CryptoKingdom Uncensored

[boomboom]

I want everything in ck to have the ability to be put on a blockchain, but M. This is where we disagree, and a free floating supply means that you are simply adding in game inflation to mask the actual deflation of the original asset--also not sure how that works for players who weren't part of the initial distribution of M token--aren't you essentially creating endless inflation by parsing the exchange asset into bigger and bigger denominations of the game asset?

Forget the floating supply of M for now , I prefer fixed myself, but both are possible using an Ardr child chain.

Yes, we disagree on putting M on a blockchain, that might be the only thing. I would prefer to have everything on a blockchain coz it lets the players organically determine what has value. I suspect speculators would rather buy CK 'money' first, as it doesn't require any knowledge about the history of the game, and I say that from experience. I got a freeby from Risto, and made some bad buys at the start, coz I didn't know the game very well.

If a friend wanted to take a position in CK and asked me what to buy, I would say start with 'cash', then the more you watch, the quicker you'll find better returns in other areas, and if you drop off and don't pay attention for a while, you're not going to lose out by holding cash, but you might with other assets. That's my advice to any investor, if you're unsure where to put your wealth store it in highly liquid assets like cash.

Getting a ck asset traded on an exchange will help with adoption, as it lets people take a position in the game without much effort, and then some will gradually get interested to actually play. The barriers to entry with CK are very high!  To make the entry path for new players easier it makes sense to make it easy to buy CK money first, not gold or CAN or buildings etc , the first thing a new player needs is money, M

[1715074621]

1715074621

[1715074621]

1715074621

[1715074621]

1715074621

[boomboom]

The vibe here isn't welcoming to discussion, I seem to have been associated with combatants in a fight I know nothing of.

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 think many are in favor of tokenization,we're all part of the 'crypto currency community' after all, the issue is desicion making (governance), and that's always going to be difficult. The devil is always in the details, and debating options is the only way to achieve a concensus.

[bv68bot]

An M exchange asset is going to create deflation

When XMR mooned 12 months ago it created deflation in CK assets, but that was an exogenous shock from outside CK that rapidly increased the value of CK's currency, which at that time was XMR.

If M mooned in ths future it would be due to people investing in CK, not people using CK's currency on a dark market like 12 months ago.

Increased value of M would flow through CK economy without necessarily causing deflation, there are automatic stabilizers now, building payoffs in M being a prime example. Mooning M would put downward pressure on real estate prices, BUT, increased value of M building payouts would put upward pressure on real estate prices. During the sept 2016 revaluation event no such countervailing effects existed, and the game owed XMR denominated debt at the time also, which isn't the case now.

The relationship between XMR and other crypto coins valuations and CK item valuations is not the same as before, all demand for M is based on confidence and speculation in CK, so it's endogenous demand. Mooning M would have effects, but not universal deflation like before, and strategies for coping with sudden revaluations of M would offer skilful players opportunities for profit.

If you want to work through the economics think of CK like a country like Greece. Last year the game got stuck using a strong currency, like Greece is stuck using the Euro, and that caused deflation and similar debt repayment nightmares to what Greece has suffered. Unlike Greece which is politically stuck in the EU and unable to easily restore their own currency, CK was free to do an xmr-exit, and now our currency M can float against all other crypto currencies, so M has been devalued and is very cheap now, and 'attractive' to investors. The whole 'grexit' debate is about avoiding further deflation by decoupling a weak economy from a strong currency, CK already did this, so if M demand goes up it's unambiguously good!

[iluvbitcoins]

I started explaining the process, only to figure out we can't trade CKG on Agora Marketplace



What do I respond o.o

--------

A coin "Markka"
I believe it should be PoS to avoid mining.
With maybe 1% APR, the lower, the better.
Whole premine to distribute Markkas to current charachters.
A good way of marketing Crypto Kingdom by getting listed on most exchanges.
Perhaps even base it on Cryptonote? Because why not 

[CrazyLoaf]

I started explaining the process, only to figure out we can't trade CKG on Agora Marketplace



What do I respond o.o

--------

A coin "Markka"
It should be PoS?
With maybe 1% APR, the lower, the better probably.

If you launch a ERC-20 token (which is ETH based and also WAVES I believe) or boomboom's NXT token, they all live on another blockchain, so you don't have to worry about PoS or network security. They are tokens like the ones on https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/ that live on another blockchain. For example, Augur and Storj lives on ETH. 

[papa_lazzarou]

Increased value of M would flow through CK economy without necessarily causing deflation, there are automatic stabilizers now, building payoffs in M being a prime example. Mooning M would put downward pressure on real estate prices, BUT, increased value of M building payouts would put upward pressure on real estate prices. During the sept 2016 revaluation event no such countervailing effects existed, and the game owed XMR denominated debt at the time also, which isn't the case now.

