How to create an innovative economic model for Web3+ games?

Organized a closed-door meeting with 2DAO3 last weekend with a limit of 30 people. Jeffrey from RCT, Aiko from folius ventures, and Kluxury from Wlabs were invited to share the guests. At the same time, the participants included iosg, foresight, incuba, first class, chain catcher, footprint and other chain game research institutions partners, including the Chinese University of Hong Kong specializing in economic research Professor of the body model, and several web3 teams of leading game manufacturers. The audience was full of dry goods, directly discussing pain points and innovative models, and even specific issues such as “how to guide players to trade on the project’s official website instead of going to opensea”, thank you for your participation! Now share some excerpts from the conference with melon friends.

1. Organization Introduction

Introduction to 2DAO3 The original intention of 2DAO3 is very simple, to organically bridge “2” and “3”, help more people who want to go from “2” to “3” to become active participants, and deliver more high-quality talents to Web3. We do not believe that “2” and “3” are binary opposites, and “3” is by no means constructed from the extreme position of dwarfing “2”. Welcome more Citizen like DAO to join and build with us.Linktree: https://linktr.ee/2dao3

About W Labs W Labs is an organization focusing on the vertical track of chain games. Currently, it focuses on the output of original content, and provides services such as research and analysis, model building, and operation consulting of chain game projects. W Labs will become a one-stop chain game infrastructure service platform in the future, and will incubate various products related to chain game services. Linktree: https://linktr.ee/Wlabs

activity review

On July 23, 2022, 2DAO3 held the second closed-door exchange meeting. The event was co-organized by 2DAO3 and Wlabs, and was honored to invite Jeffrey from RCT, Aiko from folius ventures, and Kluxury from Wlabs to discuss how to create an innovative economic model for Web3+ games. This article is an excerpt from the event, and some of the content has been edited and adjusted.

Keynote speakers:

How to create an innovative economic model for Web3+ games?

Participants:

How to create an innovative economic model for Web3+ games?

AMA review

  • 【Macro-Industry Perspective】

1) Overall, what are the similarities and differences between the business models of Web3 games and Web2 games?

Guest speaker @Jeffrey Web2

There are basically several business models for games: download fees, subscription fees, DLC/skin microtransactions, and in-game advertising placement. For Web3 games, what we see the most is the commission for selling land, selling props, and trading market fees. The game business model of Web3 has great advantages over Web2 in terms of financing and liquidity. This business model is indeed subversive to traditional games, but at present, many of the games we have seen that are obsessed with the Web3 model have turned into funds in the end. Both the founding team and users are concerned about the transaction volume of the market, not the game itself, the launch of new content, and so on. Traditional game manufacturers always sell game content to users, and item trading is only part of business. As long as the content is good enough, players are willing to spend money, buy monthly cards to fight monsters, open boxes to get skins, or spend time and spend money watching advertisements and jumping advertisements.The above consumption behaviors are all based on the consumption of the game content itself, and Web2 traditional game players do not receive any income from it. Looking at Web 3 from this perspective, the first question the founding team should think about is how to allow players to spontaneously return to the game ecosystem, rather than how to design economic incentives to attract players to break through to buy, or what kind of repurchase mechanism should the treasury have? Make the player’s profit more lasting. There is no good game content to attract more users to join in. No matter how good tokenomics is, it is finally Farm&Dump. There are many business models from Web2 games that Web3 haven’t seen yet, and I think they can be used.

2) Compared with Web2 games, what are the key points of current Web3 games that limit the development of their own business models?

