Topic: CryptoKingdom Uncensored - page 24. (Read 69479 times)

RAQ has given out a dividend of 1,000,000m per share, and updated bids and asks for S-RAQ shares in the marketplace.

I pledge 2000 M3, on the condition my deposit gets credited, as it seems it's waiting for something to show up in CK ^_^

im take this bug//but no screenshots

Woops, my bad. Totally missed it. This is why having everything in a single thread sucks. Edited the previous post.

@Speed, I pledged also.

With the dawn of the new week, a progress report for the Phoenix Initiative.

So far there have three pledges, amounting around 50% of the requested total (depending on the current XMR rate).





So the pledges are:
iluvbitcoins - $1000 Paypal funds
Crichton - 5000M3 ingame
Karl Hungus - 20 XMR
boomboom - 10 XMR

I will now begin the first step of the process: looking for qualified individuals to take on the lead dev role and help establish a definite roadmap for the challenges that will be tackled, as well as a timeframe for it. Obviously not all desired solutions can be developed, so they will have to be prioritized based on importance and difficulty, to get as much done with as little effort as possible.

Among the glaring problems we have: inconsistent functionality with various bugs, dysfunctional in-game communication, inconvenient user interface (or lack thereof), stagnant economy, minimal automation and maximum tedium.  Solving these would be the bulk of the development and design process, and how much can be done within the set constraints remains to be established.

Other aspects, such as marketing, documentation and monetization would be done in parallel.

Once several suitable candidates are found, I intend to recruit them for a small job to get an opinion on the current code base, and test their knowledge and ability by solving a small part of the recognized problems. For example: $150 for 3 hours of work analyzing the code and writing a brief perspective + implementing a way to automatically change the damn in-game year on Jan 1st.

Ideally, 100%+ of the sum will be pledged by the time this is required, but if things move quicker than the funding, we could start the pre-production steps with the pledgers' permission before the full sum is raised.

Gringotts Update:
The first batch of S-PT deposit bonuses have been paid.

I've decided to end the Gringotts deposit bonus scheme in 4 days from this post.

Any left over S-PT will be used for other bonuses and bounties that help CK & Gringotts grow and prosper.

The deposit bonuses will have run for ~30 days, and the remaining S-PT can probably be put to better use in other ways.

Contact sphericon (here or on IRC)--he runs PGC.

I linked your last post on IRC, but he has yet to comment...

I'm still waiting for someone to come with a solution for my problem!

Why there was no payout?

I don't mind including an (untradeable) in-game asset to log people's pledges and donations once the pledges are fulfilled, that people could then use to voluntarily reward people. "Hey these guys invested when things were shit. They're part of the reason things are no longer shit, let me give them some stuff."

They would be logged anyway and I was thinking of giving initial contributors a thank you piece of jewelry or a coin or something, and I think that would be a better way of commemorating people's contribution in-game, because what matters isn't how much you give, but that you give at all.

As for the self-funding model, I'm also unsure whether it will be enough in the first iteration, since I categorically do not want to tax anyone in the wrong way. I want to incentivize people to invest their money in the game and participate in the in-game economy. Taxes would hurt that incentive, so they would only be viable along with something strong that offsets them. For example, I see nothing wrong with the voluntary negative EV model a casino uses with games like the roulette or Blackjack, but it is wrong if they take 1% of people's poker chips when they cash out.

For CK I want it to be fair and voluntary, where simply trading on the market and holding investment assets is neutral, but active participation in the game world would have a slight negative EV offset by fun and competition. Depending on the activity it could be up to 5% in the negative, as that's my personal threshold before it becomes bullshit, but I will be aiming for <1% and focus more on scaling. The more activity there is, the smaller the cut can be.

I also intend to make it so that there is a clear way to play where you can be successful just from skill and have the monetized parts of the game be only a fraction, which people can avoid if they so choose to, or in the case of things like production, technology or other services, out-compete. In other words, if an entropy system is implemented, it would only affect those who opt into it (probably most people) and it would benefit active players at the expense of not so active players, while the game would profit like everyone else by being an active player.

One thing this would allow in the future, once baseline rules and governance are established, is competing developers with different in-game solutions and services to choose from. With an affiliate system that isn't retarded and pyramid schemey you can have competing marketers. Eventually you'd have multiple in-game towns competing for resources, labor, land... you'd have an actual reason for war, external forces, and so much more.

...But this can only function with an extremely solid foundation and increasing decentralization. The main rules should be hardcoded and only changed through general consensus, via petition with certain restrictions. You would likely have different groups vying to get their view of the game implemented, they would garner support and perhaps even fight to reach their goals.