At that time the building payouts were made in XMR also. The only difference now would be M instead of XMR?

How would the results be different?


Would the people here be willing to revert back to a CK item representing game ownership and divided to M owners?

[bv68bot]

Increased value of M would flow through CK economy without necessarily causing deflation, there are automatic stabilizers now, building payoffs in M being a prime example. Mooning M would put downward pressure on real estate prices, BUT, increased value of M building payouts would put upward pressure on real estate prices. During the sept 2016 revaluation event no such countervailing effects existed, and the game owed XMR denominated debt at the time also, which isn't the case now.

At that time the building payouts were made in XMR also. The only difference now would be M instead of XMR?

How would the results be different?

Last september the revaluation of XMR had nothing to do with CK, and the game was going to become insolvent in xmr, just not enough new deposits of xmr coming in, and insufficient demand for items to keep prices stable in terms of xmr.

Using M this can't happen, increased value in M will only come from increased demand for CK items, so M value is directly related to the health of the CK economy, and the game can't run out of M. If M moons it'll be a sign of increased activity in the ck economy, not an outside unrelated event, so mooning M will coincide with mooning ck item prices.

There is a possibility speculator demand could cause mooning M without there being increased demand and activity in the game items, but if that happened eventually the imbalance would correct itself, and speculator demand would fall off if the game didn't meet their expectations. Last sept there was no connection between mooning xmr and CK, so the only effect was massive deflation and eventual defaults on paying things priced in xmr.

[smooth]

How would the results be different?

You could start by not issuing a huge amount of debt.

Prices can adjust to deflation, inflation, etc. it isn't that big a deal, they're just numbers. A few years ago it cost a whole BTC to buy a little weed online. Then nearly overnight (multiple times), it cost a whole lot less, now a small fraction of a BTC.

Stop overthinking it and buying into extreme reliance on economic theories the actual effects of which are much weaker than is suggested here. Sure there are some psychological effects from price changes, but not extreme.

What is a big deal is being in a huge amount of debt, especially when the debt currency can change radically in value. (If debt is actually needed, which is pretty doubtful for a game, then denominate it in something related to purchasing power.)

KISS.

[CrazyLoaf]

Would the people here be willing to revert back to a CK item representing game ownership and divided to M owners?

I am not proposing going back to the CK in-game item which had dividends and the like. We are just taking M and renaming it to CK. This way there is clear branding about what people are buying. I am buying in-game currency for Crypto Kingdom. The ticker is CK.

Anyway, we don't want dividends on the in-game currency as that creates too many issues when needing to send them via the blockchain as well as introduced that idiotic create/burn system that people may recall being discussed on IRC.

Now before HMC or someone bitches about how this would be "confusing," realize that minimal people are still around who remember the early stuff. Very few will recall the CON/CK/M distinctions and all that nonsense. If I buy money for this game, I should be able to immediately spend it in-game. If you all just want to still call it M, that's fine, but it's piss-poor branding.



 

[smooth]

Would the people here be willing to revert back to a CK item representing game ownership and divided to M owners?

I am not proposing going back to the CK in-game item which had dividends and the like. We are just taking M and renaming it to CK. This way there is clear branding about what people are buying. I am buying in-game currency for Crypto Kingdom. The ticker is CK.

Anyway, we don't want dividends on the in-game currency as that creates too many issues when needing to send them via the blockchain as well as introduced that idiotic create/burn system that people may recall being discussed on IRC.

Now before HMC or someone bitches about how this would be "confusing," realize that minimal people are still around who remember the early stuff. Very few will recall the CON/CK/M distinctions and all that nonsense. If I buy money for this game, I should be able to immediately spend it in-game. If you all just want to still call it M, that's fine, but it's piss-poor branding.

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.

[generalizethis]

Would the people here be willing to revert back to a CK item representing game ownership and divided to M owners?

I am not proposing going back to the CK in-game item which had dividends and the like. We are just taking M and renaming it to CK. This way there is clear branding about what people are buying. I am buying in-game currency for Crypto Kingdom. The ticker is CK.

Anyway, we don't want dividends on the in-game currency as that creates too many issues when needing to send them via the blockchain as well as introduced that idiotic create/burn system that people may recall being discussed on IRC.

Now before HMC or someone bitches about how this would be "confusing," realize that minimal people are still around who remember the early stuff. Very few will recall the CON/CK/M distinctions and all that nonsense. If I buy money for this game, I should be able to immediately spend it in-game. If you all just want to still call it M, that's fine, but it's piss-poor branding.

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.

This I could back.

[CrazyLoaf]

To a degree I understand the rationale, but all this extra complexity seems pointless to me.

