And yet the bankroll size barely budged. I think it didn't even move at all on bustadice.

What other services do to successfully draw users away is offer subpar experience or make claims of 'getting hacked'. Maybe more people would divest if it was made clear to them what is their current expected return on investment assuming other variables remain unchanged.

edit: see below; the previous divestment saw some changes, but apparently not much as devans was expecting

A potential for any form of divestment on any scale that has an impact can only take place if investors know what estimates to expect and how they would be compared to their previous and current calculations. No matter how many investors might divest the website/business is far too big for it to have a negative impact in the long run.
 

It's called variance, I don't know what percentage of the bankroll you risk per bet, but the range 10-240 hours really doesn't stand out to me as anomalous.

The way to prove it to yourself would be to run the simulation and live scripts at the same time

This CSV file contains some bankroll stats for every day as well as BTCXDR on that day and the 360-day moving average: https://gist.github.com/danielevns/1adbd7297c26988d6b7551a6032bdb4f. Starting in a few days on the 14th, a dataset like this will be available on the website and automatically kept up to date. We'll also start showing the current and expected commission rates in the bankroll overview.

Today the moving average of Bitcoin's price is 10,059.938058 XDR, so if the new formula for the commission were already in effect today the commission rate would be approximately 74.2%. If neither the price nor the size of the bankroll changed at all for 360 days then the commission rate would be about 238% (capped at 100%) as the bankroll is way over the target size at the moment.

For what it's worth the commission rate has been determined by the size of the bankroll since December 2020, but currently it doesn't take into account the value of the bankroll.

Decreasing or suspending the dilution fee is problematic because existing investors paid this fee with the understanding that future investors would in turn pay this fee to them. Although I understand your line of thought, I am not convinced that reducing the barrier to entry would lead to a net divestment. In any case, it won't be necessary as the rising commission rate will create sufficient incentive for bankroll investors to divest eventually. Some investors like yourself will be willing to temporarily tolerate lower expected returns at a commission rate of ~75% in the hopes that other investors divest before them, increasing returns again. But would you still be willing to stay invested at a commission rate of 80%, 85% or even 90%? I am confident that we'll see significant divestments after the new commission rate comes into effect fairly quickly, if not right before.

How much was paid in XDR in dilution fees in the last 365 days?

Also I am not entirely sure about the simulation you have could be 100% correct neither. Of course just like everyone said its variance and you should be either losing in 1 hour or winning for 10+ days and it is all possible, remember this is gambling and even though there is a mathematical possibility that you will always lose, there is also chance that you may win a lot longer than you expect and get out before that losing starts, the "you will 100% lose because of house edge" may not hit for more than you gamble, so you may actually get out before it happens.

So, if you gamble on simulation and win, and you gamble on real and lose, that means that mathematical loss happened in the real one, and only "hasn't happened yet" on the simulation, keep it going as long as you can and you will see that it will definitely lose there too because that is how gambling works.

This makes me realize that I never totally understood how this works--so when someone invests say 1 BTC to the bankroll, their portion of the bankroll is 0.98 BTC and the other 0.02 BTC is divided proportionally among all existing investors?

Clever. How'd you settle on 2% as the right amount?