0x31ae182a31bb2c3cfd9e2e3732cc53f7606fb773

Sync my mirror: https://mirror.xyz/jojonas1.eth

Blog site: https://jojonas.xyz

——————

The blockchain gaming market in 2022 seems to be somewhat lackluster. From the active products on the market, most are continuations of the first-generation blockchain games. As the successor to Axie, Stepn collapsed dramatically after its peak in April and May (from an asset performance perspective). Since then, the market has gradually lost confidence in the play-to-earn narrative, and almost no one believes it can escape the shackles of a Ponzi scheme.

On one hand, the market instinctively chases new narratives, such as play-to-own (which I think is nonsense), and constantly emphasizes gameplay (as if just using these three words can explain everything); on the other hand, while emphasizing game quality, it seems to selectively ignore some existing high-quality products, such as Skyweaver. People express their contradictory attitudes toward blockchain games in a tangled manner, forgetting that prosperity, recession, and recovery are almost inevitable challenges faced at the birth of new things.

I also wrote some opinions related to blockchain games in 2022, and before continuing this article, I would like to take a brief look back:

On February 13, I wrote On Blockchain Game Design and Governance, which was based on the Folius research report, thinking about the tokenomics design of blockchain games from an economic perspective; although some of the viewpoints were updated later, most can still serve as constraints for P2E elements.

On March 18, I wrote Casual Talks on Blockchain Games, which was divided into three parts discussing the significance of games, the advantages of blockchain games, and my experiences and opinions on the two products, Skyweaver and Stepn. Unfortunately, I mentioned some ideas for a "game + sports + social" model for Stepn in the article, which seems impossible to realize (it was just an ordinary player's imagination anyway).

On May 27, I wrote Ponzi Structure and Tokenomics, which stated my views on Ponzi structures.

On June 2, I wrote Summary and Reflection on Existing Issues of Stepn, where I raised ten questions regarding the issues Stepn faced at that time and answered them myself, although some were half-hearted (which I often do). In hindsight, the generous rhetoric from an idealistic perspective does not actually solve the real problems; since then, I have rarely written grandiose articles.

On August 28, I wrote Some Thoughts on the Future Direction of Blockchain Games, which can be seen as a summary of my understanding of the blockchain gaming market at that stage, and some of the content in this article can be seen as a continuation of those viewpoints.

On October 20, I wrote a piece titled Concept of Asset Leasing Models, but ultimately, due to lack of energy, I did not continue to deepen it. Some of the logic in the article now seems problematic.

On October 27, I addressed the question Will Tokens with Unlimited Issuance Definitely Depreciate? in a short article stating my views. I did not explicitly criticize, but the implication was that many intuitive impressions cannot withstand detailed logical scrutiny.

On November 13, I summarized Issues to Consider in Token Design, listing dozens of detailed issues in token design. Different projects can have completely different ideas based on different constraints, so I did not list answers.

A little joke: Suppose a product encounters one problem every day, and each problem has at least two countermeasures. Assuming there is no overlap between paths, the total number of development paths it has in a quarter is roughly equivalent to the total number of atoms in the universe...

Why Focus on Games?

At the beginning of 2022, when asked about the most promising track at @Matrix_DAO, I mentioned social and gaming. Later, I judged that social might not achieve explosive growth in the short term (the reasons will be mentioned in my later social article), so I focused more on gaming.

Why focus on games?

Among the many possible applications of blockchain, games are the most likely to land faster and are the most naturally combined in narrative.

For example, I am very optimistic about the potential of RWA, but can RWA effectively land in the next five years? Just thinking about it can be painful, with compliance issues in various countries, the problem of unified standards, asset certification issues... Just looking at how REITs have only started to slowly experiment in the country after so many years shows that it will not be that simple.

What about the veteran DeFi? DeFi is undoubtedly the main track currently, and it can even be said that the framework of any other track is DeFi. Originally, DeFi is just an abbreviation for "Decentralized + Finance," and these two words are almost essential for all web3 applications.

I think the problem lies in the lack of narrative. Compared to traditional finance, DeFi can certainly boast new things like AMM and permissionless systems, but the essential performance and security issues have not seen good solutions. The narrative of DeFi is more focused on the crypto degen community, and in the eyes of most people, it still lingers in the stage of soil mines/funding schemes, making it difficult to create sustained topicality.

What about NFTs? Many people continue to be optimistic about NFTs, but NFTs themselves do not have anything that continuously attracts attention and need to rely on operations or other means. More often, NFT communities exist "for the community's sake," lacking sustained strong interaction. Of course, NFTs are far from that simple; I will elaborate more in the NFT section later.