(Delphi’s article named the funding settings of the chain game, which damaged the game sense of some loyal players in the original game) Guest speaker @Kluxury

Most of my perspectives are based on Web3 players, so some opinions may not be the same as those of several guests. Let’s answer the first question: the difference between Web2 and Web3. Compared with Web2 games, the current Web3 games have a very large gap in gameplay, content, picture quality, etc.; there are off-chain games and on-chain interactions that are generally criticized. From the perspective of the technological development of the entire blockchain, I personally feel that these cannot be made up in the short term. If we have moved the traditional game quality and other aspects to the chain perfectly (tokenization of game tokens, NFTization of game props, etc.), in my opinion, the liquidity of tokens and NFTs is a more important point. A more restrictive point. A very important difference between the business models of Web 2 and Web 3 is that the game props of Web 2 are one-time charges by game companies and do not have so-called transaction attributes. For example, there is no way to trade the skins we bought or smoked in King Glory and Genshin Impact. In the short term, it is beneficial for game companies, and they can continue to launch activities and sell props. But it is not necessarily favorable for the long-term development of the entire game industry. In Web 3, the tradability and liquidity of game props are its core.Game companies generally make profits by extracting circulation fees, and this fee is multiple times. Once the popularity of the project is relatively high, it is very high frequency. For example, the handling fee of stepn before is very amazing. Once Web3 games can flourish in the future, the props of each game can be exchanged, which will definitely be good for the entire industry. The liquidity of game funds is very important. Limited liquidity also limits game development to a certain extent, including player experience.For example, randomness and game play are attributes that are indispensable to many games. Traditional Web2/3 games have various activities such as lottery, blind box, refining, and forging. In traditional games, player addiction is easy to rise. Because the purchase of game props is simple and convenient, and the capacity is large.

In the Web3 chain game, you must first go to the LP (liquidity provider, liquidity provider) pool to do transactions, and then save the token to the game. Here, the LP pool needs to have a certain depth. The current gamefi’s capital depth is not particularly large, and the general chain game LP only accounts for 10% to 20% of the tokens. Even if the game content is fun enough, the lack of liquidity will limit the consumption of krypton gold players. There is so much market liquidity that there is no way to meet the needs of large players. The Farmers World stands out and is largely favored by the sz fund. The fund capacity is high enough that large funds can enter the field without any problem. In response to this problem, I have some preliminary ideas: such as lending or some Lego gameplay, and at the same time, it can solve the Ponzi problem that has no practical application scenarios. Recently, the Ethereum New York Hackathon has an award-winning guild project. It wants to be an aggregation platform between guilds. One of its functions is NFT sharing between guild players: the ownership of equipment is still you, but others can have the right to use it.

3) How to choose between the traditional business model and the Crypto business model?

Guest speaker @Aiko

Answer the previous questions first: First, the size of the capital: It is defi logic that it is comfortable to let large capital come in. With good liquidity, large capital can enter the market. But in the logic of the game itself, everyone has a large investment and expects a large return. This is a double-edged sword, and the game has no external liquidity to speak of. But if now we ask it not only to have liquidity, but also to have a large amount of liquidity, I think it is a bit exaggerated. Second, leasing and lending between guilds and guild asset sharing: guilds exist because of the existence of play-to-earn, and it may be a technology tree developed by blockchain or Web 3 games, which lets everyone know about this The existence of this thing, and then it also brought fire to the guild. However, except for the top three guilds, the market value is actually very small, and the bargaining power is not high. If there is no top-notch game, and the subsequent guilds have no bargaining power, then it is inappropriate to lend to the guild on this basis. At the same time, borrowing is something the project party does not want to see. Because the rental economy system is very delicate. It is really a very delicate thing to let the players who can’t afford the money taste the sweetness, but also let the landlord not lose money, and let the two sides play a game. There are many rules. Regarding the choice between the traditional business model and the Crypto business model, it should be decided according to the characteristics and expectations of the project party’s own products. There is no absolute right or wrong. Everything is based on the project party’s own revenue expectations. Cash flow still wants tokenomics. It is necessary to clarify the user ecology expected by the project party.

The business model can be divided into the following five levels:

The most traditional is Legend 4. Legend 4’s coins fell particularly hard. But there are many games in wemix, the currency price of wemix is ​​OK, and the stock of wemix seems to have tripled. Everyone’s income is different, so what you can do is different.

