CryptoKingdom Uncensored

[boomboom]

I don't want to be in any leadership position when the ownership token is implemented. So I'm more than happy to wait. Like it or not, there is a Howey Test and I don't want to be involved in an unregistered security.

I think Speed's plan included an item for 'legal', and I would not be comfortable doing anything that would attract unwanted attention also. If the CKO was issued to players without any 'sale' then I think it would be ok, but always better to get that confirmed by an expert.

There are three tests to determine when an investment contract is a security. They are:

Is it an investment of money?
Is it in a common enterprise?
Are its profits to come solely from the efforts of others?


This definition comes directly from the language of a United States Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. W.J. Howey Company in 1946. The words from the decision were; "The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others."

edit: also, CKO may not pay monetary dividends, so there might not be any profits

[generalizethis]

I don't want to be in any leadership position when the ownership token is implemented. So I'm more than happy to wait. Like it or not, there is a Howey Test and I don't want to be involved in an unregistered security.

I think Speed's plan included an item for 'legal', and I would not be comfortable doing anything that would attract unwanted attention also. If the CKO was issued to players without any 'sale' then I think it would be ok, but always better to get that confirmed by an expert.

There are three tests to determine when an investment contract is a security. They are:

Is it an investment of money?
Is it in a common enterprise?
Are its profits to come solely from the efforts of others?


This definition comes directly from the language of a United States Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. W.J. Howey Company in 1946. The words from the decision were; "The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others."

edit: also, CKO may not pay monetary dividends, so there might not be any profits

TBH I doubt there's a way to attract investors without some sort of payout. And I'm not paying a lawyer to wrangle with the SEC over what quantifies as money.

[boomboom]

TBH I doubt there's a way to attract investors without some sort of payout. And I'm not paying a lawyer to wrangle with the SEC over what quantifies as money.

The point of the CKO for me in mainly governance, a structure to manage CK and make decisions. Any other 'benefits' would be nice if they can stay within the law, but not necessary for me. I've just learnt from my time in crypto that good projects often get bogged down in personality based in-fighting, and without procedures to resolve different opinions on important issues, a good investment can turn into a nightmare pretty quickly. I've seen it many times, and honestly, the best governance model I've seen in crypto so far is "benevolent dictator", and when it works everything goes well, but it's not decentralised, and not sustainable.

Bitcoin is a leaderless clusterfuck, but it's sustainable now, and not dependent on anyone, and that's probably why we all love it.

SuperNET and NXT are well oiled machines by comparison, but 100% dependent on benevolent dictators keeping their shit together and working 12-14 hour days without pay. If jl777 or Jean-Luc ever had a turn, or went under a bus they would implode within 24 hours, not because of tech concerns, but because nobody would be in charge anymore, and everything would grind to a halt in conflict. Other than bitcoin all the top crypto projects are dictatorships mostly, which is cool, but I'm actually looking for something more, I'm a decentralized idealist still.

Players will buy CKM to play the game, like a casino visitor buys chips when they enter, so they don't need a payout to buy them, just a good game that's well managed with healthy decision making processes.

[generalizethis]

TBH I doubt there's a way to attract investors without some sort of payout. And I'm not paying a lawyer to wrangle with the SEC over what quantifies as money.

The point of the CKO for me in mainly governance, a structure to manage CK and make decisions. Any other 'benefits' would be nice if they can stay within the law, but not necessary for me. I've just learnt from my time in crypto that good projects often get bogged down in personality based in-fighting, and without procedures to resolve different opinions on important issues, a good investment can turn into a nightmare pretty quickly. I've seen it many times, and honestly, the best governance model I've seen in crypto so far is "benevolent dictator", and when it works everything goes well, but it's not decentralised, and not sustainable.

Bitcoin is a leaderless clusterfuck, but it's sustainable now, and not dependent on anyone, and that's probably why we all love it.

