The least unfair (best we'll all be able to agree to) way to approach this it seems to me would be to essentially integrate the 'death' of the king into the game itself, meaning at face value his assets would belong to the game itself, and would be 'off-limits'. For them to be used to pay off debts (which is fair in my opinion) the process would be to submit a git issue, which would be turned over to a community vote which could be conducted in-game. It would be impossible to have the system be 100% fair, but something along the lines of an account owning between 1 and infinite units of real estate has a vote weighted with a minimum weight of 5, with an additional weight of X added for every (whatever the community decides) units of real estate .., if you have no real estate but your in game assets have X property your vote has a weight of 2' or whatever is the fairest approach that pisses off the least number of people. I'm sure someone in the community knows game theory better than myself. What I'm considering is putting up the site at first, having a dev available for implementing stuff like this (rapidly and responsively) until the project would move along without the training wheels. After nailing down fair voting everything would be up for vote, including who gets dev access to git, where to host server, whether to allow people to create objects at will or assign a cost so that it doesn't get spammed, moving everything to exist within a smart contract block-chain based setup, whatever... We'd have a dev from the start who could implement changes like that overnight, happily, and code would be of good quality. Well, smart contract set-up wouldn't happen overnight. But if this flops it flops, I'm not horrified by that idea. I'd like to let this linger for a bit so as to be able to gauge opposition and see if and to and to what degree there is strong disagreement, which will indicate whether I should try to get things moving or leave it be.