return in 3minutes, you probably wouldn't be looking at investing anything in the first place. Right now property is a good investment, low interest rates, trump will create hyper inflation in the future (which will compound the property price and give you a relatively low mortgage).. can't go wrong in property right now if you have a low risk appetite.

yes its a good project and it is interesting project and its very good to take part in this you should must take part in this project thanks

No. As mentioned in OP. Profit from all other games/products works the same way. Examples have just been given in dice so far since that's what currently exists on the site.