Walk with me, if you please, for just a moment, down a fantasy path of hypothesis:
In spite of all half-assurances, with little or no sound economic theory supporting, doesn't it seem likely that a BlingEx would actually be taxable at full income rate, because the source of "Bling Dollars" is, in fact, open-ended (and completely controlled by the Bling$ factory) and a product dispensed, not just an exchange-service rendered?
Then that source would/should be liable for all of those back taxes, the difference between the "30-cent exchange/transaction fee" and the actual amount of money taken in on each Bling$-sale transaction.
Under those imaginary circumstances, in which the company was found to be in a tax default, and perhaps even using questionable accounting practices, what would they have to do to "get right" with the IRS and the FCC? Hmmm...
Well, they'd have to roll over on all their clientele, in one fashion or another, right? Suddenly, all those folks they've harped, and primped and bragged on in the media for the last year...the virtual millionaires and all the other "making-it-in-RL, paid for by game" folks, along with all the rest of us who've ever sold anything for 1 Bling$, well...Who WOULDN'T hand the little guys (and not-so-little-guys) over, if it took some of the heat off of the company?
First step, like so many have said...gotta be able to prove the avatar that made 25Bling$ last month selling doodads belongs to Mr. John Quincy Public, Social Security Number (and Federal Tax ID) 111-11-1111.
Mark my words, in my pretend-what-if story, there's at least an outside chance people are being offered up on the block as a consequence of someone else's misguided bookkeeping, and the source of that problem may continue preaching the gospel of financial non-responsibility...at least I would, until I did get the maximum recuperative/protective benefit.