It's a wrong argument. "what was coming to them" was not winning but still keeping their money. Gambling is different because you risk losing what you put in.

>Gambling is degenerate, chaotic and immoral.

The Mayflower called, they've lost a puritan again.

Hahaha. They irony in the gamble the puritans took to come to the US to start.

...First, when there is somewhere to go to get away from religious persecution, that is a more or less a rational gamble.

Second, are you really condescendingly equating compulsive gambling with escaping societal scale persecution or strife resulting from incompatibilities of religious belief with the State religion?

That's a bit of a stretch.

The general idea of Yotta at the time appears to be sound [1]. Research has shown that prize-linked savings accounts tend to result in people getting and using savings accounts who otherwise would not have done so.

Just make sure to get it from an actual bank or credit union where your account will be directly FDIC or whatever the equivalent for credit unions is insured, instead of going through some fintech company where you account is with the fintech company where they store your money (commingled with other people's money) in a (hopefully insured!) bank but as far as the bank is concerned its all the fintech's money and you have no relationship with the bank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize-linked_savings_account

If it was fully disclosed that this was "gambling", then I might agree.

But it seems that it was more positioned as "a safe investment with okay returns and a lottery chance at winning above average returns". Gamblers don't need to know about FDIC insurance and the like.

There was shady goings on that wasn't clear to depositors -- what isn't clear is WHERE that shadiness was happening, but that doesn't mean they "got what was coming to them".