SuperNET and NXT are well oiled machines by comparison, but 100% dependent on benevolent dictators keeping their shit together and working 12-14 hour days without pay. If jl777 or Jean-Luc ever had a turn, or went under a bus they would implode within 24 hours, not because of tech concerns, but because nobody would be in charge anymore, and everything would grind to a halt in conflict. Other than bitcoin all the top crypto projects are dictatorships mostly, which is cool, but I'm actually looking for something more, I'm a decentralized idealist still.

Players will buy CKM to play the game, like a casino visitor buys chips when they enter, so they don't need a payout to buy them, just a good game that's well managed with healthy decision making processes.

I hope you're right, but a pure governance token (no monetary benefit)  seems like a non-exchange asset. And this would be fine by me.

[boomboom]

I hope you're right, but a pure governance token (no monetary benefit)  seems like a non-exchange asset. And this would be fine by me.

+1
I don't want the CKO traded on any exchanges either, just OTC deals between players in private. The logic of creating CKO is to keep CKM as a pure 'game currency' without any interest to securities regulators, BUT still have governance structures that might include voting.

I would be surprised if players didn't devise ways to add 'benefits' to owning CKO so they had value, but it might be in non-monetary ways, and/or done unofficially by players themselves, not 'The Game' itself.

e.g. discounts based on CKO ownership, 'in-game sale of items, and you get your CKO % ownership as a discount'. If that became a non-compulsory game tradition, like a 'members discount', then CKO would have value, but not exactly be paying dividends like a security.

People are clever, CKO could have many uses in-game that gave it value without making it a security

[leea-1334]

I think Speed's plan included an item for 'legal', and I would not be comfortable doing anything that would attract unwanted attention also. If the CKO was issued to players without any 'sale' then I think it would be ok, but always better to get that confirmed by an expert.

There are three tests to determine when an investment contract is a security. They are:

Is it an investment of money?
Is it in a common enterprise?
Are its profits to come solely from the efforts of others?


This definition comes directly from the language of a United States Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. W.J. Howey Company in 1946. The words from the decision were; "The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others."

Do all three tests have to be passed or ticked to qualify the investment is a security? I mean, what if 1) yes investment of money 2) yes common enterprise 3) no, profits also come from your own effort.

If all three tests must score yes, then actually it is easy to make it NOT a security. Just make the system require effort from you also to make profit. You MUST update portfolios and surveys each payment to contribute to statistics, etc.

[boomboom]

I think Speed's plan included an item for 'legal', and I would not be comfortable doing anything that would attract unwanted attention also. If the CKO was issued to players without any 'sale' then I think it would be ok, but always better to get that confirmed by an expert.

There are three tests to determine when an investment contract is a security. They are:

Is it an investment of money?
Is it in a common enterprise?
Are its profits to come solely from the efforts of others?


This definition comes directly from the language of a United States Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. W.J. Howey Company in 1946. The words from the decision were; "The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others."

Do all three tests have to be passed or ticked to qualify the investment is a security? I mean, what if 1) yes investment of money 2) yes common enterprise 3) no, profits also come from your own effort.

If all three tests must score yes, then actually it is easy to make it NOT a security. Just make the system require effort from you also to make profit. You MUST update portfolios and surveys each payment to contribute to statistics, etc.

I think all three conditions must be met, but I'm not an expert.

edit: https://www.coindesk.com/every-token-snowflake-secs-ico-guidance-isnt-enough/

[generalizethis]

As for diluting M to pay for development. I don't want my value cut in half, and I'm sure those who are owed by risto don't want the ability to pay them back cut in half. Some smaller amount like 5-10% might be passable, but not half. And certainly not without a plan for where the funds go and who is managing them--right now, smooth, saddam and mooo are about the only ones I'd trust with that job.

[generalizethis]

I think Speed's plan included an item for 'legal', and I would not be comfortable doing anything that would attract unwanted attention also. If the CKO was issued to players without any 'sale' then I think it would be ok, but always better to get that confirmed by an expert.

There are three tests to determine when an investment contract is a security. They are:

Is it an investment of money?
Is it in a common enterprise?
Are its profits to come solely from the efforts of others?


This definition comes directly from the language of a United States Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. W.J. Howey Company in 1946. The words from the decision were; "The test is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others."