As for games, although on-chain games are entering the mainstream view, in the foreseeable decades, blockchain games with only assets on-chain will still dominate. Having only assets on-chain means the technical barrier for blockchain games is the lowest, allowing the traditional gaming industry to switch over almost seamlessly, even though many people do not recognize NFTs.

Apart from landing faster, games themselves, as digital products, align extremely well with the globalized and virtualized characteristics of the current on-chain ecosystem. At the same time, as the "ninth art," games can perfectly integrate forms like architecture, painting, literature, and music; games that combine with blockchain technology can also integrate various tracks such as DID, DeFi, NFTs, and creator economy. Games themselves are extremely complex large-scale crafts (or industrial products), and if we continuously trace the meaning of games, it can even lead to politics, economics, and philosophy...

After all this, let's talk about reality. The reality is that as a high-investment, high-risk industry, it does not have the mature business models and operational ideas of traditional games. The current blockchain gaming industry is in a highly uncertain market phase, facing skepticism from players, investors, and project teams alike; it would not be an exaggeration to say it is struggling. But I dare to predict that once a few successful blockchain games emerge (in terms of revenue and lifecycle), this track will experience unimaginable explosions.

Upstream and Downstream of the Blockchain Gaming Industry

Games themselves, as products that require collaboration among many people to complete, have a greater demand for professional division of labor than most blockchain projects. And in any industry that improves efficiency through professional division of labor, the formation of an industrial chain is inevitable. Below, I summarize the panoramic view of the blockchain gaming industry chain:

Let me share some thoughts on various positions in the industry chain.

First, the bottom layer of cloud services and game engines is expected to undergo little change; Amazon will remain Amazon, and Unity will remain Unity. The cost of starting over with cloud services and game engines is too high, and there is indeed no need for it. At most, there might be decentralized cloud services? As for engines, Unity and Unreal are basically essential for small and medium teams; unless large companies develop their own engines, I cannot think of a reason to create a new engine. Of course, when it comes to on-chain games, new engines are still very necessary.

Development kits may become the choice for many small and medium teams. Compared to technical research and development, they are relatively more concerned about and need to focus on content development. Moreover, if modular and customizable development frameworks can emerge, it would also improve efficiency for the entire industry.

Regarding chains, I categorize them into general public chains, game-specific chains, and application chains. In the general public chain category, ETH is clearly no longer suitable, and BNB and others are also transitioning to layer 1 (launching BAS); since blockchain games involve on-chain steps for asset production, trading, and destruction, there is still a high demand for speed and low fees.

Game-specific chains like Ronin need to find ways to lower security maintenance costs; aside from the consensus maintenance of the chain itself, if assets and games operate on different chains (for example, assets on ETH), cross-chain bridge security must also be considered.

As for application chains, almost all have launched SDKs and allow mainnet nodes to simultaneously maintain subnet security, so they may be one of the most suitable ways for games to go on-chain.

Overall, the number of games that can operate sustainably is far from reaching the blockchain's carrying limit (even though this limit is very low), so general public chains can fully meet the needs of games going on-chain without worrying about the dilemma of asset on-chain.

Middleware such as wallets, payments, and markets can all use general products, but from the perspective of player experience, customization is necessary. For example, if games still use MetaMask for login, just the player registration step could incur higher market costs because you need to teach ordinary players how to generate wallets, back up private keys, etc.

In terms of game aggregation, many Launchpads appeared during the bull market, with various projects flying around, but the bear market has cleaned up quite a bit. However, Launchpads are essential, and permissionless Launchpads are not suitable for games; this still stems from the high-risk, high-investment nature of the gaming industry. As expectations for the quality of blockchain games rise, the seed funding amounts for blockchain games may differ from ordinary projects. To reassure players to invest, necessary audits and credibility work are indispensable. On the other hand, high risk and high investment also make it more suitable for Launchpads to reach the public, as individual small and medium institutions may find it difficult to bear the investment risks of games. In short, Launchpads are a long and arduous road.

As for game aggregation services, they currently seem somewhat redundant because there is no large ecosystem like Steam for PC games. Creating a unified market, for example, is not very meaningful. Generally, they exist as built-in accessories of platforms, such as Treasure DAO's aggregated NFT market, Trove. For on-chain games, aggregation services have a different significance because the assets in full-chain games are too free in terms of composability and interoperability.

