I think the % taken for the house should be studied further, as it will be key in NeoDice acceptance by users. I find the 2% too high. If for example just-dice has a 1% fee, maybe people will still gamble there even if Neodice service is better.
In gambling it seems you get more money the higher the rake is, but i dont see it that way, as the result is often the same after a big sample of plays from the user perspective: 100% of the money lost. People use to think they just got unlucky on the last play, but it is just their EV ( equity value) materializing.
The only difference is that the longer the user plays, the experience will be more grateful, and the feeling of almost succeeding to win is bigger. More minutes of fun too, so they will be tempted to gamble more in the future. If you take all their money in 5 minutes, there isnt any satisfaction for the user.
This is a simulation of 100 plays with the EV of betting your whole stake starting with 1000 units.
It may seem you win more money the higher the rake is, but with a big enough sample, this is what i meant with the final result is always the same. Graph of 500 plays :
You are taking all the money anyway, but you give the user a bigger number of plays = more time of fun = closer feeling of almost winning
In a business where you have operational costs for that, you have to balance it, but here i dont think having a user making 100 more plays has any cost for NeoDice.
That is why i think it is a good idea to lower the rake to at least 1%. I would do it even lower, but then you also have to calculate the possibility of starting with a bad streak as the house and having to pay too much money for users. As the lower the edge for NeoDice is , the bigger chance of this happening. But in the long term with very big volume, this is no problem.
Is there a chance asset holders could vote on this? If the accounts with a huge % find what asset holders voted reasonable they can follow it. If it isnt so close they can always decide as developers still weight for 45%+ of the asset.