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.
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.
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!
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.