I’ve been thinking about an idea and I’m trying to figure out if it’s actually interesting or if there are obvious problems I’m not seeing.The concept is a smart contract that runs a simple system. People can contribute a small fixed amount, the contract holds the funds, and once a certain threshold is reached, the outcome happens automatically according to rules that were set beforehand.The main idea is not just the prize. It’s the trust aspect. The contract would be public, the rules would be locked in, and nobody would be able to step in and change things after people have participated.Basically, the goal is to create something where you do not have to trust a person or company running it. You only have to trust the code and be able to verify that everything is working as intended.I’m curious what people think.Would something like this interest you? What would make you comfortable using it? What would make you avoid it completely?I’m trying to understand whether this is a genuinely interesting idea before putting time into building it.
This has already been done. People aren't interested.
>>62467457You are just explaining what a smart contract is. For the randomness you'd have to use a VRF because smart contracts are deterministic. Other than that it's pretty simple and you can create your own verifiably fair lottery in an afternoon.
I have to wonder why people wouldn’t be interested though. Gamblers are gonna gamble, except with a smart contract you get actual, true verifiable fairness, as opposed to the sham that are “verifiably fair” games offered by scummy casinos like rollbit etc.
>>62467731The majority of lottery players are poor and stupid. They're not in crypto.