The second is chain change. Some waist manufacturers, who can’t get the version number in China, want to change the game chain, add a few tokens or a few NFTs to the chain. Conduct INOs and ICOs. However, users and VCs need to consider the value capture of currency prices.

The third tier is the traditional payment method, plus the benefits of Web 3. For example, open secondary market transactions, for example, I have a token that allows players to withdraw money. Many games now want to do this. The payment habits of traditional players are not the set of Crypto, so they want to recharge directly with credit cards and deposit in fiat currency. When charging, I want to use a subscription system and pay by time. Outflow will encounter some troublesome problems, for example, can your token allow players to exchange for the equivalent legal currency recharge? Is it possible to set a floating exchange rate, or an oracle, and use an oracle to determine this price.

The fourth level is biased towards games like defi. Such as league of kingdoms (Note: MMO multiplayer strategy game, PVE gameplay is that players can buy land in the form of NFT, and land owners can harvest 5% of in-game resources on their land. In addition, 10% of in-game sales The net profit will be shared with landowners in the form of xDAI (USD stablecoin). Later, the game was funded again, and he found that many users could not understand SLG, and the gameplay was too complicated for them. A few months ago, they released Dragon NFT (Drago Sticker NFT), and the gameplay is that three dragons fight together. There may be some compromises when designing the gameplay, and there may be some compromises for the target users when designing the token, but it depends on which side the project party wants to lean towards (Defi or game users).

The fifth layer is the full-chain game. It is similar to the previous fomo 3D. It draws on the mechanism of bancor. Later, defi summer appeared. This kind of game game on the whole chain, if it can make some innovations at the contract layer or the game layer, it may be the next A flashpoint. Another type of full-chain game is dark forest, which writes the gameplay logic on the chain. But we think that dark forest is not a very good economic carrier. Now it has to use xdai to reward users in every round of competitions, or use stablecoins to reward, and the community has to engage in rounds of competitions. It can actually have a full-chain game with a world view, a very natural mental model. Details of the planning project party are still brewing recently.

Moderator @Mike

Fomo 3D has been used a lot now, and one of our current projects uses Fomo 3D in a small part, similar to the big game. This is actually quite fun, and should be able to arouse as much fomo as possible in the current situation. When it comes to the traditional game model and the crypto model, I talked to some project leaders or some such traditional game owners. The most important thing to them is cash flow. Maybe most of the successful projects now are Maybe IDO and so on have already paid back. This is actually a bit like a high-leverage model. For example, before the real estate industry in China, developers could basically use 99% of the leverage to buy land, all of which were money from banks or trusts. The people later paid in advance, and the banks later mortgaged the land. you. So if an industry develops upward, the more leverage you increase, the greater the overall benefit. Therefore, when traditional game manufacturers look at chain games, the boss should attach great importance to this kind of financial model with “operating leverage”.

  • 【Micro-Product Perspective】

How to determine the positioning of the product from the endowment of the team itself (which type of game can have a better positioning and development in the chain game)? Guest speaker @Aiko The entire market is actually changing with players’ user habits. Now the player only has 5 minutes or 10 minutes of this particularly fragmented time to play the game, there is no way to force him to return to the era of MMOs.Now many Web3 developers abroad are learning from the monkey data business model of mobile games. They think this is a theory that allows players to consume in games, so this set should also be used in crypto games. Genshin Impact or the kind of character that draws cards develops cards, but you have to pile up content, which requires very high requirements for the ability of the team to continue to operate, or the entire depth of the character card pool is very high.

