Level System

First 3 transactions ever in my account happened on the same day 01/06/24 with a total around 80$...

All other deposits happened from 05/11/24 till 07/02/24 totalling around 61,075.94$ with the exception of 200-300$ that were deposited when i reactivated my account again on 04/26/26

after the 30k massacre that took place in less than 2 months 2 years ago...

And total withdrawals totalling to 34,528.53$

Total VIP bonuses received overall (cashbacks) totals to 490$ exactly.

Total faucet withdrawals ever once.

Overall wager on the platform sums to 3,498,014.3462$ with an overall rank of 28.

I heard about the startdrop and thought, well finally some decent rewards proportional to what I'd put in. Instead I got $150 total, split into three $50 payments over the 3-week claim schedule.

I want to be fair here: this is the StartDrop, not the new level reward system, and the announcement was upfront that StartDrop eligibility is calculated from three factors:

Wagering

Previous level

Deposit activity over the last 90 days

So let's go through each one honestly, with the actual numbers from my account:

Wagering. $3,498,014.35 lifetime wagered. Rank 28 overall on the platform's wager leaderboard. By absolute volume, that's whale territory on any reasonable definition.

Previous level. I'm at level 70. That's the Elite tier — the highest non-Grand-Elite bracket. According to the new level system, the cumulative level rewards up to level 70 add up to roughly $1,671. I'm not claiming I'm entitled to that figure for the StartDrop — those are level-up rewards going forward — but the level itself is a published proxy for "real player," and I clear it.

Deposit activity over the last 90 days. This is the one I'm presumably being penalized on. I reactivated my account on 04/26/26 after a long break, with only a couple hundred dollars in deposits since then. The rest of my deposit history is older:

~$80 across my first 3 transactions ever on 01/06/24

~$61,075.94 deposited between 05/11/24 and 07/02/24

~$200–300 on the 04/26/26 reactivation

~Total withdrawals across the entire history: $34,528.53

~Net deposited minus withdrawn: roughly $26,547 lost on this account

~Total VIP cashbacks ever received: $490 — under 2% of net loss returned

~Total faucet withdrawals ever, across the entire lifetime of this account: $20, claimed once

So here is what the StartDrop formula apparently concluded: a rank-28 player who has wagered $3.5M, lost ~$26.5k net, taken $20 from the faucet in his entire account history, and just came back after two years away is worth $150 in launch rewards. Two-thirds of the eligibility criteria say "high-value retained player." The third criterion — recent 90-day deposits — overrides the other two so completely that it produces a payout that is less than the $490 I've already received in regular cashbacks over the lifetime of this account.

I understand why the recent-deposit criterion exists. You want to redirect budget to active players and away from systems being abused. The announcement is explicit about this and I actually agree with the direction:

"Faucets are expensive… abuse-prone, constantly multi-accounted, botted, poorly targeted… we're redirecting it into systems that reward actual players."

That's the entire problem. I am the actual player. I took $20 from the faucet across my entire account history. I am not the abuse case the new system is designed to filter out — I am precisely the player the redirected budget was supposed to flow toward. But the formula, as applied, weights one 90-day window so heavily that it treats a returning $3.5M-wagered rank-28 account the same as a dormant low-tier one.

The irrationality isn't in having those three criteria — it's in the weighting. If wager (rank 28) and previous level (70) genuinely "matter more across the whole site" as the announcement promises, those two together should be the dominant signal, not a tiebreaker that gets nullified by the third axis. Otherwise the announcement's own language doesn't hold up: it isn't a system that "rewards real players more," it's a system that rewards recently-depositing players, full stop.

What I'm asking for:

1- A review of how my specific $150 was weighted. The claim message displayed the breakdown as approximately $100 for wagering and $50 combined for previous level + recent deposits. That breakdown is the problem in miniature: a rank-28 player with $3,498,014 in lifetime wager received $100 for that wager — roughly $0.0000286 per dollar wagered, or 0.00286%. For context, a player who wagered $35,000 — one hundredth of my volume — would only need to receive $1.00 for their wagering component to be paid at the same rate. The wagering portion of this StartDrop is not scaled to wager volume in any meaningful way; it's essentially a flat participation token with token variation. If wager is genuinely one of the three eligibility criteria — and the announcement says it is — then it needs to actually scale with wager, or it isn't a criterion, it's decoration.

