Kickback 1 No Contests

I propose that we utilise the prize pools for the No Contests at Kickback 1 to reward voters of Dunlap and Alvarez, or have a panel of judges vote on who was winning their respective fights and reward those voters. Another alternative would be to split the prize pool evenly between all voters on the fight.

Moving forward we should come up with a clear and solid solution of how to handle votes cast on no contests. No contests and no one winning are disappointing for every token holder who votes on the fight, as well as the fighters and the promotion, so we should have some contingency in place so that at least someone wins in the spirit of UOG.

The fight prize pool is there to be rewarded in line with the release timeline and we should endeavour to reward it where we can.

Having already added a sudden death round to eliminate draws, it is evident after KCK1 that we need a comparable solution to no contests for token holders.

**Updated idea for a solution:
Unless we vote on a winner of the fight, a fair way for all voters to be rewarded would be to split it evenly based on how many tokens were staked by the individual. Basically payout using the whitepaper equation as if it were a 100/0% vote. That keeps the maths simple and everyone gets their fair proportion based on $KARATE they staked.


I like this idea personally. One event, I only voted for a fight that ended in a No Contest so it really hit hard when looking at the reward structure overall. I have since spread my tokens out on more fights just in case.

I wondered about another possibility of having the judges still make a decision even though it only effects the Up Only Gaming results and not the fighters record? It might be harder to manage but in both No Contest fights in Kickback1 there was a clear fighter winning the fight up till the moment of the No Contest stoppage.

Food for thought!


i like your thinking on this matter.


I do think action is required here. Either a 50/50 split. or a few other interesting ideas and mabye more exciting things to consider are tokens can be burned in case of N/C or a tie. I would also provide a list of fighter penalties such as missing weight, Assaulting another fighter at pre fight appearances conferences and weight ins. Other occurences can have fractions or whole token allocations taken(fined then burned) in case of infractions.

ie. Burn tokens if:
Fight ends in No contest / Tie (fighters and pot) g
Fighter who misses weight 100% of their tokens are burned along with 1% Prize pool if fighter has a victory(Fan reaction).
Fighter may losses his token purse for assaulting his opponent or team of opponent during operations.
fractions of tokens can be taken for points deducted durring matches. -1pt = 25% token deduction. (eye poke groin shots ect.)

This give a deflationary mechanism to the token, furthers utility linked to real time situations within the league, It will make (super) fan interactions in these confusing moments feel vindicated as there is a reaction you can measure.


you just might be on to something with this token burn methodology, Kyle.

1 Like

Yes I’m ok with you.
It is necessary to think about it and reward the players who bet on these fighters.

1 Like

I like the token burn idea as well can help with tokenomics! Not sure how much of an impact it could/would have because it relies on infractions and or no contests. Over time the net effect would be more disciplined roster and low to no burns. My thought was to have an in app vote for who was winning up to that point but would be heavily biased. maybe a set criteria like whoever had more strikes and or damage would be the default winner in app!


You couldn’t vote on who we were thinking who was winning up to that point because obviously there is more tokens on the favorite so the favorite would always win that vote :crazy_face::joy:


Correct for a fan vote, but you could have qualified judges make that decision for us.

1 Like

I agree with this proposal! I hope it passes!

+1 to this.

Stake-weighted distribution seems the most logical solution.

To clarify - the funds should be distributed to just the stake that wagered on that specific no-contest fight, not all bettors.


I understand they were winning, but I wouldn’t give it to them since they did commit a foul… I like the burning tokens option, seems like a fair option.

1 Like

Whilst I agree we need a burning mechanism, there aren’t enough NC’s burning 7-10mil tokens each to stabilise inflation on a 110bn supply. We need a much bigger solution for that, burning for this would be a negligible drop in the ocean. Also there is a distribution period were sticking to so those tokens need to be rewarded in line with that.


The judges are selected by the athletic commission in the jurisdiction of the fight. They can’t be forced to decide a winner. In practice, not sure they ever would.

I like both the burn idea & the weighted distribution idea. We should put it up for a vote with these two options and let the fans decide


the no decisions were rendered by the ref not the judge


How about a Burn/pay out?

50% of prize pool burnt and the other 50% distributed to those that bet on that specific fight, stake-weighted of course.


So many options here I think we need a muti faceted poll!?


Definitely a poll bc their is multiple fair options. It should be done asap imo bc we had two NC’s at one event. There should be some rule made for this random situation when it happens.


Calaxy App multiple choice Poll. Top 2 go to Karate App for final Vote.

1 Like