If the card refers to the pure Hearthstone card, there is an example of sky weaver. It actually uses AMM cards. You can think, does my card really need that much liquidity? Its value and how to guarantee the efficiency of each game. Sky Weaver has a very good reputation in the industry. It has been working on projects since 2018, focusing on players’ demand for card liquidity in the secondary market and the rules of each game, such as the drop rate of cards. In the next version, they will have tokens, sticker card skin rewards, and the fee structure is very hard. Their team doesn’t make games, so they don’t think from a player-first perspective, but are more technical. Because they have things like wallets and AMMs, it’s not a player-oriented perspective.For the match-3 leisure category, you can take a look at gamee ($gamee), which was used more in polygon India before. Every time you play a mini-game, you will get a little cash. This traditional Web 2 is also doing it. The main issue here is the perception of monetary value. Compared with the traditional Web 2 casual games that do cash dividends, the value perception is weaker and the threshold is higher. Therefore, user capture will Harder.

Some people want to make small games for the NFT community to use, but in fact, this kind of use case is also selling NFT, and everyone will not use it for a month. The root cause is that the NFT community does not need to play your game.

SLG is favored by some Western institutions such as Delphi Digital. SLG has a pure natural war in it, which is a consumption mode. Can current players understand this mechanism? Secondly, in terms of go to market, if its user ecology is not a Web 2+Web3 balanced ecology, but a pure Web3 player ecology, it is actually no different from the current Ponzi, that is, internal games and competitions.

An interesting example of auto chess: Arrivant’s economic model. For example, if I am level 1 to 100, I can only get resource A at level 1, resource B at level 3, resource C at level 3; recruit some small partners in the guild, and gradually upgrade, and small partners at other levels can collect other resources to supply me. I don’t think this model will hold. The time invested by a player will be linked to the experience and growth he produces, and growth is linked to the level. It is difficult to calculate how many level 20 players there are in a server, and how many there are. 60 players, and then you have to give them resource cards. It’s played just like tower defense Very fast tower defense. In 5 minutes I can play five waves of enemy attacks, and basically every minute I have a tactical change. During each tactical change, it may have some small roadlike or small operations, and it may have some random results. Arrivant is like SLG plus tower defense, there are fees, a bit like some cards.

  • 【Micro-Investment Perspective】

What services and assistance can VCs provide for startups or transforming companies? (What should teams ask of VCs) Guest speaker @Aiko

What I want to talk about is, as a project party, what do you ask the agency to do? Go ask them directly, don’t be embarrassed, if they don’t give you it’s their problem.

Some foreign developers are experts themselves and do not need investment institutions to guide them.When you look at some issues, you can have some critical thinking of your own.

Better founders may have access to some agencies and FA recommended resources at the earliest stage. This field is mixed, and as I said just now, it depends on the expectations of the project party itself. If I just want to make a good game, create a new gameplay, and want more Web2 players, maybe I will go to the flow ecosystem or the solana ecosystem. However, your FA is someone who is familiar with some local dog dishes, so you may still have snacks when you go looking for them.

The first point is that you can ask them to sort out the project developers and user ecosystems in the various ecosystems of the chain for you. He can contact any support from the party of your chain ecosystem. It is these things that you need to negotiate early.

The second point is that you also have to do due diligence with your VC. Your VC knows a lot of people, but you don’t want to be open to everyone.

The third point is financing advice. When everyone seeks financing, it is not necessarily a VC, but also the project itself. A reliable project may give you greater help in terms of technical cooperation, ecological cooperation, or financial assistance. The game team reaches out to some guilds early in the seed round.

  • 【Macro-Transformation Perspective】

If a Web 2 company wants to transform, how to choose between [Chain Game Development to Metaverse] or [Chain Game Embedded in Metaverse Scene]? Guest Speaker @Kluxury