Regarding incubation, those currently working on blockchain games are already struggling to take care of themselves, making it difficult to say they will incubate new products. However, "community incubation" could be a good direction, with Treasure DAO, Matchbox DAO, and others being good examples.

I personally categorize gaming platforms like Wemix, GALA, and Treasure DAO into the Middleware category as well. However, in reality, there are many things platforms can do, and I will not elaborate on this section for now.

As for guilds, they may continue along the path of capital and community integration, becoming bridge-like participants in the blockchain gaming ecosystem. After the P2E model cooled down, how guilds continue to connect players and games, where the funds come from and go, and how to shape the guild brand are all worth pondering. It is undeniable that the guild format is highly vital, as seen in various online games.

Community tools have basically formed a tripartite structure of Twitter, Discord, and Telegram. With channel and bot settings, Discord can be called an all-round giant. However, from the user's perspective, the user experience of these tools is not high, and the certainty of reaching various project information is also low, with no specific product optimization targeted at player communities; therefore, I remain cautious about whether customized community tools for blockchain games will emerge.

As for community groups, they have basically become substitutes for players to obtain information, currently relying on tools like Discord and WeChat. However, the current community is more due to the industry's ecological imperfections and the huge information gap. From the perspective of information acquisition, if gaming platforms themselves engage in community building, the player traffic of games within the platform will converge towards the official side. From the perspective of project parties, vertical communities targeting games are meaningful; public domain traffic is just sand before screening. The current prosperity of "public domain" communities is fundamentally due to the demand for information acquisition from players under the P2E model.

Data services are a unique aspect of blockchain games because asset-related activities can be visualized and analyzed through on-chain data; this will increase the survival difficulty of data service providers in blockchain games. Most data services combine the functions of portal websites, such as DeGame and My MetaData. Apart from communities, as more games go live, portal websites are likely to become another entry point for players into blockchain games, and they may even step upstream to provide services similar to game distribution (like TapTap and various mobile app stores). Therefore, portal websites are indeed a battleground for gaming platforms.

As for derivative industries like live streaming and esports, some projects are already exploring them. However, the former can completely use existing tools, while the latter relies on deep experience and industry resources. Most importantly, both require a product with a long lifecycle and high gameplay.

...

In fact, sorting out the industry chain serves two purposes: one is to gain a more detailed understanding of the blockchain gaming industry, and the other is that I feel everyone is very focused on the impact of blockchain on games themselves while neglecting the upstream and downstream it may affect. Like games, tokens can also achieve different ideas in financing, project operations, and cost payments. Taking communities as an example, through token incentive design, lightweight operational configurations can be achieved; using community identity NFTs combined with activity staking can also help cultivate stickiness.

On Economic Design in Blockchain Games

Regarding economic design, I believe it needs to be considered in stages.

The ideal form of blockchain games possesses the advantages we often mention: asset ownership, free composability, innovation-driven, and deep player participation; however, achieving these points in the current situation is quite challenging (I won't elaborate on the detailed nonsense).

If we categorize the existing blockchain games on the market in detail, I believe they can be divided into three categories: the first-generation blockchain games represented by Axie, where P2E is the main narrative; the second-generation blockchain games represented by Illuvium, which approach traditional PC games in content and art and optimize the experience for players; and the still-developing full-chain games (on-chain games).

The ultimate representative of the first generation, I believe, is Stepn (setting aside the narrative). Stepn itself, as a sports application integrated with game elements, has done a lot of random design, user stratification, and has already consciously engaged in macroeconomic regulation. Another point is that even six months after Stepn faded from public view, I still have not seen a product with a better user experience than this crypto application.

So, does the Ponzi structure of the P2E logic still apply?

This question has been mentioned in the articles I listed earlier. The problem has always existed, and the solution path is clear, but no one has confidence that they can achieve it. For example, everyone knows they need to consume, but who can be certain that consumption will definitely happen? Traditional mobile games have mature experience and data; bringing in that many users will generate that much revenue. If I am not satisfied, I won't bring them in; after all, there will always be recharge to create cash flow. Once players recharge, they can't regret it, right?

Once the consequences of insufficient consumption are imagined, everyone loses confidence. Because the most common occurrence in financial markets is a bank run, those who can trade freely will definitely run first; this will leave teams lacking expectations for adjusting the economy. It’s just that one misstep can lead to a collapse, and it’s game over.

