[PROPOSED] KICK-5 - No Contests' UOG Payouts


At KC KICKBACK 1 (KCK1) there were 2 No Contests (NCs) out of 8 fights. 24% of the player prize pool for the night was not paid out. NCs in Karate Combat are extremely rare. Prior to KCK1 the league only experienced 1 NC in 225 fights. Many Up Only Gaming (UOG) players expressed frustration and offered various ways the rules could be amended either retroactively or into the future. Various teams have reviewed the suggestions, discussed in more detail below.


  1. Tokens burned. This is effectively the setup today. It would require no change, but it would also likely result in disappointment following the next NC. Further, it would not remedy the player experience at KCK1.

  2. 50-50 payout. Half of the fight’s prize pool would go to players/fighters from each side. This option favors the underdogs in the NC. There is some logic to this outcome, but it would require a change to the smart contracts. Given how rare NCs are in KC, the teams do not believe a change to the smart contracts is worth the time or risk. Other roadmap items take priority. Further a change now would not remedy the player experience at KCK1.

  3. Vote weighted payout. All voters and both fighters in an NC get the same reward from the fight’s prize pool. There is some logic to this outcome, but it would require a change to the smart contracts. Given how rare NCs are in KC, the teams do not believe a change to the smart contracts is worth the time or risk. Other roadmap items take priority. Further a change now would not remedy the player experience at KCK1.

  4. Roll over unused tokens to the next UOG event for a bigger payout. This change to the UOG rules requires no changes to the smart contracts. Further, we believe the logic is most sound from an UOG fairness standpoint. (Why should players or fighters be rewarded for a fight that by the rules of the league didn’t happen?) Lastly, the change can effectively be enacted immediately by adding 18.7mm $KARATE to the KC44/IFC1 pool to be played on Feb 23.

  5. Amend player outcomes via options 2 or 3 but send fighter rewards to new pool for fighter safety/health. We like this idea & option a lot, but given how rare NCs are it likely won’t have a big enough impact to warrant a smart contract change. We’d love to see a standalone proposal on a fighter safety/health pool.


We propose rolling over player and fighter rewards from NCs (and fights that are cancelled late) to the next UOG event.

This change would be immediately enacted by adding 18.7 million extra tokens to the prize pool at KC44/IFC1 on Feb 23.


Should unused $KARATE tokens from No Contests be rolled over to the next Up Only Gaming event?

  • YES
  • NO
0 voters

IMO #3 is logically the most fair. It’s effectively just returning the “wagered” tokens back to where they started.

I guess I see it as a necessary evil that the offending fighter(s) gets paid to ensure that the bettors and honest fighter gets “paid back.”

Ideally, players shouldn’t have to wait until the next event for another shot at winning their fair shot at the prize pool.

If it can’t be fixed by the next event, so be it. But I think it’s better to roll out the fairest solution late than never at all.


It will definitely be great if “Yes”


I am fine with rolling it over to the next UOG event. As stated the NC’s are so rare that I don’t think it warrants messing with the contracts at all.


Whilst I understand what you are saying, I do not believe this is a just proposal. You have presented a leading question which leans voters to vote in your direction and is therefore bias.
I suggest proposing this in a neutral manner e.g:
“How should we deal with No Contests for UOG in future 1) Roll over 2) alternative”
The question you have posed leads anyone to the answer you desire and is not a balanced representation as you are leading token holders to your desired outcome with the wording of this question.

It may not be the ideal outcome for the team, but #3 is the most desired by voters based on feedback so far. If a change in the smart contract is what is desired by token holders that should be implemented despite the extra effort and you should not sway holders with bias questioning to try get the result desired.

I have no problem with rolling over to the next event but the questions and voting need to be conducted in an unbias manner.


i guess that’s true, but it was my proposal.

everyone is welcome to make their own.


