In the 1980s, text-based MUD (online dungeon) games dominated. Adventurers like multiplayer real-time role-playing games. These role-playing games have rich knowledge, fantasy worlds, convincing mechanics and RNG-based gameplay, with P2P elements. It sounds a bit like we did in 2021 The so-called Metaverse.
But at the time, a key puzzle was missing: a vibrant in-game economy powered by blockchain. This has made great progress since Satoshi Nakamoto published the white paper.
With the introduction of Ethereum, smart contracts, DeFi, and NFT, we have witnessed the emergence of on-chain games such as Ether Bots and Crypto Crabs, the exponential growth of money-making games such as Axie Infinity, and the emergence of guilds such as YGG.
And with the development of Layer 1 this year, Layer 1 such as Solana and Wax has become a track for new institutions with low transaction costs and high efficiency. A large amount of VC funds have poured into the industry (for example, FTX and Lightspeed Venture Partners’ 1 Billion US dollars and 200 million US dollars from Binance and Animoca).
This year I also witnessed Dom Hofmann’s The Loot Project-“Randomly generated and stored on-chain adventurer equipment”-the bottom-up reimagining of the MUD game in Web3.0. The picture below shows that LOOT finally returned to MUD game type.
There are many things to look forward to.
First of all, blockchain and games are complementary, and blockchain promotes the organic formation of the neoclassical game economy. One is because the game provides practicality and adoption for the blockchain, and the other is because the chain provides security and actual asset value for the game. For example, “Axie Infinity” is a card game similar to Pokemon, which provides a way for many families affected by the epidemic to earn income by selling axie nft or ERC20 tokens (such as $SLP) Methods.
Many new players and non-players are the same. Because of the motivation from playing games, they have systematically learned what is Ethereum, what is DEFI, what is proof of stake (POS), what is impermanence loss, and other broader areas. Blockchain technology has created a virtuous circle. At present, the total market value of axie Infinity’s governance token AXS exceeds 8 billion U.S. dollars.
On-chain assets are the first real bridge to the Metaverse, and projects like Loot and axie are undoubtedly a step in the right direction. But they are not enough to allow the next billion users to enter the Metaverse.
In this article, we will adopt a normative approach to explain that the current game industry is a hype rather than substance, and here to warn GameFi (blockchain games) enthusiasts, while emphasizing three specific issues that need to be addressed. problem:
One is the problem of the “encryption first, game second” model, the second is the current decentralization of gamefi is an illusion, and the third is the issue of user governance rights.
Next, we first briefly introduce the historical process of gamefi, and then propose our ideas and provide potential solutions. The following figure is the gamefi chart involved in this article.
GameFi: How far have we developed now
Few people nowadays doubt the powerful complementary role of blockchain and video games. The idea is simple: before the advent of the blockchain, the assets in video games were managed from top to bottom by game studios. They are changeable, replaceable, and out of the user’s control because they only exist on the production company’s servers.
Games rarely allow asset transactions between players, especially on third-party websites, and those websites that allow players to conduct asset transactions are also subject to strict supervision and only allow legal use of in-game items.
Even in games that you can trade, you cannot legally own assets because the studio has no incentive to give out their profits to users. But with the use of blockchain, all assets are on a publicly distributed decentralized ledger, which can be easily transferred between parties.
In addition, the tokenization of game assets can promote the development of the market economy and enhance the intrinsic value of props, even outside the specific game ecosystem.
For players, in addition to spending money, there is also a new way to make money: play games to make money (P2E) mode, players can use various methods (such as selling or gaining income through equity) Nft obtained in the game to make money. Vice versa, NFT gains value from the game.
NFT is a very powerful tool for the gaming industry. This standardization allows any in-game props (such as guns, spaceships, elixir, farmland, and even cute online dolphins) to be used in various games and different blockchains, even if they are owned by different studios maded.
Personal wallets can also replace specific accounts of each company to achieve further interoperability. Although NFTs have not appeared for a long time, we can divide them into four different levels.
