• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Official Sponsors and Partners Thread

DubSpur said:
So it’s not a ponzi scheme but will be a Ponzi scheme? :confused:

There have been cryptos that were scams or Ponzi schemes, or were used as the basis of a Ponzi scheme, but the likes of Bitcoin aren’t Ponzi schemes. This doesn’t have any indication it’s a Ponzi scheme. The tokens will be used to buy stuff and be in with a chance to win things (basically entering a raffle). I could be totally wrong but I don’t see many supporters pumping thousands into it.
Click to expand...

I don't think the tokens are a ponzi scheme as such, more of a pump and dump. I think the underlying crypto coin may very well be. They're still in the process of recruitment, get more people in (in part through deals with more clubs). The value of the coin is a direct result of that recruitment and little else. When the recruitment stops the value drops and the main people behind it will probably already have made off with the profit.

I don't think the tokens will do much significant harm. Recruiting people into crypto speculation may very well do that.

Bitcoin isn't a ponzi scheme. Though unless it proves itself to have a real world value that justifies the value put into bitcoin it's value is just that it's seen to have value because profit.

I don't know where that will end. I wouldn't be shocked if it crashed at some point. Obviously I don't know with socios either, but I feel very confident it's going to crash.
 
braineclipse said:
Saying that it's no worse than the state lottery is a false equivalency imo.

All forms of institutionalised gambling probably has negative effects in some ways. That doesn't mean that those negative effects are equal in their quality or magnitude.
Click to expand...
You're not restricted to buying one ticket - there's no magnitude limit on a lottery.
 
braineclipse said:
Sure. That doesn't mean that the negative effects are the same or of the same magnitude.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that.

If I go and spend £10 on lottery tickets, I've just thrown away £10. If I spend £10 on crypto, I've almost certainly thrown away £10 but there's a small chance I haven't.

Is there much difference?
 
scaramanga said:
I'm not sure about that.

If I go and spend £10 on lottery tickets, I've just thrown away £10. If I spend £10 on crypto, I've almost certainly thrown away £10 but there's a small chance I haven't.

Is there much difference?
Click to expand...

In that one example, no. Theat doesn't mean that the societal effects of different forms of gambling are the same. Availability, promotions, the instant feedback of wins, creating a culture or subculture where gambling is accepted or expected etc.

There's obviously also the difference between national or regional lotteries where the profits are spent for public services and private companies extracting profit.
 
braineclipse said:
In that one example, no. Theat doesn't mean that the societal effects of different forms of gambling are the same. Availability, promotions, the instant feedback of wins, creating a culture or subculture where gambling is accepted or expected etc.
Click to expand...
That's why I used the National Lottery here as an example - its advertising is ubiquitous. You can't walk into a supermarket or convenience store in the UK without seeing lottery advertising all ove the place. It's been on bus shelters, billboards, etc. It even has a prime time TV slot for the draw.

For those who couldn't wait for a weekend draw, they added a second in midweek and I think they have more on top of that. For those who can't wait that long, they have scratch cards.

Personally, I'd prefer that no gambling was advertised anywhere. The floodgates are open though. This almost certainly won't be rolled back, those unfortunate enough to suffer fro gambling addiction can't escape the advertising. If that's the case, then I'd rather Spurs were taking a cut too.

braineclipse said:
There's obviously also the difference between national or regional lotteries where the profits are spent for public services and private companies extracting profit.
Click to expand...
The National Lottery does donate 28% to charitable causes. How useful that expenditure is depends on your preference. I'd far rather some money went to Spurs than plenty of the other ways in which it's spent.
 
scaramanga said:
That's why I used the National Lottery here as an example - its advertising is ubiquitous. You can't walk into a supermarket or convenience store in the UK without seeing lottery advertising all ove the place. It's been on bus shelters, billboards, etc. It even has a prime time TV slot for the draw.

For those who couldn't wait for a weekend draw, they added a second in midweek and I think they have more on top of that. For those who can't wait that long, they have scratch cards.

Personally, I'd prefer that no gambling was advertised anywhere. The floodgates are open though. This almost certainly won't be rolled back, those unfortunate enough to suffer fro gambling addiction can't escape the advertising. If that's the case, then I'd rather Spurs were taking a cut too.


The National Lottery does donate 28% to charitable causes. How useful that expenditure is depends on your preference. I'd far rather some money went to Spurs than plenty of the other ways in which it's spent.
Click to expand...