For one, there is almost no transactional volume in the game, nor will this be something that tries to compete with Bitcoin, so the distinction is moot. Let's be blunt: for all intents and purposes the game is pretty much dead.  

Additionally, people or the game management can electively burn M/CK, as has been done in every other "game" crypto token: PEPE, BTS, and others. So say town makes 10mil M, 10% or 1mil can be sent to a burn address, with a check each game year. This is sort of like a proxy dividend via outstanding float cancellation. Really, I don't think this is necessary to consider now, but I am sure it has helped something like PEPE in a fashion which has gone from 1bil issuance to 700mil as a result of burns by the community and the "PEPE foundation."  

Also, we do not have to run an ICO to have a crypto token. That would be a separate topic entirely. I just think it has now reached the point of pure idiocy that a game called "Crypto Kingdom" has absolutely nothing to do with crypto and we need a token.

Anyway on the topic of a fund raise, eventually people will realize we need money in some fashion as PJ isn't going to do shit (he has had a year and was paid well in XMR to do nothing) and we need other developers. And even if we make a crypto token, we will still have a broken spreadsheet game. Unless you find someone who will work for free, that will take some form of compensation to fix.

Now, just for ease, you can look and see that no other "game token" even cares about the ownership vs currency distinction. I think just the one token is enough. However, if it is such an issue why not do this:

We currently have 4tril M. I say move it to a # everyone is comfortable with. 5tril, 10tril, 100tril, whatever. We then take that token and issue CKM and CKO in the same amounts. M is then removed. So say you own 100bil M after we "lock" a # of M outstanding value, you will now own 100bil CKM and 100bil CKO. The M version is money/currency and the O version is ownership. CKO can just stay on Ultima, CKM we try to make the token off of.

In regards to the game, about 50% of M and numerous game items are Zech-related. The game will own 50% CKM and 50% CKO to do what they wish with as well as all the game items. So you could raise funds off that CKM/CKO and then have all the items for market making by the game (sort of like Coinshop used to do).

Personally, I think it's piss that Zech invested so much in the game (thousands of BTC and tens of thousands of XMR) and then everyone expects him to spend even more money and then the game is no better off as those additional payments are only for debts that Zech himself created. But you've locked his shit for months and it doesn't make economic sense for him to pay anything off, so either just give the shit back or do something, anything, else.

So that CKM/CKO thing should make everyone happy. I still think it's pointless complexity, but just do something...



 

[boomboom]

To a degree I understand the rationale, but all this extra complexity seems pointless to me.

For one, there is almost no transactional volume in the game, nor will this be something that tries to compete with Bitcoin, so the distinction is moot. Let's be blunt: for all intents and purposes the game is pretty much dead.  

Additionally, people or the game management can electively burn M/CK, as has been done in every other "game" crypto token: PEPE, BTS, and others. So say town makes 10mil M, 10% or 1mil can be sent to a burn address, with a check each game year. This is sort of like a proxy dividend via outstanding float cancellation. Really, I don't think this is necessary to consider now, but I am sure it has helped something like PEPE in a fashion which has gone from 1bil issuance to 700mil as a result of burns by the community and the "PEPE foundation."  

Also, we do not have to run an ICO to have a crypto token. That would be a separate topic entirely. I just think it has now reached the point of pure idiocy that a game called "Crypto Kingdom" has absolutely nothing to do with crypto and we need a token.

Anyway on the topic of a fund raise, eventually people will realize we need money in some fashion as PJ isn't going to do shit (he has had a year and was paid well in XMR to do nothing) and we need other developers. And even if we make a crypto token, we will still have a broken spreadsheet game. Unless you find someone who will work for free, that will take some form of compensation to fix.

Now, just for ease, you can look and see that no other "game token" even cares about the ownership vs currency distinction. I think just the one token is enough. However, if it is such an issue why not do this:

We currently have 4tril M. I say move it to a # everyone is comfortable with. 5tril, 10tril, 100tril, whatever. We then take that token and issue CKM and CKO in the same amounts. M is then removed. So say you own 100bil M after we "lock" a # of M outstanding value, you will now own 100bil CKM and 100bil CKO. The M version is money/currency and the O version is ownership. CKO can just stay on Ultima, CKM we try to make the token off of.

In regards to the game, about 50% of M and numerous game items are Zech-related. The game will own 50% CKM and 50% CKO to do what they wish with as well as all the game items. So you could raise funds off that CKM/CKO and then have all the items for market making by the game (sort of like Coinshop used to do).

Personally, I think it's piss that Zech invested so much in the game (thousands of BTC and tens of thousands of XMR) and then everyone expects him to spend even more money and then the game is no better off as those additional payments are only for debts that Zech himself created. But you've locked his shit for months and it doesn't make economic sense for him to pay anything off, so either just give the shit back or do something, anything, else.