Level 0: Collectibles
Examples: CryptoPunks, Bored Ape Yacht Club, Cool Cats, Doodles
CryptoPunks is a prime example of Level 0 role NFTs. In some respects, we believe that Punks has captured the beta value of Metaverse growth. Having Punk means that you are an OG in the NFT field and that you are a serious collector with huge influence.
In addition, using Punk as your avatar really allows you to enter some more advanced communities, and you may get free airdrops from other NFTs (such as Meebits). At the same time, Bored Ape Yacht Club has too many similar partnerships and partnerships.
Level 1: Basic interaction
Examples: CryptoKitties, Crypto Crabs, Ether Bots
Except for speculation and influence, Punks have no other use.
At the same time, CryptoKitties provides an additional gamification component: reproduction. Players can trade cats and try to unlock some rare features, but nothing more. Apart from interacting with smart contracts through Metamask, there are almost no real games here.
In addition, there are turn-based tactical games, such as “Crypto Crabs” or “Ether Bots”, each of which runs on the blockchain, but due to Ethereum’s high GAS, these games have disappeared.
Level 2: Explore
Examples: Decentraland, Sandbox
Decentraland and Sandbox represent the development of Level 2 games: virtual platforms that allow users to create, experience, and monetize content and applications.
The land in Decentraland and Sandbox is permanently owned by the player. There is a fixed supply of land, and users buy from the blockchain-based land ledger. The landowners control the content published on their part of the land, which is identified by a set of Cartesian coordinates. Content can range from static 3D scenes to interactive systems such as games.Land is an irreplaceable, transferable and scarce digital asset stored in the Ethereum smart contract.
In the case of Decentraland, players can earn it by spending ERC-20 tokens called $MANA. $MANA can also be used to purchase digital goods and services in the virtual world. Players can roam these lands on their PCs and interact with the minecraft-style 3D world, which is strangely reminiscent of VRChat. Although big players like Travis Scott have appeared in Decentraland, mainstream players have not embraced this because the game itself is not attractive except for the casino.More directly, unlike level 3 games, nft in level 2 games cannot yet be used to generate direct revenue.
Level 3: Complex gameplay (GameFi)
Examples: Axie Infinity, Gods Unchained
On the basis of Level 2, the rapidly developing Level 3 game in early 2021 finally has a deliverable game. Users can open the client, enjoy the exciting pictures, mechanisms, and pay to play games instead of playing farming games through the browser wallet interface.
Axie Infinity leads this trend. Axie users start the game by investing in axie NFTs and $AXS native tokens. There, they can earn $SLP through the game, because the earned tokens can be used to exchange other encrypted assets or fiat currencies.
During the economic difficult period caused by COVID-19, many users in the Philippines earn more than their usual monthly salary just by playing axie Infinity. The picture below is the game screen of axie.
The problem with Level 3 games like axie Infinity is that the cost is based on token inflation, and new players must offset this inflation through continuous capital injection to maintain economic balance. The economy depends on new funds. If the growth rate of new players drops or old players stop reinvesting, then due to the excessive inflation of Axies and SLP, the economy will systematically collapse, making everyone a potential “rug puller.” Level 3’s play2earn economy depends on the capital invested by people, and profits are only made when others buy: in this case, there is no social surplus.
It is true that many successful companies survive on unsustainable models, which ultimately become profitable through economies of scale and increasing returns on scale. Axie has a lot of cash to burn because they have a lot of institutional investors, from a16z to Mark Cuban.
However, as we will show later in this article, the problem with axie is that as the economy grows, the purchase price expands substantially, which will further destabilize the economy.
The picture below is axie’s game economy system.
All Level 3 games have a basic question: If the game is no longer profitable, will people continue to play it? I don’t think it will, at least not yet.
The current GameFi project lacks the complexity and mechanism to create a truly interesting experience. Most players play games purely for profit, because the current high level of profitability games do not have enough gameplay.
