Technically with enough money they could have been playing themselves, they only would lose like half of the bets and when they lose, they would still get 30% of all the losses back with their dividends from bet tokens and those are some great odds. Then there's the fact that we can't know if they personally own more then 30% of the tokens. I mean why wouldn't they? If i got a casino i would get myself a big share those tokens because i would know if they were rising on the value in the future.
But this is all speculation.
With that said, i don't agree with game-protect with anything.

The volume of EOS transactions made to the EOSBet investment fraud scheme can be verified on the blockchain, but you can not verify who made the EOS transactions!

You can see how the brain wash expert CryptoCheckk claims that all transactions  can be verified, but he totally ignores that the identity of the sender is anonymous!

So the owners of the EOSBet investment fraud scheme easily can generate 90% of the deposits made to EOSBet by themselves and then they pay the BET fantasy tokens also to themselves and everything stays in the scam family!

Game Protect has many years experience with online casinos and startups and it is impossible that EOSBet with 50% more rake like competitors and a poor game offer made anywhere near $7,7 million profit within 9 months!

If you ask them for any kind of proof of their claims they are not able to deliver!

Also, if EOSBet had the potential to generate such huge winnings, why do they want to giveaway the profit lifetime to players?

That does not make any sense!

Where can you work one month and then get an income lifetime?

Nowhere in the real world!

It's true, i don't know the team, how it operates on marketing or how did they got the whales in.
But i do know that they had a signature campaign, and another one planned.

And yeah, they are losing some of the gains if they fake some of the volume, but that's just good marketing to me. I don't really care if they do it, i still like those instant withdraws they have. Just pointing out that could be the case, i like eosbet and that would not change my view on them. It's not a red flag to me, it's a determined marketing plan.

There are other places paying dividends as well but those don't got these kind of whales, there's a reason for that, and it isn't the house edge.
Maybe the mining is considered still cheap to them. Maybe they do know something that we don't about the buyback and stuff like that.

They will lose 70% of house edge(which is 1.5% of wagering amount) to rest of bet token holders.

You must remember all the bet token holders get the 1.5% house edge and the team only has the 30% of all bet tokens (unless they played as well) which means the shareholders will get it not the team. Hence, on generating fake volume, owners will lose 70% of house edge unless otherwise they have bought 100% of circulating supply.

Why to the rest of BET fantasy token holders?

If the casino owner wagered EOS worth $500 million and private players wagered EOS worth $50 million, then the casino owner gets 90% of the BET fantasy tokens and 90% of the 70% profit share!

Dumb, dumber, brain dead!

$5000 million wagered with 1,5% rake = $75 million rake paid.

Casino owner gets 30% of the $75 million rake = $22,5 million.


$500 million wagered with 1,5% rake = $7,5 million rake paid.

1) Casino owner gets 30% of the $7,5 million rake = $2,25 million.

2) For the $7,5 million rake paid to himself the casino owner gets BET fantasy tokens that will get 70% of the $7,5 million rake paid = $5,25 million

Hence, casino owner wagered $500 million and paid $7,5 million rake to himself and gets 1) $2,25 million + 2) $5,25 million = $7,5 million rakeback and lost nothing except the EOS transaction fees.

Woah the discussion is getting pretty toxic. These "wash trading " and "how if the owner plays in his own casino" are interesting topics actually if we keep a civilized discussion.

Every bet executed in the EOSBet platform executed in smart contracts level, and auditable (though a casual gambler like I don't bother to do it). On-chain betting is the reason this platform is exciting as an experiment whether it ends up as a dead casino or not.

Back to the topic, hence, the owner also bet on the chain with the 1.5% house edge. Every time he lost, he doesn't get 100% rakeback since the team only has a 30% share. Well, I expect more than 30% actually because perhaps they also use external accounts to play. Let's say the team owns 50% of the total supply. Then profit split into 50% for the team and 50% for other BET holders. Hence, the owner plays with effectively 0.75% house edge.

This also different from wash trading like in many exchanges because they (exchanges) can do transactions internally, which cost them nothing except some electricity cost due to the bots. In the end, when the devs manipulate dApps radar, it will be expensive with x% house edge.

Am I missing something here?

So ah let's unvote your binance dex.

I wanna see how long the team can last if this project isn't going to be listed on the exchange for about another year or two. If they are going to continue to spend a ton of money and a jackpot to be won for maybe once a year, we shall see what will happen. Will the the dividends still be coming more for about 4 EOS a week?

It is not my mistake that you are brain dead, but dividends are a share of the profit = gain!

If you have a volume of USD 100 trillion without house edge = no gain = no dividend!

I referred to your nonsense and do not care what liars and criminals state on its telegram account!