Do all three tests have to be passed or ticked to qualify the investment is a security? I mean, what if 1) yes investment of money 2) yes common enterprise 3) no, profits also come from your own effort.

If all three tests must score yes, then actually it is easy to make it NOT a security. Just make the system require effort from you also to make profit. You MUST update portfolios and surveys each payment to contribute to statistics, etc.

I think all three conditions must be met, but I'm not an expert.

edit: https://www.coindesk.com/every-token-snowflake-secs-ico-guidance-isnt-enough/

You still need a way to implement work, monitor that the work was done and be able to seize tokens if the work was not met. Can't imagine anyone wants to deal with the hassle on either side of the equation. NOW, if you implemented it as a backend mining of cryptonote token....that would be a more efficient proof of work, but an untradeable item as trading doesn't constitute work from the SEC's perspective.

[boomboom]

As for diluting M to pay for development. I don't want my value cut in half, and I'm sure those who are owed by risto don't want the ability to pay them back cut in half. Some smaller amount like 5-10% might be passable, but not half. And certainly not without a plan for where the funds go and who is managing them--right now, smooth, saddam and mooo are about the only ones I'd trust with that job.

I agree, % dilution should be the smallest amount needed to raise enough funds to achieve the starting amount of dev funding, then the game should become self sustaining from in-game mechanisms like taxes and running successful enterprises. I honestly don't know what that figure would be, but 10% of a CK with a healthy marketcap might be enough, whereas 50% of a struggling CK might be the same $ amount. That's why it's probably best if we all support Speed's initial reboot plan.

[boomboom]

You still need a way to implement work, monitor that the work was done and be able to seize tokens if the work was not met. Can't imagine anyone wants to deal with the hassle on either side of the equation. NOW, if you implemented it as a backend mining of cryptonote token....that would be a more efficient proof of work.

With the benefit of hindsight that would have been the way to start the game back in 2014, but it probably took Steem to show the wisdom of why. Yes, if risto had launched a cryptonote token with plenty of warning, and that became the game currency of CK then probably no need to worry about these issues today. Problem is rebooting CK like that today doesn't help the bagholders, but it makes sense!

[iluvbitcoins]

I don't currently have the time to read everything in detail since I have to leave tommorow for 3 exams on Friday  

I skimmed through the replies though!

My stands are :

I'm against any sort of dilution of CKM

The game needs a massive redesign, the GUI is terrible and won't keep many players
Designers and developers will make this game worth playing
It's an investment worth having

I'm okay with giving something to Speed for his efforts (ingame items too)
It has to be understood we're giving our money with no gains except the game doing well too, so the pay won't be much

CKO is a secondary issue, primary issues are GUI and CKM
Status quo is the worst thing that can happen to us

[Speed_CK]

My dudes... it is time.

The time to start fixing the underlying issues with CK and actually make it a game worth playing and investing in.

As a result I'm bringing forth a proposal for how this can be achieved, with your contribution. I intend to take on a more serious role, at least initially until better options come along and the ecosystem is mostly self-sustaining.

Introducing... The Phoenix Initiative, because originality is not my strong suit. <--- Click

For questions or suggestions, you know where to find me.

How do we donate to the project? There's no "Phoenix Initiative" in game.

For the moment no donations are being taken. If you are interested in contributing, a written pledge is enough until all the details are ironed out with the proper payment options.

"I am willing to invest 50XMR in the project." would result in adding +50XMR on paper to the initiative fund, and once the minimum amount is reached, the pledging parties will be contacted to collect the contribution.

My idea right now is to use the m3 depository and have the funds be transferred ingame to an account held not by me, or even held by Gringotts itself to be used for marketmaking, like how Kevorkian put his supply to use, and then withdrawn for a specific purpose that anyone can see: "Withdrawing 7.5XMR to pay 1 month salary for employee X" for example.

I don't want to hold the money if I don't have to, because trusting me to use it properly is enough and when the numbers get high enough, I don't want to paint a target on my back or awaken some unexpected temptations or whatnot. I'd rather let the safekeeping to the professionals.