As axie prices continue to appreciate, growth will undoubtedly slow down. At present, to play axie Infinity, it goes without saying that you have won. Players must pay at least $100/axie for a team of 3 and hundreds of people (starting on November 8, 2021). For a common meta-level team consisting of simple beasts, aquariums, and bird axie, they need to spend more than 1 ETH (4,400 US dollars).
In addition, there is a deflationary cycle. When players leave, they will put their assets on the market, thereby reducing the market value of the items. When the market value drops, people are more likely to leave the game, which will only further weaken the value of game items. The momentum goes both ways-the game crashes as fast as it takes off.
The picture below is the crash process of a game CryptoMines on BSC.
Level 4: The pipeline game of the future
We decided to classify Level 4 games as an exciting future game project that plans to improve games such as axie Infinity and Gods Unchained in some significant way.
Currently, we are looking at Gala Games’ miranda, Star Atlas, Phantom Galaxies, Aurory, Untamed Isles and Shrapnel games.
These games belong to different categories and are developing in different directions. Some people have adopted Unreal Engine 5, while others have chosen a more square, cartoonish art style. Some are first-person shooter games, and some are tcg games. Some companies are planning to cooperate with DeFi projects to build collaborative dApps, while others are committed to cross-chain interoperability.
After the above background statement is over, we hope to highlight the three core problems of existing games in this article, which are particularly important for making the next level of games.
Encryption first, gameplay second
The picture below is the Gamefi map of Messari.
The encryption first, game second mode is adopted by studios that prioritize cryptography and financing rather than gameplay, and this is the first of the three challenges that must be solved by current Level 3 games.
It is worth noting that this model does have an advantage: it makes it easier for independent developers like Star Atlas studios to raise funds, either through NFT before the game is released, or through token pre-sale Investors, or raise funds through the old way of selling equity.
This is critical to the development of many Level 4 games and is also the key to the success of various DeFi projects.However, we believe that it brings a lot of asset risks and speculative behavior, which is not good for the entire ecosystem, which will lead to a decline in game quality and a negative user experience.
Excessive publicity and previous success stories (such as Axie Infinity) contributed to the expansion of game assets before the game was released. Companies can set an initial price much higher than that of non-encrypted games, which creates a huge barrier to entry into the game.
For example, the Calico Guardian in Star Atlas (which is a game supposed to be released in 2-10 years) sells for at least $25,000. Even a medium-sized ship of poor quality will cost at least $1,500. This is the price set by the developers, and all sales revenue goes directly into their pockets. Titan spacecraft, as Discord has been hyping up, may bring a million dollars in revenue. The picture below is the official recommended price of the spacecraft.
Incredibly high asset prices reduce the interest of potential players in the game and over-burn the ecosystem. These price points not only exclude potential players, but also force players to invest a lot of money to play an inferior game, or if they don’t want to invest a lot of money, they will be forced to play the role of indentured slaves in the game.
Due to the volatility of encrypted assets, players are forced to take incredibly high risks. And due to the stratification of assets, this problem has become more serious.
In order to encourage players to purchase more advanced assets, game companies will significantly increase the energy levels and corresponding revenues of more expensive non-functional games. This means that for lower-cost projects, the price-return ratio (financial and opportunity) is much lower. The return rate of 10 low-level NFT spacecraft worth $100 will be lower than that of a single NFT spacecraft worth $1,000.
For example, axie Infinity divides land into 5 categories (savannah, forest, arctic, mystery and creation), forcing individuals to make a lot of contributions, or to exclude them.
A piece of land in Creation Land sells for 550 ETH, while a piece of land in the Prairie sells for 3.5 ETH.
However, the stratified land system means that certain buildings can only be built on more expensive land or on multiple connected plots, generating more income through economies of scale and increasing returns on scale. The highest level of land usually guarantees that the unit cost of producing products will decrease as the scale of production increases, and having multiple land connected together (buy purchase) means that unit labor productivity will increase as the scale of production increases.