  • Card games: Whether it’s skyweaver or earlier splinterlands (which has dominated the Dappradar user list all the year round), it mainly relies on offline games to maintain its popularity. Card games are not suitable for the existing P2E model. If there is no new one A completely subversive model comes out, and it is difficult to stand out in GameFi.
  • SLG strategy: I think it is one of the most difficult types of chain changes in our blockchain. Because the SLG war type belongs to the early experience game, after familiar with the game, the players begin to conflict, and the more conflicts in the later stage, the more resources are consumed. There is no doubt that it is a game type with strong krypton gold ability, but the relative game rhythm is relatively slow and hot, which is not suitable for the current fast-in and fast-out rhythm of the currency circle.
  • MMORPG category: not optimistic in the short term, the requirements in terms of difficulty and cost are too high, but as the future vision of the Metaverse, once the basic framework has been established, the adaptation scene of MMORPG will appear. As a traditional game, the MMORPG PC side has indeed been stagnant for a long time. Now everyone is playing some games from 14 years or even earlier, and more manufacturers are telling stories. I think it is because of the whole environment and the fragmentation of player time, but if there is a chance, I believe that many players will still look forward to the scene like “Number One Player”.

[From game development to Metaverse] It turned out that I just wanted to make games. Games have a life cycle. At a certain stage, they transition to storytelling. Make the second and third games and then combine them into one platform. Some projects, including axie/Raca, are in the Metaverse phase to users.

[Mosaic Chain Tour in the Metaverse Scene] Make the scene first, and then throw the game into it. Like artiverse, it wants to release Endless in December, and it will definitely do something else in the future. gala definitely wants to do a whole ecosystem of its own, but it’s slow.

Many Web 2 game companies want to build a game ecosystem. Projects with game ecology as the entry point, such as gala or p12 of the blockchain Steam, build a platform to attract games to settle in, or Ultiverse, which first builds a grand scene, and then develops relatively large-scale RPG games, from Web 3 users From an angle, everyone doesn’t pay much. The point is that the whole ecology is not connected enough. Between the two games, apart from selling NFTs and doing some linkage between NFTs, there is nothing else, not to mention the in-game composability that players are looking forward to. Land-centric projects like sandbox currently show more content in terms of social or IP creation, and I haven’t put them into the big ecosystem to discuss together.

My personal point of view is that the entry point will not greatly affect the development of the entire project in building the game ecology, but there will be some differences in the difficulty of entering the game and the risk factor. The difficulty of entering a single game will be relatively small, but due to life cycle and environmental problems, and the consensus on whether to fry the new or not, once the popularity goes down, it will be very difficult to get up again.

Those traditional game companies of Web 2 have great advantages over most Web 3 projects in terms of game resources and teams, but the effect is not very good after the actual implementation. In my opinion, a very critical point is that their mode of thinking is still traditional. For example, if you build a game platform, take a few expired game changes from the database and put them on the shelves, blow IP, and sell PFP, players will not necessarily pay. Not to mention a single game for chain modification, gold coins become sub-coins, diamonds become mother coins, and blind boxes become NFTs with one click and three links.

Web 3 players are not pure gamers. The entire ecological economic model is also critical. Storytelling must be well-founded and implemented step by step in combination with your own roadmap. They don’t care about the background of Web 2 big factories, but more about the implementation of roadmap, which will give community users more confidence and gradually form their own circle, the distributed consensus of Web 3.

  • 【Micro-economic model】

In the process of the continuous development of the GameFi track, does Wlabs have any specific assumptions in the design of the economic model? Guest Speaker @Kluxury

There are several plans now. In the future, NFT must be a very important part of gamefi. Take a brief introduction to the NFT template today:

How to create an innovative economic model for Web3+ games?

The core is that the game uses NFT props as the main output. The foundation is the dual-token model: the dual-token model is the most stable system at present, and the market has also verified it. So I temporarily use the dual-token model here.

NFT trading market: It must be the project party’s own trading market, and a third-party trading market cannot be used. Taxes are the main source of income for the project party, at least at the current stage.

DAO Vault: More is still in the narrative stage at the moment. The main scene 1 is a common scene of the partial Ponzi architecture GameFi 1.0, and the later admission funds continue to contribute to the previous funds. In many cases, the project party puts the selling pressure of tokens on the NFT, and when the NFT reservoir overflows, a death spiral occurs.