Therefore, for P2E to develop, it can only follow the path of complex economics. Whatever works in the real world, you should do the same. You need to create dozens of industrial chains where products complement each other; for example, the car factory owner makes money to buy a house, the real estate owner makes money to watch a movie, and the movie producer makes money to buy a car. Each has investments and consumption, and the economic cycle can generate profits. The roles in the game are slightly different, but the idea of the industrial chain is correct. First, identify who is most likely to play the consumer role, what "goods" they need, then define the production and consumption of those goods, and gradually expand to various roles.

Another approach is to restrict the free flow of capital. Don't talk about decentralization or permissionlessness; there has never been a purely free market economy that survived. There are always some restrictions, or the "invisible hand" of God. Pure decentralization is against consensus. And consensus is metaphysical; falling assets can rise again, but if consensus drops to zero, it's game over.

Complex economics is an extremely difficult path, to the extent that a specialized sub-discipline has emerged in token economics called "token engineering," hoping to apply engineering thinking to token design. I have previously introduced tools like Machinations, which are still in early development, but from my limited perspective, I am not optimistic that token engineering can make substantial contributions. Economics, as a system, has too many endogenous connections. Has there been any stunning results in chaotic economics from the 1980s to now?

Another line of thought is to completely abandon free economics (or the token system) and only use NFTs for collectible purposes. For example, the first blockchain game on Epic, Blankos, seems to be selling well. This approach is very convenient and can yield quick results. For instance, putting CSGO weapons on-chain does not have a substantial impact on players' perceptions, but rather provides an additional path for asset transfer.

After all this, I want to point out that economic design is not even the current focus of blockchain games; player positioning and guidance are. The aforementioned restrictions essentially put games and players in opposition; if players are determined to go against the game, they will try to ruin it; while games must expend a lot of energy to prevent players from destroying them.

Is there some kind of grudge here?

Because real players may not even know about your game.

This is also the reason why first-generation blockchain games are destined to fail. Poor gameplay and quality mean that even if players leave, there are no losses. But a truly good game is one that players will not want to part with. Even if Blizzard tramples on players a thousand times, when a new game is released, everyone will still kneel to pay; even if games on Switch are sold at high prices, players will still pay. Not to mention the ordinary players who buy discounted games on Steam without playing, only to be backstabbed when they wait for the next discount.

I cannot speak for others, but for myself, having spent money on online games and bought many games on Steam/Switch without playing, I reflect on my psychological activities and genuinely treat games as works, as serious entertainment expenditures. This is no different from buying a book or subscribing to a membership.

From this perspective, many people are bearish on blockchain games because they really do not play games at all. I personally played Fortnite on the Chinese server, and after Tencent bought the rights to the Chinese server, they shelved it, and later shut it down. I have strong opinions on this. I have also played some mobile games, spending money for over half a year. Once I stop spending or temporarily stop playing, I can no longer keep up with the development progress. For these games where I have invested a lot of time and energy, who wouldn’t want to keep a memory? Moreover, if the data is on-chain, I can continue playing Fortnite on the international server and inherit the data from the Chinese server (if it were a blockchain game, there would be no constraints on inheritance).

These are some of the feelings I have accumulated. First, there are players, then there is an economic cycle, and only then can we discuss community governance and ecosystem co-construction issues. If we establish a good player base, replicating or even surpassing games like Fantasy Westward Journey and EVE is not just talk. But if a game is filled with players who are against it, it will be hard not to fail...

Returning to the topic, first, there are players.

Acquiring customers for PC games (specifically those sold for a fee) is very simple. Deep players generally chase after big titles, like GTA6, which players eagerly anticipate year after year. Once released, it will be bought out instantly, requiring almost no marketing. For small and medium-sized works, the core idea is to manage core players well; if the game quality is truly sufficient, players will spread the word themselves. As for mobile games, market costs will be higher, but the money spent on user acquisition will ultimately be earned back from players.

What about blockchain games?

Most blockchain games find it difficult to directly acquire users from the web2 community because the conversion rate is expected to be lower, mainly due to the higher operational threshold of blockchain games. Generally, they choose to build communities, starting with the web3 community, and find ways to stimulate self-propagation effects. At this time, the token system is used as an expectation for airdrops to do some PUA-like things (ah, not really...).

The Hook Protocol, which was very popular in the early stages, brought another idea: attract users with incentives and investors (exchanges, institutions, players) with narratives. The new users are the basic market for exchanges, so exchanges like this kind of project. I have previously illustrated the specific logic, as follows:

Stepn and MIR4 essentially also fall under this logic. However, when it comes to game projects, there are slight differences. For a game to maintain a healthy economy, there needs to be a suitable relationship between the "brick-moving" players and the big spenders. Only when there are enough "brick-moving" players will the big spenders come; but without big spenders, there will be fewer "brick-moving" players. How to acquire customers at a lower cost and in a more suitable way, and how to gradually retain "brick-moving" players as true "players," all require long-term operational refinement.

