What occurred to me while making LottoShares was that a dice DAC could run effectively with a 0% house edge so long as it controls its own money/share supply.
Consider if you have 100 coins issued.
Player makes a 10 coin bet on a 50/50 outcome, 0% house edge.
If the player loses, 10 coins are destroyed, now only 90 coins are issued - existing holders are 10% better off through deflation.
If the player wins, 10 new coins are created, 110 now exist - existing holders are 9.09% worse off due to inflation.
There's a 10% upside but only a 9% downside to the bet for the DAC . . and the opposite for the bettor. Effectively a small house edge is hidden by inflation.
Most bets aren't large in proportional to the total money supply, so the effect is very small for the bettor.
Nicely stated...
I think that would work very well.
I think the big market is building it around a BitUSD.
- 1 BitUSD requires $3 of BTS collateral so demand has a bigger impact.
- People leave funds (to play later), so the BitUSD CAP will increase.
- The games will generate a lot of BitUSD transactions. Possibly generating enough revenue to sustain a no-inflation DAC.
The total supply of NuBits hasn't increased since inception & the BitUSD CAP is pretty stagnant, the majority of it was created by only a few people. While centralised dice site numbers suggest that a lower edge, decentralized, fast, no volatility BitUSD gambling option could create a rapidly growing, high turnover 'X'USD.
BitShares can't compete as they would lose their Chinese market.