Quote from: generalizethis on August 05, 2017, 12:43:35 AM

Quote from: CrazyLoaf on August 05, 2017, 12:35:44 AM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 05, 2017, 12:01:48 AM

Quote from: boomboom on August 04, 2017, 11:49:54 PM

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 Grin

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.