Extending upwards, here we feel that there are too few choices for players in many projects. 99% of players who enter the market are profiting from a single scene of digging, selling, and selling. Therefore, we increase the scene and increase the reservoir. . PVE, PVP, and the scene should be differentiated. On the whole, it is to give more empowerment through interests and consensus. Of course these are all at different times.Horizontally, enrich the settings of basic scenarios, such as the output and consumption of tokens and NFT equipment, the distinction between Free to Play and Play to Earn players, and the judgment criteria and repairs of the lifespan mechanism.

The downward extension is different from the upward extension, and the number of items is greatly increased if the downward extension is made. Delay the life cycle of the entire project through a variety of gameplay. The content of downward gameplay is also what traditional games are best at. A few points:

  • At least for now, Web2 users and Web3 users have great distinctions in attributes, and the way of attracting traffic is also different.
  • Ponzi has no problem at the beginning of the project, the key point is whether the subsequent model can absorb the previous bubble
  • The money made by the project party must mainly rely on taxes, not the funds that enter the market completely

The establishment of consensus is not difficult, especially if there is a certain IP blessing, the difficulty is how to maintain it, and the community is very important.

If the project party is very confident in its game content, gameplay, picture quality and other aspects, whether it is in Web 2 or Web 3, as long as the game is fun enough, it will be successful.

Moderator @Mike

The system must be tax-based at the back. For example, when a society was first established, everyone could fight the local tyrants and divide the land. Slowly entering the prosperous period, it is necessary to have a system and stable taxation; I hope that this point can be discussed with the audience later.

  • 【Macro-Transformation Perspective】

RCT’s practical experience and challenges (financing, products, users) from the strategic transformation of Web2 game companies to Web3 (mirror world, delysium, etc) Guest speaker @Jeffrey

Since 2018, RCT has been a strategic positioning to provide traditional game developers with AI algorithm/npc design/scene design technology. The team uses the advantages of AI and game algorithms to create interactive NFT assets. Interactivity is a relatively lacking narrative in the NFT track.

At present, we hope to combine our previous AI advantages and the experience of traditional game development teams to make a multiplayer shooting game familiar to traditional Web2 gamers. The future goal is to provide an in-game editor where users and publishers can create their own game scenes and props, while incorporating interactive digital asset practices.

In September last year, we started the Mirror world project, following the original idea of ​​RCT, to be a meta being that can complement each other. The team spent a month doing AI NFT, and at the same time learning community content while gaining experience. In November last year, the gamefi direction was added, aiming to create a digital world with more in-game asset interactions.

At present, the transaction ecological value capture of NFT is incomplete, and users often use many platforms to complete a transaction. In Web 2, user consumption is two or three clicks, and the experience is very different. We are currently starting with casual games on the mobile side. The multi-game interoperability game Matrix can solve the user experience, including the liquidity problem of decentralized game ecology.On top of this, we will provide mobile SDK to game developers to create new content. The ultimate vision is to be able to put all players who play our games and developers who use our editors under an ecologically closed loop. We recently joined the solana ecosystem in May, their hardware phones, and we hope to see more developers join the Web 3 mobile application ecosystem in the future.

We have a development team of nearly 200 people working on products. I am very optimistic about our transformation. I hope everyone can pay more attention to the progress. Trinity: The team is very artistic, with a strong ability to think metaphysically and philosophically. The articles on RCT’s WeChat public account are particularly good. The underlying AI and game engine are also very strong. In the middle is the commercial part, including the understanding of gamefi and the user experience of these dimensions.

  • 【Micro-User Perspective】

How can Web 3 games impress Web 2 game users? What user needs need to be met? Guest speaker @Jeffrey

First, the gameplay of the game. The most fundamental product appeal is to be a way of entertainment for people. A successful case with a very large transaction volume of Web3, many times it is not for entertainment, but for gold mining. But in the ecology of traditional games, gold is only a small part. On the one hand, a good gold mining ecology requires giant whales and a good growth base for casual gamers.

