Do users get compensated for super big prizes?

Compliant companies are not applicable to this topic.

The Sugar Rush jackpot event of $6 million has recently sparked heated discussions in groups: Should the user be compensated for the big win or not? Some lament that the gambling industry is increasingly degenerating. Five or ten years ago, this would not have even been a topic of discussion. As long as it was a reputable platform and it could be proven that the player was not an arbitrageur, 90% of the platforms would go to great lengths to compensate. Back then, credit was the most valuable asset.

There are also opposing views: Nowadays, platforms mainly target poor countries, with individual deposits being pitifully small, relying on scale to make money. Even if a large prize is compensated, the user won't lose it back, so it might be better not to compensate.

In the end, it is rumored that the $6 million was successfully paid out. Therefore, this issue needs to be viewed rationally from multiple perspectives to weigh its pros and cons, and decisions should be based on the individual circumstances of each platform.

What are the benefits of compensating?

First, the brand is established. The reputation within the circle will spread quickly, and word of mouth is more useful than a hundred advertisements. I learned about this event from a friend sharing it on Telegram.

Second, user trust is extremely high. This could even serve as an opportunity to attract a wave of high-quality users, achieving a phase of new user acquisition.

The downside is also clear: the risk of cash flow is extremely high, posing a great challenge to the platform's risk resistance ability in the short term.

If choosing to compensate, how can this be maximized?

First, spread it through the media. Let everyone see that the prize was really won and really compensated.

Second, create a series of content around this event, detailing the jackpot, showcasing user feedback, and even constructing a narrative of miracles to pave the way for subsequent conversions.

Third, directly target the weaknesses of competitors, poaching users from other platforms with the promise "Come to us, if you win, you really get paid," directly breaking the trust of competitors.

What are the benefits of not compensating?

The most obvious is preserving cash flow, especially for platforms that are just starting out, where $6 million could be critical.

The downside is also significant: once the news spreads, the reputation is completely destroyed, old players leave, new players wait and see, and it becomes very difficult to recover. Therefore, some platforms choose not to compensate and even shut down directly, commonly known as running away.

If deciding not to compensate, how can the negative impact be minimized?

Cold handling is key. Do not give opportunities for dissemination, do not respond, do not actively ferment, and over time it will naturally cool down.

To compensate or not? This is not a philosophical question, but a business decision.

As long as the bet is confirmed to be compliant, the following aspects must be considered:

Platform cash flow: Whether it has the capacity to withstand the impact of this large prize at once? Can it still operate normally after compensating?

Player potential: Whether the user is a valuable big customer worth investing in, and whether the money they have lost historically is close to this amount or has the potential to be lost back?

Brand impact: Whether the platform relies on its brand.

Legal risks: The user will inevitably resolve the issue through legal means, whether it impacts you.

Of course, in the past, some platforms took intermediate measures, negotiating a new compensation plan acceptable to the user. However, those with strength do not need to consider any factors, as a jackpot is a great opportunity for brand image; those without strength must carefully assess their lifeline, not to be stubborn and doom themselves.

==

Create a channel & join the fan group @kimi1117