This article takes the most common dual-token model in the current GameFi field as an example, and will explore the feasibility of two ideas:
- Keep the gold coins stable in a certain range
- Let governance tokens achieve price growth as much as possible
Using a simple and easy-to-understand analogy as an example, if we compare the game to a small country, the gold token represents the currency in circulation of a country, U still represents the US dollar, and the governance token represents the country’s sovereign fund. No country in the world, whether it is a fixed exchange rate system or a floating exchange rate system, will not allow the exchange rate of its currency to appreciate indefinitely. One of the effects caused by the appreciation of the local currency is the difficulty in exporting. Corresponding to the chain game, the external incremental funds cannot enter due to the high threshold, and newcomers cannot enter, resulting in the collapse of the ecological economic system.
This is the point of view that the author intercepted on Twitter, and I feel the same way:
If you agree with the author’s above point of view, then you can continue reading.
Let’s look first:
The first idea: keep the gold coins stable in a certain range
The above picture is the life cycle diagram of the early GameFi drawn by the author. At the same time, there must be two forces in the market that cause the currency price to rise and fall. Most of the early GameFi projects are attracted by the early period of high yield and low return. Funds keep pouring in and push up the first wave of currency prices. Then, when early players continue to sell profitably, resulting in token inflation, and the new funds are not enough to sustain inflation (the power below continues to be greater than the power above), the project will will gradually die.
Then we might as well think about it. In fact, the tokens of a country are also constantly inflated. So how does the government solve this problem? The author believes that the way a country reduces inflation has the following behaviors:
- Increase consumption C: consumption is divided into subsistence consumption (food and drink expenses in daily life) and spiritual consumption (luxury purchases);
- Increase investment I: investment is divided into investment in means of production and real estate investment;
- Increase government spending: The government issues treasury bonds, builds infrastructure, and pools money for big things;
- Increase the effectiveness of monetary policy, common operations of monetary policy: adjustment of currency issuance, open market operations, adjustment of deposit reserve ratio
In fact, the above behaviors have certain guiding significance for the chain game:
In fact, the blockchain is already very high for users’ survival consumption education. We need to pay gas fees for our actions on the chain. At present, most games are operated on centralized servers. Spending has actually been cut. However, the concept of travel expenses is introduced in illuvium. Users need to consume travel expenses when they enter the P2E area to capture illuvial (elves), and elves are the cornerstone of the game for players, so this part of the expenditure is attributed to survival consumption ;
This part is not difficult for most gamers to understand. The simplest example is the skin in League of Legends. The skin itself has no bonus to the battle, but it can still attract a large number of players to buy it.
The above two points actually require the game to have a certain degree of playability. Games without playability will not attract players, and players will not consume in it. Players can obtain happiness and satisfaction through the game (consumer utility) , which is actually a manifestation of income, and this part of income does not need to be realized by token inflation, but will lead to token deflation due to increased consumption .
investment in means of production
Taking Axie as an example, breeding new sprites for re-investment is the simplest example. The key to this part is the length and complexity of the investment path. Axie’s breeding path is actually very simple, and the profit point is relatively easy to calculate. It is impossible to store too many inflation tokens during the investment process, just to reduce the current inflation, but the potential The increase in future inflation, the author thinks this is not a good way.
Compared with Axie’s inflation model, Star Shark has made certain improvements, which are reflected in the following points:
- Turning breeding into synthesis
means that production materials cannot be manufactured by players, but can only be upgraded, and the power of upgrading comes from the high SSS rewards in qualifying and higher gold efficiency (high-star sharks will have more energy);
Star Shark PVP Rewards
- Conflicting the lineup configuration of the optimal solution for Gold and the optimal solution for PVP, the optimal configuration of
Star Shark is 3 1 1 1 1 1 1, a 3-star shark, and a combination of 6 1-star sharks. However, on March 25, Star Shark will introduce the Grand Prix mode. The entry threshold is at least 3 4-star sharks, and the market price of 3 sharks is about 18,000 to 20,000 dollars. This is very different from the optimal gold allocation, which complicates and diversifies the user’s investment, thereby stimulating consumption.