Second, and closely related to gameplay is the price. More than half of Web2 gaming revenue comes from free-to-play games. The paid game head traffic Call of Duty, they only sell a copy of 70 dollars, and the development cost of the next Call of Duty is as high as 300 million US dollars. From the perspective of impressing Web2 users, it is unrealistic to ask players to spend a few hundred dollars to buy a ticket to a gold-playing game that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Next, is the user experience. Players in traditional games such as mobile games, complete a micro-transaction, up to two or three operations, the consumption threshold is particularly low. However, in Web 3 games, you need to see which trading platform has the lowest handling fee, prepare your wallet in advance, and have to switch to multiple platforms at the same time. The door to get started is too high for traditional game players. Multi-platform transactions outside the game will also make game developers miss many points of value capture. Most project parties will eventually return to the original selling of land and props.Finally, for Web 3 games, good player socialization and network effects are key to surviving the turbulent crypto market. Although many Web2 games are not designed with strong player social and interaction mechanisms. Because of p2e, assets are on the chain, and liquidity is closely related to the crypto market. All Web 3 players are actually in an open Pvp ecosystem. When the price of the NFT epic weapon in your hand has dropped by half, you can still use it to show off to your guild members or carry your wild teammates in the game. These scenarios are what endow the NFT props with intrinsic value. When the market falls and giant whales start shipping, the interaction and intrinsic value of these props will become the key to user Hodl.

The respondents to the Q&A part are the audience who participated in the day.

1. From the perspective of financial regulation, especially macro-prudential regulation, how do you view the related impacts of in-game tokens, stablecoins, etc. on the financial system?

@Ken – Partner, PwC China Financial Institution Services

The overall design of economics has a lot to do with the logic of this finance. From my point of view, there are two very important questions in the middle:

The first problem is to solve the trust problem. People trade with the centralized market, which is an asymmetric transaction in finance. It is necessary to establish people’s trust in the system and solve the problem of expectations. The value of everyone on the same asset is reflected in the same direction. Everyone will anchor its own value through the transaction price of NFT, including the transaction price of cryptocurrencies, but the core of the problem is that the value of an asset cannot be directly anchored to a currency symbol, which is very easy to become systematic in the financial system. Risky – Resonance effects of behavior. So this is why I looked at the risk of terra before. After many security token ICOs, because it does not have a very reasonable mechanism, it is because there is no hedging effect on its expectations.

Therefore, when designing the NFT mechanism or mining mechanism in the game, different people need to obtain different values ​​from it. For example, some people get profits by going long NFTs, and some people get profits by short selling. What is simulated is the expected situation of the financial society, and the resulting price, not just everyone who brings benefits through asset appreciation, thus forming a Ponzi state.At the very beginning, the value structure of the asset base can be formed through Ponzi. But if the entire asset value is maintained under this Ponzi, there will be a very large bubble. If there is no self-digesting mechanism in the whole system, the same reaction will be formed.

The second is a cross-game trading mechanism that mimics the formation of exchange rates within the financial system. At the level of the overall ecosystem, it is necessary to form a mechanism for evaluating different game values, which can be dispersed under the expectations of different people to form their expectations and form expectations differences. Finally, to solve the problem of trust, there needs to be a relatively neutral intermediary agency, and value acquisition is based on social structure, such as some people supply labor, and some people gain assets (land sales). In this way, a hedge is formed and the overall risk of the macro environment is reduced.

Finally, when forming a consensus mechanism, it is necessary to incorporate different rule designs to ensure the long-term and stable operation of the entire ecosystem, which is the basis for trust generation. If this trust cannot be established, there will be short-sighted transaction behaviors of users, and there is no way to stabilize the structure at the system level.

Moderator @Mike

From the player’s standpoint, we found that if all players in the game believe that the payback period is 30 days, the death spiral of this game is faster than anyone else’s; if the entire model of a game is a bit more complicated, the payback period calculated by the players will fluctuate within a range. , the life cycle of the game is longer. We add nesting dolls and copies layer by layer to the model, which will make its entire volatility larger.