Agreed 100% for the leading question and 100% on option #3 beeing the most fair. If a Smart Contract change is required, so be it.


do you prefer the team relaunch the smart contracts to fix a 1% outcome vs work on the current roadmap (which is 100x more interesting)?


i guess one thing i should clarify is that the teams that currently work on the league and the software are quite small compared to competition.

there’s definitely no free lunch or “trying harder” here. relaunching smart contracts not only introduces unbounded risk, it one for one delays other intiatives, whcih are frankly WAY more important than a couple no contests.

the current software roadmap is stretched very thin but focused on completing the following by KARATE de MAYO:

  • referral program
  • affiliate program
  • member benefits

IMO, I think a good compromise would be to roll over the rewards until your team can permanently fix this issue by modifying the SC . But again, this will be decided by the community, not me. :wink:


that’s reasonable.

i wonder, is it truly an UOG issue though?

still seems a little weird to me that UOG players would get paid out on fights that didn’t happen within the league rules.



While definitely short term pressures favor sustaining current roadmap, at same time, in web3 communities, doing “the right thing” matters a lot as a basis of maintaining community trust, legitimacy, & engagement.

And here it does seem the community sees justice in option 3 as the long term solution.

maybe this could be an opportunity to throw-up an RFP for a 2nd technical team to start to contribute? To solve the resourcing bottleneck?

Of course, a project being ready to support multiple technical contractors/contributors is a huge step in and of itself, and requires software and process, and these are the “core contracts” so the risk point is not to be underestimated. So, in response to my own suggestion, pretty sure a 2nd tech team is not a viable short term option either, and I mention it mostly for sake of exploring the solution space.

That said, if this project is to grow to a $20b market cap and become as significant as the love child of UFC x ethereum, which can happen fast if everything gets aligned correctly, then opening up to enable multiple technical workstreams, or at least having technical subcontractors to create additional capacity, will become inevitable, so it might not hurt for team to start to begin with the end in mind and start to discuss this possibility.

Just my two cents.

Thx for your leadership of this to help us optimize a tricky set of tradeoffs @onlylarping.

Excited for KC44!


Well, the fights did happen but were cancelled before the end result but I see your point in fights that would never even start (ie fighters not showing up, sick, police swarming the place before the event :laughing:, etc,). But we also have to acknowledge that in KC, since it’s up only gaming, when you don’t win (like in a NC fight) it’s the equivalent of “losing,”. I can only imagine the frustration of someone who put all their bets on those fights and on those fights only :man_shrugging:. But again, whatever the community decide we’ll have to go with. That’s another great attribute of KC, the DAO which is probably why the community likes that league so much.


If you want an advice with someone with 25 years of software development experience (me) be really careful expending your IT team too much/too fast. You double your team, you multiple by 4 the coordination, planning, overhead etc. You’re doing an amazing job so far (from what I can see with the app and the events), just keep going at this pace. Of course you’ll have to add people at one point but be careful of hypergrowth/scaling crisis. But you’re the business person, not me. It seems like you already know very well what you’re doing :+1:


We need to keep in mind that non-rollover options will take away resources/time from other dev lifts.

The rollover option saves time/effort, most egalitarian, & keeps users engaged for the following event (IMO crucial in building a fan base). Keeping fans engaged should be the M.O.


To clarify on my prior comment - the M.O. should be (i) keeping fans engaged to build fanbase, AND (ii) EXECUTING on the roadmap

If fans feel the roadmap needs to be amended, that’s another discussion entirely


I think that rolling over the tokens to the next event is a good compromise. The idea of completely changing the smart contract could have negative effects.


the roll over or the 50-50 split are the quickest and easiest solutions.

Off topic: can you please address the issue with % and prizes I talked about few weeks ago? Thanks


yes discussion there is next up


If we are looking for the most fair approach to resolving no contest fights without modifying the smart contracts then we should look into air dropping that fight’s prize pool to those wallets that voted on that fight in proportion to the vote.