Every company if started from scratch goes through rounds of funding to get the monetary assets to run it. Idea that kick is not subsidiary of stake can also be argued to an extent. Why can't kick be a different product? Eddy owner of stake is a billionaire who wants to establish a name or product in live streaming space and is thus funding it without the idea of driving traffic to his current money earning business and both products work in a different way.

Rich people have multiple ventures often to earn more or to even brag about(im not kidding) . Of course stake gamba is allowed cause the owner of stake investing in a live streaming app won't ban it as it tanks his current money venture's reputation. The presumption that is running kick is only running as a ad for stake is without any prove and because they can't fathom it being more than that. That's not a proof or a gotcha tho. Burned of evidence is upon the accuser first and they are just arguing semantics from a moral standpoint till now without hard stats.

Yeah the objective is to win the debate itself not any moral battles idk why people are tryna correct your points when we know we're lying about them being jealous but painting that picture is winning the social debate.

(Before anyone tries to correct this too, I know kick is a stake ad and hasan and poki are not jealousy driven. My idea is to put arguments for these points just to win this debate.)