2- A recalculation that gives appropriate weight to lifetime wager and previous level, given that those are explicitly listed as eligibility factors. A rank-28 player with $3.5M wagered should not be in the same StartDrop bracket as accounts that contributed a small fraction of that.

3- Acknowledgement that long-term loyal players who happened to be on a break during the 90-day snapshot window have effectively been zeroed out of a launch pool meant to re-engage exactly that audience.

I'm not asking for the moon. I'm asking that the announcement's promise — real players more — be applied in a way the math actually supports. Otherwise the StartDrop is what I currently experience it as: a launch event that the highest-contributing returning players were structurally excluded from.

There seems to be a big confusion here, especially with some of our larger players. The start drop is simply a goodbye to faucet, and recognition that people may have previously cashed out based on the faucet levels they had achieved, which have now been removed.

It seems a lot of the bigger players are the ones with the issue, and that’s understandable. When you’re wagering tens of thousands up and down, sometimes just down, the start drop amount can naturally feel low in comparison.

But going forward, for the level you’ve achieved, you now get:

Much higher rakeback than before

Level awards for each new level you reach

A daily spin wheel offering real crypto directly if you’re lucky enough to win that day

Previously, most of that value was tied into the faucet system, which many level 70+ players simply did not engage with because the amounts were never particularly meaningful at that level. However, that was still the system through which we gave out literally hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years.

We can’t go back and redistribute all of that value again based on historical levels, but what we can do is improve the system going forward, and that’s exactly what this change is intended to do.

The start drop is not the new system. The new system is the level awards, alongside the improved rakeback structure and daily rewards.

Users can also choose to begin fresh and level up through the lower tiers again, which offers easier level awards earlier on. However, doing that would mean giving up the significantly higher rakebacks that come with higher-level accounts.

We do recognise that for some players, this new system would likely have rewarded them far more overall than the previous faucet system did. That’s exactly why it exists now instead of faucet.

See this does not make sense , i did level 66 after the announcement of the new upgrade system. I was level 63 or 64 during the announcement. Is it my fault here for playing before the update? Should I be punished or rewarded? Does it make sense? Please push for higher management to reward those atleast who completed the major levels after the announcement. It's not fair to be punished to play after announcement. this only makes sense. And i believe higher management will surely consider this for players who did major levels ups after the announcement.

I know duckdice cares for their players and a correction should be done for players who wagered those levels AFTER the Announcement

First 3 transactions ever in my account happened on the same day 01/06/24 with a total around 80$...

All other deposits happened from 05/11/24 till 07/02/24 totalling around 61,075.94$ with the exception of 200-300$ that were deposited when i reactivated my account again on 04/26/26

after the 30k massacre that took place in less than 2 months 2 years ago...

And total withdrawals totalling to 34,528.53$

Total VIP bonuses received overall (cashbacks) totals to 490$ exactly.

Total faucet withdrawals ever once.

Overall wager on the platform sums to 3,498,014.3462$ with an overall rank of 28.

I heard about the startdrop and thought, well finally some decent rewards proportional to what I'd put in. Instead I got $150 total, split into three $50 payments over the 3-week claim schedule.

I want to be fair here: this is the StartDrop, not the new level reward system, and the announcement was upfront that StartDrop eligibility is calculated from three factors:

Wagering

Previous level

Deposit activity over the last 90 days

So let's go through each one honestly, with the actual numbers from my account:

Wagering. $3,498,014.35 lifetime wagered. Rank 28 overall on the platform's wager leaderboard. By absolute volume, that's whale territory on any reasonable definition.

Previous level. I'm at level 70. That's the Elite tier — the highest non-Grand-Elite bracket. According to the new level system, the cumulative level rewards up to level 70 add up to roughly $1,671. I'm not claiming I'm entitled to that figure for the StartDrop — those are level-up rewards going forward — but the level itself is a published proxy for "real player," and I clear it.