In other words, the stratified nature of the axie economy not only provides better returns for whale users who can afford it, but also actively excludes individual retail investors from gaming revenue. According to the distribution of rewards earned by the AXS game, a creation plot is worth 343 prairie plots, which means its real value should exceed 1130 ETH.
The figure below is the income estimate from Axie Discord.
Other games like star atlas have also encountered the same problem: even if there are a larger number of cheap ships such as Opal Jet and Pearce X4, the game experience brought to players by these cheap ships is greatly limited (for example, Lack of the ability to mine asteroids and the ability to fight).
For example, if in battle, a $28,900 C9 capital-class spacecraft can vaporize an Opal Jet with a laser cannon in a few seconds, how can an Opal Jet approach the “medium safety zone”?
In the end, the “encryption first, game second” model posed a problem: the player was forced to choose either a worker or an investor.
Those who are willing to pay huge sums of money are forced to become investors because they have to bear the risks of these expensive assets. Those who are less willing to invest, or just don’t want to participate too much in the game, are forced to become workers under the “scholarship” system-they borrow expensive assets from investors, use these assets to make money, and at the same time give investors Most of the profits- this is a 21st century serfdom, there is a rent-seeking guild between them and the game.
Therefore, it attracts speculators and large loan associations like ygg, who are not real gamers, which may be beneficial to the short-term price of the token, but ultimately not conducive to the long-term growth of the project.
Mainly because speculators did not actively contribute to the game community, but also occupy a lot of valuable NFT game resources, and these resources could have been owned by more dispersed individual players, these individual players can create better game.
In other words, the model of YGG and other guilds is not necessarily positive for game community building because they encourage the hiring of labor. It is also important to emphasize that these labors are mainly wage earners from third world countries who have little power to negotiate on their wages; this is not the “future of the game” that we dream of.
Finally, we want to point out that although there are class stratification and the need to spend money to play games in traditional games, the nature of GameFi and all encrypted games of the “play2earn” model aggravate this problem and directly cause many The game cannot live long and healthy. Unlike traditional Gacha games (games that get cheap win thrills through in-app purchases), the GameFi project crashes faster when trying this method.
One solution is the “game first, encryption second” model.
This model highlights the gaming experience while maintaining the security of the encrypted components: having fun and making money are not mutually exclusive, but it is important to emphasize the former.
We envision that in the near future, new content from different developers and studios can be added to the game through voting by different nodes. Specifically, what makes the game long-term interesting is the slow learning of skills (through an in-depth understanding of game logic and mechanics), or the slow process that players feel when they invest time, rather than just buying expensive high-level assets.
Simply put, games can be designed to reward skills, such as “League of Legends”, or they can be designed to reward hard work (resource acquisition), such as Clash of Clans. Some of the most popular games like Clash Royale balance these two elements: Units can be upgraded to get more rewards, cards are also reasonably tiered based on rarity, and all cards will be reset to The same intensity level.
Essentially, the “game first, encryption second” model means that not everyone can make money, only those who can play have the opportunity to make money, and how much money they can make is affected by the capital they invest in. Of course, it also depends more on their game skills and game time investment.
Even those who do not have enough funds can make money with their unique skills and understanding of the game, rather than being forced to become weaker because of the cheapness of specific assets.
If game studios with player backgrounds are unwilling to allocate most of the pre-sale tokens to private buyers, this is also reasonable. Because they just want to make more profits for themselves, but this approach may affect the overall economy.
The illusion of decentralization
The second challenge that Level 3 games must solve is decentralization.
The sale of game assets is by no means unique to GameFi, but the crypto game industry advertises its game assets as a completely independent and uncontrollable market.
This is deceptive: because the studio has a way to maintain control of assets, in most cases, these games are still centralized, although many crypto game leaders have marketed that they are decentralized. Take Axie, for example, many axies have been banned. The picture below shows the banned Axies.
The first and most fundamental question is whether these games should or need to be decentralized like the game developers claim.