As can be seen from the above figure, the daily synthetic consumption of SEA has increased significantly after the announcement of the Grand Prix.
Introduce land instead of real estate to undertake bubble
Many games launch land before they are developed, and the price is exaggerated. In fact, the author does not approve of this behavior. First, the excessive hype creates a high threshold for new players; second, if the land is launched when the game token is inflated, it will be a trump card to sustain the bubble. Star Shark launched the land game in June. I don’t know if this is the way of thinking. The pure P2E mode will eventually decline. (refer to the author’s previous article)
increase government spending
The chain game project party uses its own income to repurchase some tokens. The gameplay itself is not new. The key point is how to increase the non-ecological income of the project party. At present, the only thing I can think of is to hold game events to get it. Sponsorship and in-game advertising revenue.
increase the effectiveness of monetary policy
The author observed that at present, except for stepn, the monetary policies of most games are ineffective. Axie has adjusted the game output and reproduction consumption many times without changing the ending of the SLP currency price falling due to high inflation.
In this regard, the author believes that the reasons are as follows:
In real life, only the central bank has money printing machines, so the central bank’s control over this aspect is absolutely powerful. But the game is different. Each player in the game is a money printing machine, the gold player is a high-load money printing machine, and the script is a high-tech money printing machine. The game project party can only control the daily output of each money printing machine. Caps, but cannot control the number of new printers, the speed at which they can be produced, and the cost per coin produced by the printers.
There are three ways that may enhance the project party’s monetary policy strength (that is, the strength of gold token control):
- Foreign exchange reserve capacity: During the operation of the entire game, the project party agreement will carry a lot of income, that is, the income from the sale of NFT and the fee income from NFT transactions. A large part of this part of the income is collected in the form of ETH or U. Taking Axie as an example, in the process, it obtained 165 million income through transaction fees, while the market value of the entire SLP is only 673 million. If the project can use this income to properly repurchase and control the SLP, will its life cycle be? Maybe longer? This kind of behavior is not new in DeFi. For example, Sushi will extract 1/6 of the 0.3% handling fee for each transaction for token repurchase.
- Production speed of production materials: This part is relatively difficult to control from a game point of view, because the player’s behavior of breeding is spontaneous, but stepn and star shark can give us some inspiration. stepn has been very hot recently, and the governance token GMT has achieved an 8-fold increase in the secondary market, but the price of its NFT assets has been stable at around 10 SOL after listing on Binance, and the daily new shoes are between 1100-1400 Fluctuation, such stability is inseparable from the strong control ability of the project party. In addition, there will be a chance of twins when breeding shoes, that is, two NFTs will be produced at one time. The author boldly guesses that the probability of this twins is constantly regulated by the project side, in order to control the profit of the breeder, so that the number of new shoes added every day is relatively stable, and the selling pressure of the gold token GST is relatively controllable . On the other hand, Star Shark adopts the method that NFTs can only be sold by the official government, and users cannot reproduce by themselves. However, at present, the purchase of the entire NFT has not been subject to any restrictions. More than 90% of the income of players buying NFTs will be destroyed. A way to achieve a good deflationary situation for the token.
- Try to keep the production cost of each coin as consistent as possible: Previously, P2E games such as Axie, Xing Sha, and dxct could be completed in batches through scripts to complete daily gold mining. The cost of the studio was only a few kilowatts of electricity and script fees. , and ordinary players may need to pay 1-2 hours of game time in order to complete the daily gold. Compared with the output of ordinary players, the batch gold output of the studio is undoubtedly the party that has a greater impact on the market. They sell a large number of tokens in their hands due to the low cost of token production, which in turn triggers the price of the currency. A cliff-like fall. For this stepn adopts GPS positioning function, the movement process/user state/exercise result can be mutually verified. Aiko (the designer of the stepn economic model) said: “If you can’t even do ‘proof-of-move’, how can you ensure the fairness of ‘move-to-earn’?”