Deposit activity over the last 90 days. This is the one I'm presumably being penalized on. I reactivated my account on 04/26/26 after a long break, with only a couple hundred dollars in deposits since then. The rest of my deposit history is older:

~$80 across my first 3 transactions ever on 01/06/24

~$61,075.94 deposited between 05/11/24 and 07/02/24

~$200–300 on the 04/26/26 reactivation

~Total withdrawals across the entire history: $34,528.53

~Net deposited minus withdrawn: roughly $26,547 lost on this account

~Total VIP cashbacks ever received: $490 — under 2% of net loss returned

~Total faucet withdrawals ever, across the entire lifetime of this account: $20, claimed once

So here is what the StartDrop formula apparently concluded: a rank-28 player who has wagered $3.5M, lost ~$26.5k net, taken $20 from the faucet in his entire account history, and just came back after two years away is worth $150 in launch rewards. Two-thirds of the eligibility criteria say "high-value retained player." The third criterion — recent 90-day deposits — overrides the other two so completely that it produces a payout that is less than the $490 I've already received in regular cashbacks over the lifetime of this account.

I understand why the recent-deposit criterion exists. You want to redirect budget to active players and away from systems being abused. The announcement is explicit about this and I actually agree with the direction:

"Faucets are expensive… abuse-prone, constantly multi-accounted, botted, poorly targeted… we're redirecting it into systems that reward actual players."

That's the entire problem. I am the actual player. I took $20 from the faucet across my entire account history. I am not the abuse case the new system is designed to filter out — I am precisely the player the redirected budget was supposed to flow toward. But the formula, as applied, weights one 90-day window so heavily that it treats a returning $3.5M-wagered rank-28 account the same as a dormant low-tier one.

The irrationality isn't in having those three criteria — it's in the weighting. If wager (rank 28) and previous level (70) genuinely "matter more across the whole site" as the announcement promises, those two together should be the dominant signal, not a tiebreaker that gets nullified by the third axis. Otherwise the announcement's own language doesn't hold up: it isn't a system that "rewards real players more," it's a system that rewards recently-depositing players, full stop.

What I'm asking for:

1- A review of how my specific $150 was weighted. The claim message displayed the breakdown as approximately $100 for wagering and $50 combined for previous level + recent deposits. That breakdown is the problem in miniature: a rank-28 player with $3,498,014 in lifetime wager received $100 for that wager — roughly $0.0000286 per dollar wagered, or 0.00286%. For context, a player who wagered $35,000 — one hundredth of my volume — would only need to receive $1.00 for their wagering component to be paid at the same rate. The wagering portion of this StartDrop is not scaled to wager volume in any meaningful way; it's essentially a flat participation token with token variation. If wager is genuinely one of the three eligibility criteria — and the announcement says it is — then it needs to actually scale with wager, or it isn't a criterion, it's decoration.

2- A recalculation that gives appropriate weight to lifetime wager and previous level, given that those are explicitly listed as eligibility factors. A rank-28 player with $3.5M wagered should not be in the same StartDrop bracket as accounts that contributed a small fraction of that.

3- Acknowledgement that long-term loyal players who happened to be on a break during the 90-day snapshot window have effectively been zeroed out of a launch pool meant to re-engage exactly that audience.

I'm not asking for the moon. I'm asking that the announcement's promise — real players more — be applied in a way the math actually supports. Otherwise the StartDrop is what I currently experience it as: a launch event that the highest-contributing returning players were structurally excluded from.

I get where you're coming from. I ran the numbers and I'm down 6 figures and get around $500 from the StartDrop total, but tallying up the current level bonuses now, they come out to $12,105.99 for where I'm currently at. That's painful to see...

They also mention rakeback increases as part of why the changes were made, but the RB is actually worse. It was 10% before for me, now it's "14%" but because I play originals, it's actually 50% of that, or 7%. So no prior level bonuses PLUS my RB was almost halved. I genuinely don't see how this is supposed to be better, so I must be missing something.