In “centralized games” (such as CSGO on Steam), accounts can easily be banned from trading. This has caused many problems, and millions of dollars worth of assets are locked in trading robot accounts.
Although many people may argue that these locked-in assets push up the equilibrium price by reducing the total supply, this prohibition is reasonable to a certain extent, and it can prevent robots from simply transferring their assets to another account. And continue to attack and violate the terms of service, which is very important for stabilizing the game economy.
However, the decentralized nature of blockchain assets is worth protecting for many reasons. If we assume that decentralization is something we want to maintain and execute, this raises the question: Does the current crypto game ecosystem implement these concepts? How can these games develop to better create the ultimate decentralized meta Cosmic world?
In the current field of encrypted games, although game developers cannot directly block asset transactions because they are independent on the blockchain, they can significantly reduce the value of assets by prohibiting assets from entering the game. This will remove most of the utilities belonging to the asset.
If it can be appropriately marked on exchanges and other trading platforms (such as the axie Infinity market), it can easily replicate the banned trading features of centralized games. For example, when axie Infinity discovered that Chinese studios spent money to allow players to play multiple accounts at the same time to maximize their revenue, they banned all axie accounts and warned the player community on Twitter against further violations.
Of course, axies themselves can still be traded, but they cannot be used by anyone in the game, which makes their trade value worthless. Because game companies monopolize the right to reduce and remove the value of assets, these assets are still highly centralized.
Going deeper, games like Star Atlas claim to be anonymous developers, which means they can accept the idea of gradually quitting themselves over time and letting other game developers take over.
They claim in many official groups that over time, if the community needs it, new developers can replace the development team.
In their white paper, the studio claimed that “blockchain technology using Solana protocol” can provide a “serverless and secure gaming experience.” The NFT tokens obtained and traded in Star Atlas create a copy of real-world assets and The tangible economy of ownership.
Regarding the absence of servers, their reason is that if the game does not have a server, then the server failure will not affect the game, thereby maintaining the stability of the game asset value and user base.
However, we believe that due to the speculative prices discussed above, companies are more motivated to start a new game, sell their tokens to raise funds, and because of the hype and rapid spread of cryptocurrencies, the cost of acquiring customers is very low.
For example, consider the CryptoMines game on BSC, which claims to have more than 230,000 users. When the development team failed to control FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), the project team saw that the price of their token dropped from $801 to $4 within two weeks, and they proposed a complete game shutdown plan. And promised to launch a new NFT completely independent of the original game, announcing that the original game’s NFT has no effect.
In reality, in order to solve this problem, there are several structural obstacles that need to be overcome.
The first is the issue of intellectual property rights: Although the company itself cannot control the transactions and transfers of NFTs, the images and names used in the game are protected rights. We know that intellectual property protection is very important. Independent game studios with more funds need to be prevented from using existing assets to create “Mirandus 2” or “Axie Infinity 2” for convenience, thereby destroying gamefi’s user base.
Although the protection and development of intellectual property rights are important to the development of games, a clear transition plan is also required. Unlike other forms of protection such as patents, trademarks do not have a clear validity period and can be maintained forever. Therefore, the transfer of ownership requires clear information disclosure.
Our suggestion is to allow these companies to own trademarks within a predetermined, open, and flexible period of time, and allow companies to develop their own intellectual property rights through cooperation, marketing, intellectual property, and design.
Then, the trademark will be transferred to the game’s DAO or DAO-like structure, where the community can vote to determine the partnership.
These partnerships will be submitted to the DAO and voted accordingly: the minimum number of game native tokens or nfts they require, these tokens will be written into the smart contract and locked during the voting decision period to coordinate interests and prevent one-time marketing plan.
In addition, there are problems with the server running the game itself. This can be solved in two ways.
The first method is proposed by Gala Games. Gala Games currently uses a node service. They claim that they can “run a decentralized game hosting platform” in the future. We think this framework has great potential. New content from different developers and studios can be added to the game through voting by different nodes, which allows us to infer that future servers will no longer rely on a single game.
