I am not saying that only CON / S-CON has value. What I am saying is that it is a huge and growing liability to the game.

Edit 1: Of course without players CK is nothing.  CON / S-CON actually puts it into negative territory or deep into the red.

Edit 2: What a player is willing to pay in order to play the game is not denominated in XMR. It should increase over time only with purchasing power, say 1-2% per year in terms of EUR. Therein lies the issue and the XMR short.

The fact that closing CK is even being considered leads me to believe that there are serious financial problems here that are not unrelated to the sharp rise in Moreno with respect not only to Bitcoin but also with respect to virtually every fiat currency.

I see the following issues:

1) There were many persons who invested  hundreds and thousands of Moreno in CK equity game assets. If the game is restarted and the market is allowed to set the value of these assets, this may address the issue; nevertheless there may still be the issue of loss in value caused by the pause over the summer. If on the other hand the game is not restarted or is "reset" there could be substantial claims here.
 
2) Then there is the issue of CON and the related asset S-CON. Time can be very much of the essence here, because this is a liability of CK that is denominated in Moreno and Moreno is sharply rising. I do not even want to fathom what the potential legal ramifications here may be. The best solution here I can see is to reach a settlement with the CON and S-CON holders. Given the current market situation with Moreno this may not be cheap. CON is basically a short position on Monero. Those on the long side of the contract are going to want to be paid. Given that in many jurisdictions crypto currency is effectively treated as money, this would be no different from a default denominated in fiat or Bitcoin. There are already significant legal precedents with defaults denominated in Bitcoin.

3) The pause has likely made the situation worse. If there are serious financial problems the sooner this is dealt with the better.  

4) I am not 100% clear on the legal status of CK. Who is actually the owner? Who is liable for the debts and other liabilities?

There is a distinct sense of deja-vu  here with Bitcoin in 2011 - 2013. Those who were short Bitcoin were fine until the price of Bitcoin started to move up, after the 2011 bear market. Once the short squeeze started the financial and legal consequences followed. Bitcoin itself of course was fine and the same is likely to be the case with Monero.

The best solution here is for the game to be salvaged and restarted if this is possible; nevertheless I believe that some sort of settlement, with the CON / S-CON holders is going to be needed. Contrary to some of the other comments I believe that Town and consequently CK is net short Monero which places CK in a very precarious financial situation.

Edit: I am unclear why the game could not continue in the Ultima form while the Clans version is developed.

Interestingly Monero Classic may already have some serious legal and regulatory problems. Starting with copyright infringement and regulatory issues with FinCEN in the Untied States for starters.  

Further to fluffypony's comments the content on https://getmonero.org/ is copyrighted and subject to the following terms from https://getmonero.org/legal/copyright


I will also refer to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

On another note I will also refer to the following FinCEN guidance in the United States: https://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html This is relevant because the crowd sale could easily require those administering the crowd sale to register as an MSB in the United States. There may also be similar regulatory requirements in other jurisdictions.

I actually doubt that Dash is going to have much impact here. Dash has actually held up very well in the face of the recent rise in Monero, especially considering that Dash itself had a very significant upward run. The valuation rise in Monero could simply occur by Monero taking a significant part of the overall increase in the valuation of crypto currency. This is especially the case since Bitcoin is prevented from growing by the 1 MB blocksize limit and Monero is not. Interestingly Ethereum also did not have this blocksize limitation to growth.

My take is that the highest probability is a above 0.064 for XMR/XBT, my second choice with a very significantly lower probability but not zero, is below 0.004 XMR/XBT. The middle levels are actually by far the least likely in my mind.

If one looks at github and follows Monero development there are significant development improvements in the pipeline that are close to completion anyone of which could easily lead to a 4x or 5x rise in the XMR/XBT rate. If one add to this that the recent price rise and trading volume could lead to one or more of the major fiat to crypto exchanges listing Monero, this alone would make 0.064 or higher the most probable.

The second most probable option is that some previously unforeseen bug, attack etc., causes a disruption of the Monero network. which could cause the XMR/XBT rate to fall below 0.004.

A good example of what can happen is Ethereum; however in the case of Monero the rise could actually be even more sharp since in the case of Monero this is caused by very solid fundamentals that that have been slowly built up over a period more than two years. This is then followed by the market suddenly "discovering" the fundamental value of Monero and releasing the built up energy in a sudden and violent upward thrust.

Edit 1: There is no "insider" information here. It is all publicly available to anyone who cares to look. A very good indication of this for example is https://www.coingecko.com/en which currently lists Monero in 4th place ahead of Ripple and closing in on Litecoin.

