Hey,

Probably something you get asked a lot today but what made you change the investment scheme to this? Like what is the reason(s)?

Regards,
Paladin.

I've just deployed a fix for that issue. Thanks! 👍

Why do you say that having an offsite bankroll became more attractive? As with the previous commission structure, an offsite investment also increases both your share of the profits as well as the losses (including to the commission) equally.

Their EV isn't investors' only consideration when choosing a casino. A casino might have more favorable investment terms than another and still offer less expected bankroll growth if it can't match its competitor's wager volume. And in terms of wager volume, bustabit is one of the most popular Bitcoin casinos today. I couldn't find your game's wager volume anywhere but I'm confident that in terms of expected bankroll growth bustabit is still very much competitive despite the lower EV.

With that in mind, I don't believe that 50% is unreasonable at all and bustabit is still a very attractive investment.

The EV compared to other sites is now lower, and you're right in that it comes with a lot of added security, trust, and peace of mind. devans is risking little to nothing (he loses nothing when players win, but takes 50% of the profit when players lose). At this point in time, I think that trade-off is worth it. The returns may not be excellent (10% a month is not that far from less risky cryptocurreny lending sites) but it's worth the name that bustabit has made for itself.

That being said, I don't think this will last long. I think as other casinos such as EtherCrash develop names for themselves and keep their EV attractive, investing in bustabit wouldn't remain the smartest idea. Another point to note is that investing in bustabit for most people has now become a lot less risky (judging by the percentage that the average investor will acquire and the recent monthly bankroll growth). That doesn't make it inherently bad, but it has started to fit a different investing profile, and not one usually associated the the risk of a casino bankroll. I personally am more of a risk taker, and when I invest in casino bankrolls, I look for moderate risks and a commensurate reward. I don't think this (albeit low-risk) investment is worth it if I get only half the reward (regardless of the safety aspect).

Terrible news. And that's while daily wagered average keeps dropping (https://dicesites.com/bustabit). Bustabit was my favourite investment in crypto by far. Now expected returns are suddenly half, so I'll have to consider whether I even want to invest at all.

At least, as a token of appreciation to those of us that helped make your casino grow (and already got charged a lot in comissions), you could had increased the dilution fee or some other measure that didn't affect people that wanted to keep their investment.

It may not be dropping in USD, but it is in BTC, which is the currency we are investing. It makes no sense to talk in USD terms when we are investing in a different currency.

Well said. As someone who has a decent % of the bankroll I am very disappointed.

A also dislike that the changes were made immediately. I think users should have been given a heads up and time to decide if they wanna invest under the new terms or not.
If I understand the new terms correctly the fee is also over 50% unless you withdraw from the bankroll at an all time high.

I will analyse other casinos and see how high the EV is there.


 

Giving an advance notice is something I considered, but ultimately decided against because it would have made virtually no difference to existing investors. Had I announced the change a few months ago your only options would have been to remain invested or divest, the same options you have now.

The commission is only charged on net profits, i.e. whenever the bankroll earns "new" profits above its all-time high. In fact a commission on profits is favorable for investors in this regard: You only pay a commission on the actual profits you have earned, whereas with the commission on wagers it was possible to have paid commission on expected profits that you never ended up earning.

I concede that someone who invested shortly before the change might not have wanted to had they known about the new commission structure in advance. If anyone is in that situation and they would like to divest (or already have) I would be happy to reimburse them for their net dilution fee (fees they paid minus fees they received).

We're on the same page with regards to what you meant, but my point didn't come across well: Your example could happen with the old commission on wagers as well. If a player loses 100 BTC and wins it again, the player would have broken even and investors would have paid at least 0.25 BTC in commission to bustabit. More so, unlike with a commission on profits it was possible for investors to have paid a commission without ever having earned a net profit at all. For example, if a player won 100 BTC without losing it again, investors would have been down 100 BTC and still paid the commission.

So while increasing the commission isn't, switching to a commission on profits vs wagers itself is strictly better for investors.