Or we suggest that game developers start a fund directly funded by themselves until they decide not to support the game anymore, then they will promote the fund and transfer legal control to the DAO.
In this way, if the game is still popular, the community can decide to maintain the server, or completely migrate to a new server when appropriate. Generally speaking, this money should come from the company’s profitable income and new content creators who want to maintain economic growth.
In fact, new content creators can choose to enrich their existing infrastructure by adding new playable content, or they can create a completely different game that includes the same Nfts.
If the new game provides a much better platform than the original game, the DAO can vote to suspend support for the original game and transfer funds to the new game, thereby eliminating the original developer.
In general, we can predict that future blockchain games will be built on different Layer 1 blockchains, such as Ethereum, Solana, Wax, Cosmos, etc. Users will be able to switch games easily, and they will be able to carry their Assets, such as skins, avatars, or weapon NFTs to other games or the Layer 1 blockchain.
Governance: a big illusion
Majority governance refers to the voting on the chain to determine the protocol or game system changes proposed on the chain. This is a huge illusion that needs to be taken seriously, and this issue is also crucial for the development of Level 3 games.
Although games require user feedback and data to design the best products to maximize consumer experience, mobile governance rights on the chain have never effectively solved the problems faced by any anti-majority rule makers in history. .
The figure below shows the distribution of Axie Infinity governance tokens.
First, in the long run, majorityist governance is harmful because individual individuals lack the skills, knowledge, and long-term motivation to maximize game growth.
Considering that most game development teams have the professional skills to design complex economic structures (which are necessary to balance game revenue generation), we should believe that the team can make meaningful decisions while considering user feedback and input.
We believe that promising projects with long-term visions like Phat Loot Studios’ untame Isles will continue to listen to user feedback, just as they did in character art design.
It should be noted here that this can be achieved through data collection and pooling, with a comment that reflects the NFT holdings that can be considered by developers, rather than through tokens.
This also raises another issue of exclusion and alienation, because many people have invested a lot of money in the game by purchasing NFT (the purchase behavior of NFT is essential to the operation of the game). This token-based governance system forces individuals to also purchase this token and punishes those who allocate funds to NFTs in the game.
As far as the incentive mechanism is concerned, it seems infeasible to give the power to change the basic part of the game to those who have more money, because their motivation is to protect their own interests, not to protect the balance and health of the entire game. This may make it easier to pass changes and votes based on protecting the higher-level assets they hold, thereby causing an imbalance of power and alienating ordinary players.
Although there is almost no governance policy in the crypto game field because of the lack of any type of governance structure, the consequences of crypto whales can be seen in other governance examples in the crypto field.
In April 2021, a proposal to change the pool was submitted on PancakeSwap, the largest DeFi platform of Binance Smart Chain. This change (which was supported by the developer) was overturned by a whale user who promised more than 94,500 votes using his cake token. This made him the largest single voter to oppose the proposal and received a 65% majority. The number of tokens held is almost twice that of the entire proposal, and this whale alone prevented most people from voting for success.
This suggests that giving power to people whose motivations may not always align with the collective can be destructive.What happened next was equally worrying: the Binance development team made this proposal time and time again, until the whale finally gave up its opposition.
Decentralized financing (DeFi) protocols have been striving for quality and fairness, but many protocols have failed to meet the requirements due to their governance voting mechanism: moving the decision-making process to the chain sounds like the next blockchain revolution, but it The validity of is still not recognized by law.
The picture below is the result of pancake’s voting.
There is obviously a question of how to motivate, because whale users will only be allowed to vote without damaging their investment portfolio.
Of course, we also have to ask, since whale players are those who put a lot of assets into the game, do they have no right to do so? After all, they take most of the risk. Even if we try to circumvent the whale problem by creating a common alternative of a wallet and a ticket instead of a token and a ticket, we will face an equally disturbing problem: the Sybil attack problem, one user can create 500 wallets , The use of scripts to distort governance or unfairly obtain airdrops, thereby undermining democracy.
