Quote from: smooth on August 04, 2017, 07:09:36 PM

Quote from: CrazyLoaf on August 04, 2017, 06:41:52 PM

Quote from: papa_lazzarou on August 04, 2017, 10:36:12 AM

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.