I can 100% guarantee without a sliver of a doubt that the SEC has absolutely no interest, concern, or care for CK.

If you start seeing them go through the capitalization list and causing problems for ETH down to cuntcoin.com (real upcoming ICO...ROFL), then we can talk.

Of course, they would probably hit PEPE first before getting down to the absolute shitcoin levels housed by CK and HoboNickles. Hell, HBN will be hit first, giving CK plenty of time to prepare

Avoiding problems with SEC is a good reason to split ownership token from game currency.

I mostly agree as far as branding. I also agree as far as buying the token and wanting to use it. That's consistent with the broader trend of many ICOs for 'use tokens'.

Where I don't agree is viewing the currency or use token as ownership of the game, or voting on its management. It makes little sense. When decisions are made on how to run a company, it is the stockholders who vote (directly or via a board), not the gift card holders. The lack of dividends or buybacks mean that that such ownership would have little economic purpose.

M has, in its most recent incarnation, been both ownership and currency. The two are a poor mix in the same token. Previously we had separate ownership (CKG) and currency (M) tokens. Switching away from XMR (equal to 1 million M for those who may not have been around) as the currency (whether or not that was actually needed or a good idea, let's leave that aside) did not require merging the roles of currency and ownership, and doing so was not a good idea.

So my suggestion would be:

1. Split the current M in two, a currency unit and and ownership unit
2. Rename M (currency unit) to CK for branding and call the ownership unit something else.
3. The ownership unit doesn't have to trade on traditional exchanges^*. It can be quite obscure; people looking to invest in owning the game (as opposed to playing the game or speculating in-game on assets and tokens) can seek it out (probably on some asset platform such as Ardor or Bitshares). These support dividends and various other rules (such as restrictions on transferability, etc.) that make sense for ownership tokens but not for use tokens or currency.
4. As with most ICOs, the game organization itself can start out owning some "premine" share of the currency unit and can benefit economically from the gain in value of the use token from greater use and speculation. If it is not the case that the current treasury owns a lot of M (I don't know), then perhaps a better approach is rather than splitting, declare M, likely renamed, to the be the ownership token (like the old CKG) and create a new use and currency token (called CK, for the above branding reasons) with some reasonable "premine" initially held by the game treasury.

^* In fact given the recent opinion from the SEC, traditional exchanges may be less willing to list anything that isn't a pure use or game currency token and carries ownership rights.

Yeah, it sucks, but you're right on point: the vibe in CK isn't welcoming

This is why this game/project will never go anywhere. You and I are not the only ones who wanted tokenization, but over time anyone with an interest or who had suggestions for the game has been chased off. CK is the crypto bizzaro world where everyone seems to do all they can to make the project fail/flounder.

I don't know loaf, but does look like we agree that putting as much of CK on a blockchain as possible offers the best future for CK.

I'm an old time NXT'er, and many asset issuers have created assets with variable quantities in the wild, but from a fixed asset number that's so high it's effectively infinite.

E.g. token quantity is 1000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000  - a huge number

Then they issue 1 000 000 assets say, representing whatever it is their project is doing.

To increase supply they issue more tokens from the genesis account.

To decrease supply they send tokens back to the genesis account.

Jl777 has some trading funds that work this way, asset quantity is fixed, but the supply in the wild floats. If you trust jl777 it doesn't matter how many assets are unissued in the genesis account, sometimes he buys back his own assets to decrease effective supply, sometimes in the past he sold more units and issued more assets. The effective supply is floating.

So the genesis account is like the 'bank' in traditional monopoly, and in the case of CK the bank is controlled by 'the game', not any particular player. Using an Ardr child chain would still let you have variable supply of M in the game economy if that's the design preference for the game, just pick a genesis account quantity that's huge.

Sorry, I have not seen any discussion of this deflation problem, not sure of the argument, I think having fixed supply for M is a good feature, but it's always possible to increase M in the game by using a genesis account with a virtually unlimited supply of M.

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of animosity here that I was not aware of, or part of, so I'll say no more. The vibe here isn't welcoming to discussion, I seem to have been associated with combatants in a fight I know nothing of.

Be open to other people's opinions, let the players decide based on the tested principal of 'put your money where your mouth is', those who invested in CK should obviously decide things.

Okay you stick-in-the-mud cunt

Nothing can happen before,

1. A vote of M holders gives a green light to change things
2. PJ says he is willing and able to make these changes

The advantage of your CKG option is it doesn't require either of the above, and maybe most M holders agree with you, but the worth of the IOU token depends 100% on the credibility of who issues it, and everyone knows E1 iOU was backed by risto and is worthless now despite his good rep when he created it, so too was b1 after he added unbacked tokens into the wild. Reputation can't beat a blockchain for player confidence.

I don't see a problem with your CKG bounty, so keep it, just be realistic about what good it will do. It's not a blockchain solution, and only good if the person who issues it has great reputation, and your bounty only requires reputable exchange, not reputable issuer of the IOU.

I have approx 800mil M, and without a depository I can't buy more M yet, so my voice is small, but I plan to buy M when I can.

When in doubt ask the game owners to decide things.

I can't see anyway to put a CK token on an exchange that doesn't require moving the whole supply of whatever token is chosen to some form of blockchain first. Sure, plenty of enterprising people have used blockchain assets to create individual IOU tokens, and some might be possible to list on an exchange, but that isn't really decentralised imo.

For example, plenty of people have used NXT to re-issue ICO tokens before the ICO tokens are actually distributed, so users with good reputation create a NXT asset which acts as an IOU for something like IOTA, or NEM back in the day, and then a secondary market can establish itself before the actual ICO token itself is launched. Shonky operations like yobit do that stuff all the time, BUT, they're not crypto tokens, they're IOU's, and only as good as the rep of the person who issues them.

To claim HMC's bounty I can create a NXT asset or ERC-20 token, and then offer to buy CKG from players, and then issue those players my token on whatever platform I use, and maybe if I paid Yobit I could get it listed on their exchange, BUT, that doesn't achieve much, not compared to the 'CKGame' itself putting the whole currency M on a blockchain, and then getting that listed on many exchanges.

A player backed IOU doesn't need to get approved by community in a vote, but it pretty useless, and isn't a crypto token backed by a blockchain. I say go the full monty, change the CK monetary system and put M on a blockchain, and get that listed on an exchange, backed by The CK Game. To do that probably needs a vote, coz it's a big change, but well worth the effort.

Can I ask you what do you mean by "on a reputable exchange"? I know poloniex and bittrex are between the most popular ones,but do you consider c-cex,cryptopia or yobit reputable? It shouldn't be a very hard thing to get listed on these last ones(just paying a fee)..

I've told HMC the exact same thing in bold. Waiting for "put up or shut up" from him in regard to your post. Sucks, but we barely had a game before and we have even less of a game now, so I'd say a token alone won't do anything. Anyway, I'm sure we'll get around to making a token when there are only 3 players left and we'll get around to actually making a game when there is 1 player left...

Adding a Gold Unicorn to the Bounty.

Great news that dev work continues on Crypto Kingdom!!

Any news on when building payouts might start again?

I agree with smooth again on this.
I was thinking the exact same.
I also think risto is trying to play the victim now.

Would it be OK for staff at an exchange to say hey know what?
We don't like your attitude so we decided to keep your money.