Quote from: smooth on August 30, 2017, 07:42:39 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 30, 2017, 07:37:10 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 30, 2017, 07:22:08 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 30, 2017, 07:04:57 PM

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.

I don't think a massive fundraiser is necessary or viable at the current juncture. In order for a million $ fundraiser to be legitimate, a structured development plan with a solid team that has already brought results is needed, as well as a functional governance and ownership system. Right now none of those are in place and likely won't be any time soon unless someone takes action.

My proposal is meant to solve these things, but if the ball gets rolling well with that, it would make a massive fundraiser even less needed.

Diluting people is never good, but as I said on irc, 50% of $10mil is better than 100% of 0, or $500kish that we have now. This still should only be done if it is decided to be the best option by the owners in whatever ownership model is in place. Right now there's clearly not a consensus, so the point is moot, and will probably forever be if the previously mentioned issues aren't resolved...

And once they are resolved, and if a monetization policy is implemented that can sustain healthy growth, then why even force capital injection at the expense of "founding" holders? If any capital injection should be done for development, it should be in exchange for privilege or opportunity in the things the dev team have produced and are running, within its ecosystem... by investing in CKM or whatever exchange token there is. So that would help holders rather than hurt them.

Quote from: boomboom on August 30, 2017, 12:01:13 PM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 30, 2017, 11:39:36 AM

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 agree with pretty much everything here.

In a recent discussion I articulated this:

Quote from: Speed112

Personally I think the best form of governance is a benevolent dictatorship, with a capable and kind individual at the helm, supported by a body of great advisors with minimal decision-making power. The downside to this kind of system is what happens when the dictator's power is inherited by someone incapable or malevolent (everything falls apart). So if you ignore the bad extreme and cherry-pick the good extreme, it's the best. On average it's probably decent, as tyrants often don't last long.

The second best form of governance is full decentralization, 0 government, free market capitalism, where things eventually balance out and slight variations will be quickly dealt with and rebalanced. This has much less variance, less risk and less reward, but overall probably less efficient than a great single leader.

The third best form of governance is what we have now in the most developed nations, democratic socialism, a hybrid, with parts free market, parts arbitrary leadership, some power balance, some freedom of choice. This system is more stable than a pure dictatorship, but less stable than a pure free society, with cycles of growth and decay, and a mediocre average.

It was referring to governance in general, mainly state governance, but it applies to development projects and businesses too. The first form is only viable short-term, which makes it a high risk high reward option, great for fast growth and the start-up phase, but less and less viable until the leader gets compromised and it flips on its head. The ideal would be for the benevolent dictator to stand down before that happens, and implement one of the other two in his place, depending on the needs and wants of the people being governed.

If the goal from the get-go is achieving a decentralized power structure, where people can come and go, where anyone can contribute and get his own slice of power and compete with others, then the second system can likely be implemented within the lifetime of the first system's good side. I don't plan on being involved in this project actively for more than a year, probably not even 6 months. Like a serial entrepreneur, I'd start it up, build the foundation, put the framework in place and provide direction, then cash out.

The difference is that the intention isn't to sell the business to someone and run away, but open it up to all those who bring value to it: the players, so that they may also be rewarded based on their contribution and continue growing their world. You'd have ad-hoc developers and designers, third-party tools, businesses, collaborations, cooperative storytelling... it would be like what we have now only not shit. That's the goal, turn shit into not-shit.

Quote from: boomboom

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.

This is my impression as well, which is why I don't think ICOs and complicated payout mechanisms and legal risks are necessary. Build a good, valuable product and market well and the money will come. There is need for this in the market, so all that matters is effectively filling that need. CKM is the entry ticket to the amazing world of CryptoKingdom, the more demand there is for it, the more valuable it will be, and those who got it first will gain the most. What more do you need?

"Payouts" should be earned by effectively playing the game. By winning. Life's default state isn't winning, it's dying in the woods and being eaten by whatever gets to you first. CK shouldn't default to winning either, but capital has value and that should be reflected in a reasonable way. If an entropy-based economy is implemented, where the game world naturally profits from it by putting work and creating value, then not much more is needed. If you have enough capital in the game to sustain itself or even profit, then good for you. If you don't, then you slowly but surely decay into oblivion and have to start over.

A well-thought-out system on this basis would solve funding, it would solve the SEC problem, it would deal with inactive players in a fair way, it would provide a natural incentive towards growing the game and it would make the experience interesting. Implement a few long-term stores of value alongside it, such as land and precious metals, which do not decay and you'd have a functional model with something for everyone. Going on vacation for a month and can't manage your estate? Hire a manager. Don't want to actively take part in the ecosystem anymore? Turn all your resources into gold and forget about it for a few years, then find it's worth 1000x more.

As for the ownership token, I don't think it should have any payout either. You own part of the world and this quantifies how much you own, or how much privilege you have, or whatever else. It could provide voting power, it could serve as a threshold for the class system, it could be used by others for exclusivity, and it would serve as one of the long-term stores of value.

If the game entity provides a reasonable buy-rate and liquidity in the ownership market, then people could always cash out their shares and lose the privileges the market has provided the token. Don't think anything else is needed, as the initial perceivable purpose between a CKO/CKM split would be to allow for manipulating CKM without affecting current holders by having CKO intact. What I think CKO should be is am alternative way for players to temporarily invest their capital into the game and help it grow without locking up the circulating currency supply. With CKO you are practically giving the game permission to use your invested capital, as it sees fit, on your behalf... that's what an investment is. If you just baghold the ingame currency, then you aren't contributing your capital. So instead of holding the government's currency under your mattress, you hold government stock with no dividends, but only capital gains due to reinvestment.

Changing to a dividend system or something like a government bond with benefits could happen, but only once all the legalities are ironed out. Don't want to be taken up by the massive (oppressive) dong of the law for stupid reasons. Crypto can only protect you for so long.

Quote from: player99 on August 30, 2017, 02:37:07 PM

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

It's a PDF and I'd rather not post the raw text, but I understand not welcoming the Google overlords. I've put up an alternative download link that should hopefully suffice.