The picture below shows the result of a cheating in the mekaverse lottery.
In addition, the token-based voting system alienates players and creates a power imbalance between the rich and the poor. Not only does it exclude those who have fewer tokens, but even those who own other assets, such as those who directly create NFT assets in the game, are forced to maintain a large supply of tokens to prevent policies that are harmful to them. .
This is disastrous for NFT asset holders, because they are actually the most affected by the game. Taking axie Infinity as an example, the land and axie players are most affected by the game changes. However, the people who voted for the game development proposal are all AXS holders.
Although the land in the game is proposed to generate AXS tokens in some way, most of the AXS tokens are in the hands of AXS speculators, who will undoubtedly try to safeguard their own economic interests. In the end, governance needs to be promoted slowly one by one, and funds cannot be raised after the fact, which seriously affects the progress of the game.
Secondly, there are few successful implementations of the current game-based Dao framework. Due to the lack of transparency and the progress of DAO development, almost no policy was voted for.
There is very little information on specific examples or structures of how to vote. Although games such as Axie Infinity and Star Atlas have proposed basic governance and proposal structures, there has not been any major decision-making voting or any regular voting.
It is worth mentioning that those games that want to be truly decentralized can use some of the ideas mentioned in the DAO voting as the basis for the subsequent voting process.
The figure below shows the distribution of Star Atlas governance rights.
Finally, the early distribution of tokens hindered the realization of the DAO structure in the current environment.
One is that the worst case is that the game development team that plans to do rupull (scam and plan) executes rug.
The second is that even if we assume that developers will not do this, due to the need to raise funds and reward employees in the early stages, many tokens will be distributed to private owners and employees. Therefore, even if the major players can obtain most of the valuable tokens in the market, they still lack relative voting rights.
Note that this is not just a problem for a few games, but a problem for the entire gamefi field. At present, the average shares allocated to team investors and private equity investors are 20.3% and 13.2%, respectively, and the ownership of public sale is 9.17% (based on data from 3 games axie Infinity, Star Atlas and Splinterlands). For games that can be collected from the data, in some extreme cases, public offering tokens like star atlas and POLIS (their governance token) only account for 2% of the total POLIS allocation, while private equity has 22.5%, so many are left. Issues such as public governance rights, democracy and land distribution issues.
Even in a fairer game, such as axie Infinity, although the amount of public and private equity is the same, the team still retains most of the tokens, which gives them the final decision.
Although many people claim that this distribution system may change over time, such as through play2earn and staking.But we countered that this strategy is also applicable to private equity institutions, because of their first mover status, they may earn more.
In any case, it may take years for the public to have the final decision on governance policies. At the beginning of the game, when the most important decisions are made, companies and funds will have control without governance tokens.Therefore, the solution is to either remove governance and not use it as a term aimed at raising funds, or give power to the people, like Loot, and then disappear from it.
Given the playability and economic value of games and NFTs, GameFi provides an opportunity to bring the next tens of millions of new users into the cryptocurrency field.
Since mid-2021, we have witnessed the first outbreak of crypto games. The number of wallets interacting with game nft and games is more than twice that of DeFi. YGG (Yield Guild Games) is currently valued at USD 6 billion because they and other chain guilds continue to introduce users from emerging economies (such as the Philippines) into the crypto economy. Sandbox will one day become a bigger company than Roblox, and there will be more sandbox games.
If we can solve the problems of the “encryption first, game second” model one by one, the illusion of decentralization and the problem of governance rights, the gamefi revolution will inevitably occur.
Finally, we will quote a sentence on the Loot Project website:
A storm is brewing, and each of us will inevitably be affected by it. Can you feel its existence now?
This world needs us to work hard for it again. Are you willing to join us and fight to change your destiny, or choose to stay the same, repeat the hardships of the past and get rewards that can only sustain life?
Posted by:CoinYuppie，Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/harvard-university-blockchain-club-the-dilemma-and-way-out-of-chain-gaming-a-storm-is-brewing/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.