Weâ€™ve already had this discussion many times. Iâ€™ll repost my thoughts here:

"Iâ€™m totally onboard with multiple winners! However, forcing the prize to be won by 3 different players changes the expected value to unfairly favour addresses with fewer tickets.

Letâ€™s take an extreme example:

Imagine there are $100 in the pool and three participants. For simplicity we assume the Loot box has the same value as the 2 interest prizes.

A has $90 in, B has $9 in, C has $1 in.

In the draw of the first prize, A wins.

In the draw of the second prize, A should once again have a 90% chance of winning but is now blocked as he already won a prize. So B wins.

In the draw for the third prize, only C is left. So C wins.

Now A,B,C each won 1/3 of the total prize, even though A contributed 90% of the interest that even made that prize possible, B contributed 9% and C only contributed 1%. Obviously, A is being taken advantage of.

This was not bad luck. In this situation the outcome would always be the same, no matter the randomness generated.

So what would A do if he was smart? He would spread his coins among a bunch of addresses that hold a few coins each. And B would do the same. Theoretically, distributing your tickets over infinite different addresses with a tiny sliver of a ticket each is optimal (ignoring gas fees).

I donâ€™t think incentivizing the creation of useless wallets is good for anyone. All it accomplishes is wasting gas and clogging up the Ethereum network even more than it already is.

Of course this example I shared is an extreme case, but the same principles apply to any distribution where there are holders with different amounts of tickets."