Other options will likely exist. For example, iluvbitcoins said he'd pledge $1000 worth of Paypal funds. That works, because people will likely accept Paypal for whatever. So what will happen is when the need arises that allows for paying with Paypal, I will ask iluvbitcoins to uses those funds for that particular need. If the expense is something practical, like a piece of software or a service, you could even deduct it as your own business expense if you're into that.

I don't think centralization for this is necessary in these early stages, and perhaps not at all. Let's just figure out if we can raise the funds and then worry about how to actually get and use them.

[player99]

Any chance of getting the initiative copied here or on some Google doc? I can´t open your Google Drive link without logging into a Google account.. I have no account and do not want one either

[generalizethis]

My dudes... it is time.

The time to start fixing the underlying issues with CK and actually make it a game worth playing and investing in.

As a result I'm bringing forth a proposal for how this can be achieved, with your contribution. I intend to take on a more serious role, at least initially until better options come along and the ecosystem is mostly self-sustaining.

Introducing... The Phoenix Initiative, because originality is not my strong suit. <--- Click

For questions or suggestions, you know where to find me.

How do we donate to the project? There's no "Phoenix Initiative" in game.

For the moment no donations are being taken. If you are interested in contributing, a written pledge is enough until all the details are ironed out with the proper payment options.

"I am willing to invest 50XMR in the project." would result in adding +50XMR on paper to the initiative fund, and once the minimum amount is reached, the pledging parties will be contacted to collect the contribution.

My idea right now is to use the m3 depository and have the funds be transferred ingame to an account held not by me, or even held by Gringotts itself to be used for marketmaking, like how Kevorkian put his supply to use, and then withdrawn for a specific purpose that anyone can see: "Withdrawing 7.5XMR to pay 1 month salary for employee X" for example.

I don't want to hold the money if I don't have to, because trusting me to use it properly is enough and when the numbers get high enough, I don't want to paint a target on my back or awaken some unexpected temptations or whatnot. I'd rather let the safekeeping to the professionals.

Other options will likely exist. For example, iluvbitcoins said he'd pledge $1000 worth of Paypal funds. That works, because people will likely accept Paypal for whatever. So what will happen is when the need arises that allows for paying with Paypal, I will ask iluvbitcoins to uses those funds for that particular need. If the expense is something practical, like a piece of software or a service, you could even deduct it as your own business expense if you're into that.

I don't think centralization for this is necessary in these early stages, and perhaps not at all. Let's just figure out if we can raise the funds and then worry about how to actually get and use them.

So pledges for the Phoenix Initiative are made here--wanted to clarify for all those who would like to donate.

Crichton pledges 5000 M3

 

[CrazyLoaf]

As for diluting M to pay for development. I don't want my value cut in half, and I'm sure those who are owed by risto don't want the ability to pay them back cut in half. Some smaller amount like 5-10% might be passable, but not half. And certainly not without a plan for where the funds go and who is managing them--right now, smooth, saddam and mooo are about the only ones I'd trust with that job.

So I don't understand how it looks like we are back to not wanting any dilution on M/CKM. All I did was organize the earlier discussions and move from 60% to 50% dilution and now the concept is terrible? Get a grip. And that 5%-10% crowdfund amount is a joke. No new person would pay for CKM when such a small amount is up for grabs.

What is maddening more than anything else is the complete greed here on assets that are more or less worthless. You don't want to take a haircut at all, but were just fine taking out more than enough to develop the whole damn game for everyone.

Really, the truth of the matter is that you just get off being an argumentative prick.

[generalizethis]

As for diluting M to pay for development. I don't want my value cut in half, and I'm sure those who are owed by risto don't want the ability to pay them back cut in half. Some smaller amount like 5-10% might be passable, but not half. And certainly not without a plan for where the funds go and who is managing them--right now, smooth, saddam and mooo are about the only ones I'd trust with that job.

So I don't understand how it looks like we are back to not wanting any dilution on M/CKM. All I did was organize the earlier discussions and move from 60% to 50% dilution and now the concept is terrible? Get a grip. And that 5%-10% crowdfund amount is a joke. No new person would pay for CKM when such a small amount is up for grabs.

