Grab yourself a developer, no license is required.
Of course, you have to find gullible people to buy into your scheme.
$200 for an initial card? He's trying to recreate what happened with Splinterlands' original Gold Foil Alphas in a way that makes him a tidy profit as well. He might get investor-types to "play" but I don't see this game attracting real players -- particularly given his clear track record of not treating players well in favor of investors.
Splinterlands has a value proposition of being an excellent game. Figuring out the best strategy for this looks mildly amusing at best -- and you have to REALLY invest to stand any chance. NO THANK YOU!
Splinterlands turned into pay-to-play which is turning into a real problem for attracting and keeping casual new users. This is designed to be pay-aggroed-to-play. If he really wanted to "investigate new concepts", he wouldn't be charging outrageous prices just to help him. For a Peace, Abundance & Liberty guy, he's an awfully savage artificial-scarcity FOMO cut-throat capitalist who doesn't care about or for the "marks" who make him money.
My huge fear is that players of this game will then be given an advantage in Splinterlands. We already have warnings of it above. REALLY UNCOOL.
Actually, though, this looks like it steps over the SEC line unless they have filed with the SEC. Look at the Howey Test. You don't have to have an ICO to violate the regulations. They are clearly selling crypto (which is treated like stock) NFTs with the buyers having an expectation of profits.
Splinterlands is, at least, clearly a very playable game that is likely covered/grand-fathered under the physical CCG case since most players are buying it with an intent to play rather than solely for profit. My prediction has always been that it is just barely on the safe side of the line.
Mythical has clearly stepped over the line. It claims that it is a game but it's clearly a transparent effort to print money. It would be an awesome case for the SEC to demonstrate EXACTLY where the line is.
Non fungible tokens are treated separately from fungible tokens. I'm careful to avoid selling any transferable fungible token anywhere in any website I operate for fiat. Hive-engine actually registered with FINCEN as a money transmitter to allow this and can legally operate in a handful of states, but I still think it's terrifying enough that I avoid it.
Why not actually finish support for NFTs first? Market history goes back only one day(and even then it has some random ones from random dates) and there's no account history.
It's easily debable whether unbacked NFTs that are issued in more than a small number aren't something that the SEC is going to take an interest in. The fact that, for instance, Splinterlands cards have a specific identifier, come in different denominations and players can "get change" isn't going to change the SEC's mind. As I said, MtG and similar CCGs probably cover Splinterlands. Mythical is a pretty transparent attempt at evasion and the SEC has prosecuted ICOs that claimed that the lack of super-clear regulations forbidding them was going to protect them. I don't see your NFT claim protecting Mystical any more than people who are claiming that their token is a utility token (when it isn't).
Are Mystical NFTs actually on a distributed blockchain or are they like Splinterlands cards?
Grab yourself a developer, no license is required.
Of course, you have to find gullible people to buy into your scheme.
$200 for an initial card? He's trying to recreate what happened with Splinterlands' original Gold Foil Alphas in a way that makes him a tidy profit as well. He might get investor-types to "play" but I don't see this game attracting real players -- particularly given his clear track record of not treating players well in favor of investors.
Splinterlands has a value proposition of being an excellent game. Figuring out the best strategy for this looks mildly amusing at best -- and you have to REALLY invest to stand any chance. NO THANK YOU!
Splinterlands turned into pay-to-play which is turning into a real problem for attracting and keeping casual new users. This is designed to be pay-aggroed-to-play. If he really wanted to "investigate new concepts", he wouldn't be charging outrageous prices just to help him. For a Peace, Abundance & Liberty guy, he's an awfully savage artificial-scarcity FOMO cut-throat capitalist who doesn't care about or for the "marks" who make him money.
My huge fear is that players of this game will then be given an advantage in Splinterlands. We already have warnings of it above. REALLY UNCOOL.
Actually, though, this looks like it steps over the SEC line unless they have filed with the SEC. Look at the Howey Test. You don't have to have an ICO to violate the regulations. They are clearly selling crypto (which is treated like stock) NFTs with the buyers having an expectation of profits.
Splinterlands is, at least, clearly a very playable game that is likely covered/grand-fathered under the physical CCG case since most players are buying it with an intent to play rather than solely for profit. My prediction has always been that it is just barely on the safe side of the line.
Mythical has clearly stepped over the line. It claims that it is a game but it's clearly a transparent effort to print money. It would be an awesome case for the SEC to demonstrate EXACTLY where the line is.
Non fungible tokens are treated separately from fungible tokens. I'm careful to avoid selling any transferable fungible token anywhere in any website I operate for fiat. Hive-engine actually registered with FINCEN as a money transmitter to allow this and can legally operate in a handful of states, but I still think it's terrifying enough that I avoid it.
Why not actually finish support for NFTs first? Market history goes back only one day(and even then it has some random ones from random dates) and there's no account history.
It's easily debable whether unbacked NFTs that are issued in more than a small number aren't something that the SEC is going to take an interest in. The fact that, for instance, Splinterlands cards have a specific identifier, come in different denominations and players can "get change" isn't going to change the SEC's mind. As I said, MtG and similar CCGs probably cover Splinterlands. Mythical is a pretty transparent attempt at evasion and the SEC has prosecuted ICOs that claimed that the lack of super-clear regulations forbidding them was going to protect them. I don't see your NFT claim protecting Mystical any more than people who are claiming that their token is a utility token (when it isn't).
Are Mystical NFTs actually on a distributed blockchain or are they like Splinterlands cards?