Can we have some logical consistency when talking about Satoshi Pyramid?

There seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding the new game Satoshi Pyramid, but I would encourage critics to apply their arguments consistently. After all, the crypto space is filled with risk and gambling.

What makes Satoshi's Pyramid so different from other services? Is it because the odds of winning a particular bet is unknown? This is certainly the case in a poker tournament where the relative skill of your opponents is unknown - this has been advertised on r/btc with no criticism. Is it because there could be more losers than winners? This is definitely the case with lotteries like millionaire makers that have been talked about on this subreddit with no backlash. Is it because the maker of Satoshi's Pyramid could just run off with players' money? This is true of any service that isn't peer-to-peer which would include almost all exchanges. Again, there seems to be inconsistency. Is it because governments would frown upon it? What we're doing here with Bitcoin Cash is premised upon the entire upheaval of the current banking system and upon the promotion of a new age of economic freedom. Governments are already against us.

Now, for the sake of transparency, I should disclose that I placed a relatively small (to me) bet in Satoshi's Pyramid. I saw it as a fun way to promote BCH and (hopefully) support its development. I don't really care a great deal if I lose. I am not telling anyone to play or not play this game. That is a choice for each individual. But, there have been appeals to authority and calls for banning mentions of Satoshi's Pyramid in r/btc. These are the tactics found in r/bitcoin and in the cancel culture of the woke left. There are certainly still questions surrounding Satoshi's Pyramid, such as whether money will actually be donated to fund BCH development. But, we should not assume the worse of people from the get-go. If you don't like the game, don't play it. But, let's keep open discussion and debate in r/btc and try to be consistent with our arguments.