I mean, Zech has a fucking point. I'm a greedy fuck and even I can see that. What was the benefit of, say, paying someone like Syksy 100-200 BTC (which did go to his wallet; he is only lacking around 15 BTC atm)? Dude up and left the game entirely, and he's not the only one.

So that CKM/CKO thing should make everyone happy. I still think it's pointless complexity, but just do something...



 

Looks like everyone agrees with smooth's suggestion, that's great!

Strike while the irons hot, try and organise 10% of M to call a general meeting, then have a vote to confirm the change.

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

[generalizethis]

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

TBH, this was the only thing on my mind.

[CrazyLoaf]

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

TBH, this was the only thing on my mind.

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

[generalizethis]

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

TBH, this was the only thing on my mind.

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

Your assurances mean nothing to me (or matter to a regulatory agency), I'll ere on the side of caution and implore others to do the same.

[boomboom]

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

TBH, this was the only thing on my mind.

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

Your assurances mean nothing to me (or matter to a regulatory agency), I'll ere on the side of caution and implore others to do the same.

CK could attract SEC attention one day, it might not seem likely today, but when bitcoin started it was just satoshi and Hal Finney bouncing coins between themselves, and we all know regulators are watching today.

Better to be safe than sorry, retrofitting a split later involving 1000's of people would be much harder, so best to do it now while it's still manageable.

This could be the start of something beautiful!

Edit, IMHO the real ownership of the game is based on the currency token, the other token should be used for 'governance'. I actually prefer a model where the game doesn't pay dividends, all money just keeps circulating through the economic systems of the game, and the game controlled accounts just exist as they are, and any obvious surpluses go back into marketing and dev expenses, so the governance token is just for decision making. I think this would keep things simple, and if people wanted to trade the governance token they could do it all OTC outside the game.

[Big Naturals]

IMHO the real ownership of the game is based on the currency token, the other token should be used for 'governance'. I actually prefer a model where the game doesn't pay dividends, all money just keeps circulating through the economic systems of the game, and the game controlled accounts just exist as they are, and any obvious surpluses go back into marketing and dev expenses, so the governance token is just for decision making. I think this would keep things simple, and if people wanted to trade the governance token they could do it all OTC outside the game.

This is how the world works, rich people like Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffet, Bezos etc own big stakes of the economy but don't have direct control of government policy, then there are politicians like Obama who get to control the levers of government without having much money but get paid wages and other perks, and then some guys like Trump who have both. Adding politics to the CK landscape makes things far more interesting, I like it!

[boomboom]

This is how the world works, rich people like Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffet, Bezos etc own big stakes of the economy but don't have direct control of government policy, then there are politicians like Obama who get to control the levers of government without having much money but get paid wages and other perks, and then some guys like Trump who have both. Adding politics to the CK landscape makes things far more interesting, I like it!

not sure if having a separate governance token would create 'politics' in CK exactly,  but it would allow decision making when required, which is essential now that risto is not leading CK project anymore. I'm much less comfortable investing in a project that can't resolve deadlocks, and recent bitcoin cash fork shows what can happen when strong opposing views cause gridlock, and bitcoin does have miners at least who can indicate preferences for big strategic decisions. If CK doesn't have a (benevolent) dictator running things anymore, it needs a governance system in place even if it rarely gets used, which is what I think will happen. I just want to play the game, and would delegate my voting tokens to those in official positions, but I wouldn't sell them in case I needed to vote on an important issue that I felt was important to keep CK functioning.

[smooth]

Also, we do not have to run an ICO to have a crypto token.

I was not at all suggesting an ICO (as you say, different question). I was merely pointing out some conceptual similarities and also some ecosystem realities. Exchanges are doing (at least minimal) legal due diligence on new tokens before listing them. They are more likely to balk at a token that represents ownership of the game than a token that is purely a use/currency token.

As far as the current state of the game being nearly-dead right now, that speaks to the importance of setting up the right set of incentives for people to invest in (re)growing it. I think my suggestions do that, but I'm sure they are not the only possible way.

On the matter of complexity, this seems like a complete non-issue to me. My suggestion of separating ownership from the currency token is exactly the same as nearly every other game in the world with in-game currency. e.g. Linden Dollars are not ownership in Linden Labs. Game players need only be concerned with the currency token.

Defining the game as a community project without ownership (and therefore no need for a token, though it is also certainly possible to have ownership without a token) is okay but it means that things like funding and paying of real world expenses like servers, salaries, marketing costs, etc. will need to be done via donations (which could include in-game players and organizations). That's more like a club or open source project. Even then it still needs some sort of governance rules, treasury, etc. Recognizing tokenized ownership seems a more direct continuity from the previous structure, but then again that may not matter since the previous structure ended up going nowhere good.