Edit 2: What is currently happening with Monero is in my mind a classic example the value of doing one's own research on the market fundamentals and taking a long term view, as opposed to trying to day trade the market technicals.

One Ether down, one to go.

That was very gracious of you. Thank you.

I was just looking at the weekly chart with a volume in XMR of over 16.1 million  XMR during this week, vs a total supply of approximately 12.8 million XMR. There most be a very significant amount of short margin been used to meet demand here.  

Quote from Video:

I do remember when Monero went below 0.001 XBT in 2014 and 2015. 

The ATH has just been broken.

The market cap of Dash can be relevant from a trading perspective because of the long history between Monero and Dash/Darkcoin and the emotions involved on both sides. Emotions can play a very significant part in trading regardless of the objectivity of those emotions.

It looks like the downward trend line from the 0.009364 XMR/XBT top may have been broken to the upside. If that is the case then the August 25th low of 0.006350 XMR/XBT could the the bottom of the correction. This is extremely close to a Fibonacci retracement to the 61.8% level using the May 2016 low of 0.001612 XMR/XBT as the base.  

It quite possible we may not see a retest of the 0.0042 XMR/XBT to 0.0043 XMR/XBT area. I have been wrong before though.

Edit. The very old 2014 ATH of 0.01111 XMR/XBT area may prove to be interesting because it also coincides with the current market capitalization of Dash.

They will use a protocol rather than a proprietary service, much as is the case with email today. Some will connect to a provider such as is the case with many email services today, others will run their own social media client, while other will also run their own social media server. Using Gmail is technically no different form using Facebook. The critical difference is that the person on the other end does not have to use the same provider, or even use a provider at all.

Social media today is where email was for the most part in the 1980s and early 1990's. One can only communicate within a proprietary walled garden with others who were in the same walled garden.  

Email circa 1990
AOL members can send email to AOL members
Prodigy members can only send email to Prodigy members
CompuServe members can only send email to CompuServe members
...

Email circa 2016
Person A can send an email using their own server running Trisquel GNU/Linux (100% Free Software and totally open hardware) to person B using a Microsoft Windows RT tablet and Microsoft Live email. (The most extreme case proprietary software and locked down hardware). Persons A and B likely have extremely different points of view on privacy and freedom for example; however they can still communicate by email.

Social Media circa 2016
One can reply to a Reddit post only on Reddit
One can reply to a Bitcointalk post only on Bitcointalk
One can reply to a Facebook post only on Facebook
...

Edit: Breaking down the walled gardens and forcing competitors to cooperate with each other through an open protocol will drive down both costs to the user and profits to the former walled garden providers. Costs in social media are largely paid for via privacy and profits in social media are in many cases generated by spying and surveillance.

Short term that chart looks quite bearish to me; however many long term investors and speculators will consider a short term correction bullish after the recent sharp rise.

Simpleness and ease of use by tech n00bs were also the big selling points of AOL in its day.

When it comes to the US Government I learned at a very young age that the best source of information with respect to their laws and regulations is the US Government itself, which is why I quote their guidance on the subject of crypto currencies. The same can also be said for many governments around the world.

Interestingly one can legitimately argue that because of its lack of a premine and that there is no diversion of the emission to pay developers, promoters etc., Monero is one of very few crypto currencies that is in compliance with existing laws in the United States. To understand why I suggest reading the guidance from FinCEN https://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html. Then ask the question: How many other crypto currencies meet the definition of "de-centralized convertible virtual currency" under the guidance?

Yes but the ineptness and incompetence of AOL made 33.6k over AOL actually slower than 300 baud. I found this out in the late 1990's when AOL bought out CompuServe and I had my one AOL experience. After that I immediately cancelled my account. CompuServe was somewhat pricey but provided excellent dial up service in its day. What eventually killed AOL was of course the Internet. People do not want to concern themselves with their contacts' choice of Internet provider or email / browser software when sending an email or viewing content online. Later we saw a similar situation with text messaging. Proprietary messaging networks such as MSN have been replaced SMS, for the same reason. Do people really want to concern themselves with who is proving cellular network service to their contacts when sending a text message?

My take is that Facebook will suffer the same fate as AOL This will not be from another proprietary social networking provider, or from a crypto currency specific network such a Steem. It will be from an open protocol that will allow users to choose their own social networking provider and software much as is the case today with email, web browsing, SMS etc. Such questions as payment for content by whom and to whom, and with what form of money will be addressed by the individual providers, their contributors, and their viewers much as is the case for example with web hosting today.

I would not be so quick to dismiss Dogecoin because Dogecoin has a tail emission. I explain why this is important in this post. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1125666.msg16049259#msg16049259