With participants able to go into debt indefinitely, the process becomes a random walk.
The result should be each participant being up or down from 0 at a rate of proportionated sqrt of t, the number of iterations of the system. Implying a wealth distribution which would become ever-more skewed over time.
Is that what "skewed" means? To my mind a widening bell curve which remained symmetric (which is what we're talking about, right?) would not be "skewed".
Over time, the average participant would have either far more coins in credit than they began with or be in debt for far more coins than they started with.
Whether you have what statistician call "skewed" or not, you have what most people would call skewed, unequal, extreme.
"Varied" or "widely distributed" seem like better terms. To my mind, "skew" is what we have in the original problem (with a zero-bound) - it only describes asymmetric distributions.
The result should be each participant being up or down from 0 at a rate of proportionated sqrt of t, the number of iterations of the system. Implying a wealth distribution which would become ever-more skewed over time.