What is maddening more than anything else is the complete greed here on assets that are more or less worthless. You don't want to take a haircut at all, but were just fine taking out more than enough to develop the whole damn game for everyone.

Really, the truth of the matter is that you just get off being an argumentative prick.

What are you talking about. I only suggested 10% for Town in the bounty. I never suggested any more and never suggested anything for a crowd fund. I think you have me confused with someone else.

As far as the amount I took from the game, if 1/3 was enough to finance the game, then the 2/3rds I left in the game should be enough to fund the game twice over. I'm not diluting my share to appease you (please stop playing this card unless you want to retroactively change the rules and force people to keep their money in the game--we're all victims of risto, so stop acting like you are the only one-- it's self-righteous and petty).

So far no one wants to dilute the game as you do (smooth may still support it, but even he would want a plan), so my argument is shared--are we all argumentative pricks or are you resorting to ad hominem attacks.

[smooth]

So far no one wants to dilute the game as you do (smooth may still support it, but even he would want a plan), so my argument is shared--are we all argumentative pricks or are you resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I never so much supported it so much as put it out there as a possible path forward, to raise a significant budget (likely millions of EUR if done right) to build the game into something a lot more valuable. It is up to the game owners (aka current M holders) to decide what to do. Yes, I'd want to see a plan and would vote my (small) share in favor of this approach only if there were a credible plan to raise money and deploy the funds effectively. Diluting just to dilute is pointless, but building the game into something a lot more valuable is not. No matter how much it is diluted, if the games value grows by more as a result, that is a gain to existing owners, not a loss.

[generalizethis]

So far no one wants to dilute the game as you do (smooth may still support it, but even he would want a plan), so my argument is shared--are we all argumentative pricks or are you resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I never so much supported it so much as put it out there as a possible path forward, to raise a significant budget (likely millions of EUR if done right) to build the game into something a lot more valuable. It is up to the game owners (aka current M holders) to decide what to do. Yes, I'd want to see a plan and would vote my (small) share in favor of this approach only if there were a credible plan to raise money and deploy the funds effectively. Diluting just to dilute is pointless, but building the game into something a lot more valuable is not. No matter how much it is diluted, if the games value grows by more as a result, that is a gain to existing owners, not a loss.

I agree (to a point), but doubt you will find a credible plan (and a reputable person to hold these funds) before the M asset is listed on an exchange. Also, I doubt very much many of those who are owed money by risto would like to see a 50% dilution. I doubt the political will is even there if we had a credible plan and a reputable person to manage the funds and their execution.

[smooth]

So far no one wants to dilute the game as you do (smooth may still support it, but even he would want a plan), so my argument is shared--are we all argumentative pricks or are you resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I never so much supported it so much as put it out there as a possible path forward, to raise a significant budget (likely millions of EUR if done right) to build the game into something a lot more valuable. It is up to the game owners (aka current M holders) to decide what to do. Yes, I'd want to see a plan and would vote my (small) share in favor of this approach only if there were a credible plan to raise money and deploy the funds effectively. Diluting just to dilute is pointless, but building the game into something a lot more valuable is not. No matter how much it is diluted, if the games value grows by more as a result, that is a gain to existing owners, not a loss.

I agree (to a point), but doubt you will find a credible plan (and a reputable person to hold these funds) before the M asset is listed on an exchange. Also, I doubt very much many of those who are owed money by risto would like to see a 50% dilution. I doubt the political will is even there if we had a credible plan and a reputable person to manage the funds and their execution.

I agree there doesn't seem to be anyone with a lot of enthusiasm (and credibility) for following through on a big fundraise and failing that it isn't going to happen.

Part of a plan would be listing on an exchange, likely following the crowdsale. Some of the exchanges work closely with those doing token crowdsales to review and list tokens and will even run the crowdsale on the exchange itself. But again, it takes someone to actually work this out (along with the rest of the plan) with an exchange or it won't happen.