I read your article in entirety and I plan on reading it several more times to make sure I grasp everything. I sincerely want to enjoy it and see its real life application, but I simply can’t. The most obvious reason is that despite my pleas, and those from the developers themselves, you have still shown disregard for the contract code at hand. At minimum, you could have taken the time to read the wiki as I suggested before.
What I propose is that, as far as I can tell, $12 million should be free for the taking for someone who can construct a suitable commitment contract.
Again, there is no singular winner. The amount you see on the screen when visiting FOMO3D’s site is not yours for being the last key purchaser before the clock hits 00:00:00. The purchaser will receive 48% of this amount. It’s clear I need to emphasize my point for anyone to comprehend it, so without further ado—please read the wiki here.
If someone sufficiently funds a good commitment contract in F3D, nobody else can make any money. Clearly, you can only make money (in expectation) if the expected value of the prize is greater than the cost of the key you buy.
This is flat out false. I am not sure if you are intentionally overlooking the combined nature of capital appreciation with dividend reinvestment strategy (and referrals) or if you are simply ignorant to it. Let me pull on the string coming out of my back yet again… there is no singular winner. If you are proposing that the purchaser who had his/her 1 ETH (which was the limit until 100 ETH was reached) confirmed as the first transaction of round one has not had their seed capital returned (even if your strategy was in place), I simply don’t have the words to express my shock. I am going to take a leap of faith and assume there is no way you can think that, so I’ll chalk it up to misspeaking or not having read the wiki. The math is extremely volatile due to individual strategy, but in this particular round, those who contributed x ETH at 10 ETH in the pot would reach their ROI when the pot increased to 500-1000 ETH. The pot is over 21000 ETH right now. Do you see where I’m going with this? I don’t want to share any more math as it could give an advantage to my competition and I don’t want that seeing as I’ve, ironically, “made money” without winning the pot. This is not a theoretical question— do you know the math the key price scaling as the pot grows or how individuals receive distributions as it does? If the answer to that is no, I beg you, without any inkling of math to back your claims, please do not spread fallacies such as guaranteeing a loss in capital. This is inappropriate to the highest degree.
We can make a line so long that it’s not worth it for anyone. You’ve seen lines like this for things that are “free”, right? We can make a line so long that nobody should ever wait it in.
This is the first time I have ever seen a case of voluntary paralysis by a commitment device. I won’t mince words here— this is an atrocious analogy. By now I’m guessing you know what I am going to say; there is no singular winner and therefore this is not a binary event. In the case of free alcohol consumption, you either obtain it or you do not. I do agree with you there! However, it would not be applicable if while standing in this line, employees occasionally came around to offer their most eager attendees appetizers, shots, and balloon animals. Surely you would not suggest they’ve failed in their mission to receive a free drink because of their rewards along the way. Or if you are insistent on this still being a failure, surely they have “failed” in a relative amount to their peers if some of them received no such rewards.
[any statement about a commitment device]
It’s very clear to me that you have an educational background involving economics or statistics, at minimum. I don’t mean this in a condescending way, but your article has a overtone of scholarly “teaching moments” that is reminiscent of college textbooks, and that’s the reason for my guess. I don’t want to break the internet with the length of this response but I insist on this one point. Commitment devices and game theory are just that. If you are looking for an advantage, congratulations because you earned one. However, there is no mathematical law behind either of them, nor do they take into consideration any of the unavoidable elements from various outliers, especially those you see in a free market. I’ll say it like this; Cortes did not have only two options despite your insistence on it, nor did this guy Cuauhtemoc who I’ve admittedly never heard of. Suggesting otherwise is more naive than using Punnett squares to determine a person’s life course.
Allow me to make a suggestion to avoid raising my blood pressure any more than I already have. I badly want to address more of your claims than I have so far, but for the sake of time, why not put 10 dollars into P3D, FOMO3D long version, or the upcoming FOMO3D quick version? Educate yourself by experience. Hell, make a commitment device into doing so. I appreciate all the time you have put into talking about FOMO3D but consider this— I have never fished in my entire life, but I can unquestionably promise you, before writing an elaborate article explaining all the advantages, downsides, and luring tips for catching bass in Lake Okeechobee during the fall, I will have at least tried it once.