Gambling has gone through 3 phases in this country:
1) Prohibited (largely to WW2)
2) Restricted and regulated (till the 80s)
3) State sponsored (since)

Governments over the last 40 years have just used it as an extra tax. A tax on stupidity, bad maths and vulnerability. We have about the least regulated system in the world.

It's frighteningly predatory as well. It's ruthless at targeting those with addictions and children. The whole 'loot box' concept in children's computer games is funded/pushed by the gambling industry to nurture habits.
 
Last edited:
Gutter Boy said:
Gambling has gone through 3 phases in this country:
1) Prohibited (largely to WW2)
2) Restricted and regulated (till the 80s)
3) State sponsored (since)

Governments over the last 40 years have just used it as an extra tax. A tax on stupidity, bad maths and vulnerability. We have about the least regulated system in the world.

It's frighteningly predatory as well. It's ruthless at targeting those with additions and children. The whole 'loot box' concept in children's computer games is funded/pushed by the gambling industry to nurture habits.
Click to expand...

Loot boxes/gacha games need to be illegal.

It's not pushed by the gambling industry. It is the game developers becoming a part of the gambling industry.
 
Last edited:
I literally make thousands on the exchange a year on betfair. People call it a tax on the stupid but the are different academic levels in life.

I'm certainly no where near the top of academic circles but am very good at maths based probabilities and not panicking downturns. Should I be penalised because others aren't. Should high paid professionals with degrees be penalised because I never got a degree.

Fcuking thought police.
 
braineclipse said:
That's the thing though. That betting is available and being promoted to people no matter what the club does. Doesn't make it right, but the impact of what the club does is probably fairly limited in that ecosystem. Doesn't make it ok in my book.

Socios is a new way to target people with exploitation. People will be targeted by this that otherwise wouldn't be reached by Socios or similar companies.

I'm no good at predicting the future. All the uses of this you suggest can already be done easily in other ways. It's really not that difficult to buy someone a pint. I think this will be a fad that is gone and has no further value soon enough. Meanwhile chances are some fans that are vulnerable to this kind of thing will lose money, probably for some real money that they can't afford to lose. Money they wouldn't have lost in this way is not for this partnership.

Is that worth (part of) a new signing? Doesn't affect me personally. I won't get involved, my family won't, my friends won't. For me it's still not worth it. Not when the direct financial exploitation of our fans is the very purpose of this company (imo).
Click to expand...

That is all conjecture. How do you know people will lose money they can't afford? Before dealing with Crypto sponsorship, shouldn't you get gambling banned first? It can be highly addictive. And has destroyed countless lives, and taken lives. Yet we have betting shops close to and in grounds. You are not concerned with this at all. But a crypto sponsorship that might have some gamification which may or may not constitute gambling does exercise you. If there is a gambling element, it is a regulated activity. And in the UK gambling isn't illegal. If you are exercised by this subject, wouldn't you campaign to stop betting apps etc and help more people, rather than attack crypto sponsorship? The impact of this coin on Spurs fans is far from clear. Yet betting apps and shops have well-documented effects. Yet you actively attack this sponsorship and not the proven ill (that you fear may underpin it)?
 
Last edited:
The smoking ban is opening the arguments for ulta processed foods, processed food, alcohol, gambling and any other form of enjoyment we have and it's difficult to see where it ends.
I neither smoke, gamble or take drugs.
My diet isn't the healthiest, but it doesn't include many ultra processed foods.
I do enjoy a social drink and I would say that maybe three four times a year a will exceed the recommended units per week.
It does feel very much like there is a section of society that will always be on a crusade to ban something and as one crusade succeeds they move onto another.
 
glasgowspur said:
The smoking ban is opening the arguments for ulta processed foods, processed food, alcohol, gambling and any other form of enjoyment we have and it's difficult to see where it ends.
I neither smoke, gamble or take drugs.
My diet isn't the healthiest, but it doesn't include many ultra processed foods.
I do enjoy a social drink and I would say that maybe three four times a year a will exceed the recommended units per week.
It does feel very much like there is a section of society that will always be on a crusade to ban something and as one crusade succeeds they move onto another.
Click to expand...
Smoking is different as it affected other people. The other things you list, people need to be educated, not restricted.
 
Not read the whole debate on here.
Regarding the lottery all I can say is for however long it's been going now and the millions/billions raised for 'good causes' the country is still a brick hole and more and more people than ever rely on charities and food banks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back