@Ken – Partner, PwC China Financial Institution Services

This point is very important as I help regulators design the macro-ecosystem. There are two questions. One is how to establish a user’s trust mechanism for the whole. This trust mechanism must be formed through diversification. The second is how to make everyone form inconsistent expectations about it, which will help the formation of trust.

2. In-game defi and NFTfi (stable currency and lending), what are the similarities and differences between it and the stable currency in defi, and how to draw lessons from defi? @mindao – Founder of dforce

The three axes of DeFi: stable currency, loan, swap; the combination of NFT side is more of a loan scenario.Many people think that gamefi also needs to have a stable currency with the dollar or a specific currency.

Decentraland is the earliest Metaverse game on Ethereum. The land price is basically priced in mana coins, but the friction cost is high. We are now seeing another trend, the stable currency of legal currency, or the stable currency of our own system will become the core component of gamefi in the future. This has several very typical benefits. We have seen that the decentralized stablecoins in defi have come out. This has been a verified model through over-collateralization.

gamefi is the economy of crypto, there is a need for transactions, borrowing, and organic needs. The logic in this will be healthier than the logic of defi we have seen. The demand is benign and essential consumption needs, unlike most of Defi, which are mining and leverage needs, which are highly cyclical. The benefits of making a stable currency for gamefi are self-evident.

Metaverse games need to interact with other games to form an economy, and the economic value spills over, so that it can highlight its value. Here, stablecoin is a very natural bridge that connects the external world and other game economies without friction. The regulation of the stable currency interest rate policy itself is controlled by the gamefi operator, which is convenient to extend the entire economic system outward.Gamefi stablecoins don’t think so much now.

I think it is mainly a matter of stages, such as STEPN’s self-built DEX, because DEX is the scene with the largest exchange demand for them, and stablecoins may go to the next stage; the lending scene begins to expand, and various NFTs have the need to lend and leverage each other. At this time, stablecoins will naturally become an option. I think in the next one to two years, gamefi will definitely launch its own stable currency. I think stablecoins are best designed into the Gamefi economic model early on. The sooner you do it, the easier it is to create liquidity, and the game can completely control the liquidity supply. The lending market and all DEX games provide liquidity by themselves, which is very good for the game itself and value capture.

@Mike defi The future is similar to blockchain, it is infrastructure, similar to financial centers. Now gamefi has many projects combined with defi, such as defi kingdom, I think the foundation of Defi is indispensable for Gamefi.

3. How to set up a mechanism to allow game users to trade more on the built-in NFT platform and prevent outflow to Opensea’s platform? @Mike & Kluxury

two methods. First, on the built-in platform, the fees are lower than Opensea; second, it is written in the contract, the external platform does not prohibit users from trading, but there is a cooling-off period after you trade, for example, you cannot play immediately within 12 hours. This will allow more gamers to trade with the built-in trading platform.

At the same time, this issue involves the issue of anti-cheating. When we help many project parties design models, a lot of time is to reflect fairness. Because many games are killed by scripts.

The efficiency of the studio’s script output is much higher than that of ordinary players, which affects fairness.We hope to use the project’s built-in NFT platform to solve the problem of scripting: in terms of transaction threshold and fee settings, it is not cost-effective to transfer NFT to another account on an external trading platform and then go for gold.

From the player’s point of view, in fact, it is not very likely to go to opensea to trade. opensea is open to all NFT projects, and game NFT properties are very diverse. Its own platform will have a screening system, which is more convenient for competition. Chain game aggregator, as Gamefi’s transaction system. Now that the life cycle of the game itself is short, there will be no such platform out of the circle. In the future, if there is a steady stream of games and the life cycle is half a year to one year, there will be more and more such aggregation platforms (stepN already has such a plan).

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/how-to-create-an-innovative-economic-model-for-web3-games/
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.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-08-03 11:37
Next 2022-08-03 11:43

Related articles