The problem is we, nomatter what standing we'd take on the matter, tend to make an extremist point, so to say.
Respectively, I am 100% sure that MA
doesn't hand out the goodies every time. It's not possible and would surely stink as hell.
My view, though, is that certain avatars are treated more than random.
Of course I cannot come with an explanation why Stryker, Stoikow and Stormer are imo such avatars. Of course it might be completely random. Of course out of them three, Stryker might be simply lucky, Stormer cheating and only Stoikow being favourised. Or whatever other avatars and combinations possible.
Of course I cannot come up with an explanation as why would MA do that because I am clueless, as is normal, on company's background and on respective IRL persons. As far as I know (i.e. nothing), Skalman might be Jan's, let's say nephew, and then would be somehow explainable why he'd be favourised or allowed to cheat or have inside info or whatever your favourite tune might be.
I simply cannot come with a specific list of whys and whos.
But I cannot stop myself from remembering Jan's famous Rancher Hat. I cannot stop myself from observing that certain members of community have/had open doors at MA (Angel, Skalman, Starfinder, Skam to name a few), while others didn't. And I don't want to bring other observations into view since I consider myself a gentleman but would make the point even more reasonable.
On the other hand, we have MA's interaction with players, which was often bad. Of course, it might be about low resources, not enough PR knowledge (that's for sure in fact), business decisions regarding external pressure factors which we're not aware of (banks, bills etc.).
But in my views, which might be emo ofc, MA managed to become a bunch of assholes focused on cheating players at least through false advertising. That combined with other mights, mays, ifs and so on result in me accepting the possibility that MA might treat certain players differently on, say, *personal* criterias.
Completely different from that is my opinion that the loot system itself works somehow this way. MindArk needs deposits. I think is easy, handy and done that out of a group of say 30 players, pick the nondepositor, squeeze the depositors to keep depositing (let's not forget this aspect, MA need people who keep depositing, they must be sure beyond any doubt that some people will keep depositing), and out of 29 average deposits, give to nondepo say 2 pieces and them keep 27. The nondepo will keep thriving, be a model and most important will frustrate the depositors to keep depositing. If the depositors get fed up and quit (like me), even better, kiss the sucker good-bye, we took his money, so long, don't let the door hit you. Chances are the non depo will keep playing anyway and withdraw something from time to time, not everything at once, not in a significant quantity.
Of course this is a basic model which needs variations, because you must fit in it small players, heavy rollers, non depo traders, LA investors, etc. Of course it might be that is not intentionate, but simply the depositors are regular people who won't hardcore EU to break even because they don't have enough time and because is not IRL rentable since gains are too small.
But that BASE team must be doing
something, no? Must base (pun) their decisions or recommendations on
something. Must take those decisions with a
target in mind. And I doubt their customer consideration or even will to think at that issue.
Sry for long post
its just some thoughts from observations over the years I have played.
why is that so difficult to understand? 
Another Perception-loot theory! 