Of course, we believe that the subsequent games will be more complicated, and there may be many arbitrage links in the middle, not only limited to one link of reproduction, but the author believes that at least it is necessary to ensure that the arbitrage efficiency of different links is proportional to the risk, because the risk itself is a cost.
The above is the author’s humble opinion on how the project party maintains the stability of the gold tokens. The idea of governing the chain game project party may not be in line with the decentralization spirit of the blockchain, but in the future, the users of the chain game will definitely not be limited to the current one. Do these people, new users really care about decentralization? Maybe they are more eager for a stable game ecology, in which to harvest money and happiness.
The second idea: let the governance token achieve price growth as much as possible
Before discussing this issue, let’s think about it, where does the value of a game’s governance token come from?
The author believes that the value of game governance tokens comes from two parts: use value and consensus value.
- The use value is well understood. Most of the game links require the participation of governance tokens, such as the reproduction of Axie and the synthesis of star sharks. These tokens are actually consumed by players in the process of game development and entered the treasury. of. Taking Axie as an example, as of March 23, the cumulative breeding income was 21.88 million AXS, while the current circulation of AXS is 77.24 million, and the usage ratio is 28%, which means that only about 1/4 of the tokens exist. For real usage needs, the author believes that the remaining 3/4 of the value comes from the consensus value.
- Consensus value can also be called expected value or hype value. The author believes that this part of the value is invisible. It is the expectation of the entire market for the project. It may come from the value of the 2.67 million held addresses, the value of the Ronin chain, and the recognition of its future scalability value. The existence of 2.67 million holding addresses has traffic value in itself, so axie has become the leader of P2E. The author believes that the consensus value is equal to the traffic value . The more traffic and users that a protocol contains, it will be of great help to its future development, because the world of web2 has already told us that traffic is everything. How to use more traffic to get more players to participate requires thinking, but in any case, it is inseparable from a stable endogenous economic system, which is the first point we discussed, living longer can hold more traffic!
For many early game projects, the price of governance tokens in the early stage did not rise as fast as the market value of NFTs. Let’s take Star Shark as an example. The current circulation of SSS tokens is about 3.23 million, and the game has been running for 3 months. The cumulative consumption of tokens is only 86,000, and the utilization rate is only about 2.6%. When the game is in the early stage, the consensus value is not formed, so the low usage rate will not bring about the price increase. This happened in the early days of Axie. Before July 21, the price of its governance token AXS fluctuated less and it was always in a state of accumulating users. On July 1, the project party adjusted the reproduction cost to consume AXS per reproduction. AXS changed from 1 to 2, plus a certain number of users have been accumulated in the front, the price of AXS has skyrocketed and become a legend of chain games. Whether other games will have the same plot, I don’t know, but it’s worth thinking about.
Just like the government’s efforts to regulate the economic market, chain game project parties also need to implement appropriate “policies” to stimulate the balanced development of the game ecosystem. On the basis of providing playability, if the chain game project wants to live better and longer, it needs to constantly think and explore more effective ways. In fact, the stability of the gold token and the increase in the price of the governance token are actually interdependent and inseparable. A stable gold token price system is conducive to the entry of more users and brings a stronger consensus value to the governance token. , and a stronger consensus value will further attract funds and players to invest in the game’s ecology, making the price of gold tokens more stable.
Just as ChainGame’s mission is to explore the infinite possibilities of NFT as a creative infrastructure, subverting the existing content and value sharing model to co-create and share with the community, so that creativity and value can flourish in the community again, GameFi has just begun , their future has infinite possibilities.
Posted by:CoinYuppie，Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/interpret-the-ecological-development-of-chain-games-from-the-perspective-of-government-take-stepn-ilv-axie-and-star-shark-as-examples/
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.