It is my first post here so hello
My background is in software engineering so pardon the inaccuracies I may make with regards to economics theory while I catch up.

I have a hard time grasping the incentive models for the charity/lottery ideas proposed.

If I understand correctly the DAC lottery model proposed, everybody owns shares; some shareholders bet their shares during a lottery round; others prefer to keep them.

Let's consider a simple lottery model with a single, assured winner of 99% of all bets, while 1% is redistributed to shareholders.

If you don't play, you are assured of a 1% payback.
If you do play, you may or may not get 99% of all bets. But on the long term your expectation as a player is a 0.99 return.
Why would anyone play rather than hold?

As the saying goes, the house always wins. In the real world you don't really have the choice of being the house. But here the incentives might be different. You are given the opportunity to either be the house or a player. Why would you choose the risky behavior over the sure income?

If you remove the assured payback for non-players and redistribute 100% of bets to winner(s) then why would anyone buy shares in the first place? The incentive cannot simply be the hope of winning the lottery since you'd still need to sell the shares to a buyer at some point.

Thanks for any insight.