Take for instance succession. The ruling house currently has pretty much absolute control over the kingdom's succession due to it being a Primogeniture system. The only way an influential player can take over the crown in the current system is through large-scale military rebellion, but his supporters are mostly on the political side. Instead he uses his clout to propose a change to an Elective system where his political power would be more valuable than pure military might, an action for which he would have an easier time convincing more military-oriented loyalists to rebel.

A use of force by the crown against a military rebellion would be viewed as lawful, but a use of force against a popular movement would not be, and as a result the power balance would be different, and perhaps strong enough in favor of the movement to make concessions more viable than civil war. Then, with the newly implemented form of succession, the influential pretender could have a reasonable chance of taking over the crown... Then, months later, a more militaristic player could have gathered enough support to try his hand at a rebellion and change the rules by force once more.

I say whoever has enough support from the playerbase to make changes happen within the dynamics of the game should have almost absolute freedom to do so. If someone thinks that implementing a flat 10% tax on all withdrawals would help the game grow faster and enough people support this cause to take action and pressure the change in, they should be able to do it, while those who want no tax would have to defend the status quo.

If a lot of these things are set in stone, then what if they were set wrong? Nobody can claim to be all-knowing and really smart people are wrong about things all the time. We learn things as we go and, maybe, if it takes us centuries to figure some things out afk, like politics and economics, perhaps with a swift and dynamic platform experiments can be done to figure them out faster.

Maybe someone wants to try out a communist utopia. They can get together with their communist friends, talk with the king, purchase some land, invest 1000 bitcoins to build a wonderous city and then they see what would happen. Will the labor flow from other cities to their utopia? Will stability be maintained? ... Or will it go bankrupt? Can't really do that afk because people would die, and no government would let you try it out, but in CK you'd have NPCs, virtual items and (hopefully) open-minded leadership. So much potential for discovery.

So, yeah, I'd like for the absolute laws to be to a minimum, like the laws of physics, and leave the rest for the market to decide, including the way funds are raised. Hopefully you can help me achieve this.

Ok, Phoenix airdrops and discounts could always be done informally without the need of an asset anyway.

Edit: IMO Airdrops will increase in popularity in crypto projects over coming years,  they avoid many SEC related problems, achieve wide distribution and community building objectives, and provide fair incentive based compensation for devs, e.g. Byteball dev will retain 1% of coin supply and avoids ICO issues.

I came across this recently from NXT project, 10% coin airdrops from clones to NXT holders in their 'Coinleft' license.

https://www.jelurida.com/jpl

Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass. Was hoping you had a plan for something long-term.

Sure, if after the pledge round finishes an admin can create a Phoenix Intiative asset with units equaling those pledged I will organise distribution. The reward system would come from the CK community itself, most likely as airdrops and discounts from new in-game ventures that want to establish 'goodwill' with the founders and early adopters of the game. There is no guarantee this would happen, but other projects have used airdrops for distribution and community building with success, so it's possible as CK grows we might see the same.

The tax would be: 150 (xmr needed) * 100 (m3 units per xmr) * 5,500,000 (m3 midprice) = 82,500,000,000

Spread over all the players, this would bankrupt quite a few.

I view this as a start for speed's plan and agree with him that players will fund this without the need of further prodding (though 25 Billion should incentivize too). Long term I believe he is working on a self-funding model--though I'm unsure as to whether that happens in the next iteration or further down the line.

If you are volunteering to put a reward system together and manage it--great. I was planning some honors for this initiative, but would gladly hand it off to someone else--especially if they have a permanent reward system in mind.

I agree with boombooms proposal.

Also, seems the bug in Crypto Kingdom has been fixed, I was able to enter one of my messeges today and NialofNine has provided his withdrawal address.
I have sent the payment without taking any fees.

Pledge 10 xmr to the phoenix initiative.

I would prefer a different approach to raising the funds (small tax on M, sell proceeds OTC, everyone pays for the work), but if the fundraising goal is met through pledges all well and good. Most decentralized projects suffer from free rider problems, and looks like many CK players are not actively following, so some who might pledge may not know of Speed's proposal. Still, crypto types are libertarians,  so enforced taxation even for a 'good cause' can create bad vibes.

I suggest creating a fundraising asset on Agora to match donations, it would cost nothing to do, and would record who gave what. Benefits might accrue to holders of this asset at a later date (discounts, airdrops etc), and even without making any concrete promises, the possibility of future benefits plus the recognition would encourage more people to pledge.

The messaging system seems to be working now. On another note I have successfully processed deborah's withdrawal request.

Halfway there. Still waiting on those that pledged to pledge to pledge.

I've sold these 1000 S-PT OTC, so change my pledge to 20 XMR for the Phoenix Iniative.

deborah has sent me a message ingame. She probably wants to withdraw BO,but I couldn't see her message either. Probably because of the bug. So if someone knows deborah please tell her to send me a PM here on bitcointalk until the bug is solved.