Look the point is defi 2.0 is supposed to be about collaboration and empowering the little guy… so i totally see where you are coming from oilreg… at the moment it looks like some big whales can enter and have a high chance of success simply because the pool of entrants is small… and the more those whales win the more chance they have of winning more… so the pool needs to be promoted more widely and prizes should be more distributed… also how the random winners are picked should be more transparent to encourage new entrants…

oilreg We can be a community pool.

  • It is none of my business whether winning 170 sOhm is a life changing event for someone. It is also not my place to determine how best they should allocate their assets. Those are their assets to do with as they please. If they would like to forego the income from rebase and operate at a loss, that is their business. They do not need to explain it to me.
  • Asking people to leave after winning is an exclusionary process. When they leave, they will also take their contribution to the prize pool with them. This has a guaranteed negative impact on everyone else in the pool.
  • I have given you a scenario that would address this.

  • I have 50 sOhm and invest in the pool.
  • The remainder of the pool is 50 individuals each investing 1 sOhm.
  • I have a 50% chance of winning.
  • Each of the individuals has a 1% chance of winning.
  • The prize for the pool is 100 sOhm.
  • If the individuals group their entries and enter as a block of 50, then their block has a 50% chance of winning.
  • If I win, I win 100 sOhm. If the block wins, they win 100 sOhm. Each person in the block wins 2 sOhm.
  • This maintains the risk v reward of the pool while also allowing leverage for smaller contributors to win proportional to their risk.
  • This has the added benefit of not being exclusionary.

      Turbohand \

      i am familar with the Pod system Pooltogether has… but thats not what i am talking about here..

      i am talking about exploiting the system if you are a whale… sure there a plenty of arguments why this all would be valid… if the whale goes… he takes all his sOHM from the price pool … having a negative effect… thats sounds like Mercedes saying if i gotta pay tax in your country i ll producce my cars in another country …

      Point being … you are right with all your arguments
      … still he is exploiting the system cause we didnt set some basic ground rules.. so that the community can thrive instead of handful of whales….

      nevertheless this suppposed to be a discussing for getting some brainstorming ideas on what the best approach would be … afterall Olympus is a DAO … and once we figured whats agreeable for people which can put up a vote.

          oilreg You haven't illustrated that there is malice or exploitation.

          Communities cannot grow with exclusionary behaviors.

          The fairest system would be that only you are allowed to enter the 33T and then you would always be able to win and it would always be a life changing event for you. However, that wouldn't be much fun given the exclusion of everyone else.

            its not a exclusion when you say max tickets allowed 10/ 50 / 100 / 200 f.e.
            … besides that… we would appreciate if you contribute meaningful suggestions for some 33T adjustments, rather then just pointing out that you are against changes… you made that already clear.

              ok @Turbohand no need cast aspersions 😉

              I believe what @oilreg is suggesting is that there should be a cap on the number of tokens that people can enter - this would stop people with big balances from dominating the odds… its not 'exclusionary' if the same rules would apply to all… I believe this approach has merit and would function to distribute the winnings more widely as more people would feel motivated to enter…

              oilreg I gave you a suggestion.

              If you choose to dismiss it as not meaningful, that is your choice.

              • I have 50 sOhm and invest in the pool.

              • The remainder of the pool is 50 individuals each investing 1 sOhm.

              • I have a 50% chance of winning.

              • Each of the individuals has a 1% chance of winning.

              • The prize for the pool is 100 sOhm.

              • If the individuals group their entries and enter as a block of 50, then their block has a 50% chance of winning.

              • If I win, I win 100 sOhm. If the block wins, they win 100 sOhm. Each person in the block wins 2 sOhm.

              • This maintains the risk v reward of the pool while also allowing leverage for smaller contributors to win proportional to their risk.

              • This has the added benefit of not being exclusionary.

                oilreg I'm done with this. You do not want a discussion. You want to have your way and dismiss any alternate opinions as meaningless. Exclusionary behavior is permeating.

                  oilreg exploiting the system if you are a whale

                  oilreg ou really think the 1000 33T Whale has a life changing event when he wins 170 sOhm

                  oilreg i assume its life changing when a guy staking with 1 33T wins 100 sOHM

                  oilreg i am talking about exploiting the system if you are a whale

                  oilreg he is exploiting the system

                  oilreg we would appreciate if you contribute meaningful suggestions

                  These are judgmental statements.

                  Turbohand I have 50 sOhm and invest in the pool.
                  The remainder of the pool is 50 individuals each investing 1 sOhm.
                  I have a 50% chance of winning.
                  Each of the individuals has a 1% chance of winning.
                  The prize for the pool is 100 sOhm.
                  If the individuals group their entries and enter as a block of 50, then their block has a 50% chance of winning.
                  If I win, I win 100 sOhm. If the block wins, they win 100 sOhm. Each person in the block wins 2 sOhm.
                  This maintains the risk v reward of the pool while also allowing leverage for smaller contributors to win proportional to their risk.
                  This has the added benefit of not being exclusionary.

                  This is not.

                                  Turbohand Good job defending the protocol, but I feel it unnecessary to resort to personal attacks and critiques om ones perspective or communication style. The point is if I'm here starting some hogwash "new way" of doing things that are "fair" and "transparent" then onboarding isn't some whales smoking the little guys in some fake lottery pool. A lottery is supposed to suck for everyone. There is supposed to be no way to game with size of buy-in. If you are in a lottery where the winners have concentration then the whales are just sharing your contribution each epoch and you are an idiot for investing in the game. Game theory. Its in the white paper. Some people won't like that and will complain. Makes sense.

                                      TronderJJ Please show me where I personally attacked anyone? I presented a system that also addresses your concerns and remains inclusive.

                                      In a regular lottery, I can buy more tickets than anyone else if I have the money. That will increase my chance to win. It also increases the impact of my loss. The same is true here.

                                      Inclusiveness and collaboration, as with most things, can solve this problem.

                                        Write a Reply...