There is no need to rush.

Market and Operations of Blockchain Games

Originally, I had listed this title in the outline, but when I actually wrote it here, I felt I had already touched on it in bits and pieces...

1. Community. I have always believed that the ultimate focus of blockchain game operations and marketing should be the community, and core energy should be concentrated on building the community well. For example, when the market does soft article promotions, the number of people these articles can ultimately bring into the community actually measures the significance of the promotional activity.

From my personal experience as a player, in traditional games, if I see something good, I can usually just make a reservation on various apps or platforms, and it will automatically download when it goes live; but for blockchain games, there are currently no such platforms. The most reasonable way is to join the community. If it’s through email, it’s easy to forget, of course, it can serve as an auxiliary path.

Let me draw a diagram:

The change in community traffic is not a simple +1 count. Going from 100 to 1000 may not be a tenfold relationship, but rather a qualitative change. Players start asking questions, and someone begins to answer; suggestions start coming in, volunteers emerge, people start inviting friends, casual chats begin, and matches are scheduled... Social interactions are heavily influenced by network effects; sometimes, just one sentence can lead to completely different changes in the community's activity.

As mentioned earlier, the token system basically plays a guiding and expectation role here.

2. Pre-emptive operations. Because the community is important, the timing of establishing the community, operations, pre-sales, and launches needs to be thought out in advance. Most of the time, blockchain game operations are pre-emptive; thinking negatively, it’s like they have been raising pigs early to wait for pre-sales to take the money and run; thinking positively, the longer the consensus-building time, the stronger it will ultimately be.

Of course, pre-emptive operations are not mandatory; if the project party does not have plans to sell assets in advance, they can completely let the product speak for itself, which is an unchanging truth in traditional games.

3. Combining token incentives with UGC. Currently, many projects use airdrop expectations to fish for users, which is one way. However, I believe this UGC should be a continuous state, meaning the game needs to have content that allows players to create while also utilizing incentives to guide the formation of healthy competition within the community.

4. Phase-based goal setting. Different goals lead to different strategies, which in turn lead to different executions.

5. Growth platforms. Although I do not fully endorse the user quality brought by these current growth platforms, as a low-cost traffic diversion method, why not? At most, I will just set up some filtering mechanisms.

6. Collaborating with communities. Currently, many communities only accept games that provide assets, which means both sides are somewhat trying to pull a fast one; they can completely promote a win-win situation together.

7. Creative narratives. This depends on timing and intellect.

8. Content operations. Growth relies on marketing, retention relies on operations; both are big tasks that are easier said than done.

Game Classification and Blockchain Transformation Assessment

Currently, blockchain games are more inclined towards online game formats; because most single-player games are PVE, it is difficult to maintain a stable economy under the premise of free trading. On the other hand, pure single-player games have limited player groups, and intersecting with the web3 community is almost equivalent to none, right?

[Here, you owe me 3000 words]

Full-Chain Games

Full-chain games have gradually become a well-known concept in 2022. In simple terms, apart from assets, the logic of the game will also be transplanted onto the chain, achieving complete "decentralization."

Let me briefly share some of my observations and predictions about current full-chain games:

1. The storyline is not expected to have too much content, but there will be a complete worldview setting;

2. Core gameplay will be emphasized, and either the economic model will be directly abandoned or tightly integrated with it (because fundamentally, game theory needs to be considered);

3. There will be basically no value designs stacked in mobile games; the values will lean more towards strategy/competition, focusing on overall balance;

4. Expectations for artistic expression should not be too high;

5. It will basically be maintained by DAOs, with operations leaning more towards technical maintenance;

6. There will be permissionless composability and interoperability of game assets;

7. True asset ownership;

8. After the ecosystem gradually improves, explosive gameplay innovations will emerge (because development costs are lower); some gameplay will be expanded and flow back into traditional games;

9. Individual technological innovations will benefit the entire blockchain ecosystem (such as session keys);

10. There will be more integration with AIGC, achieving game-level thought experiment simulations;

11. If the development engines and kits are mature enough, ordinary players may also use them to independently complete games.

Currently, the technological development of full-chain games still relies on limited teams, such as 0xPARC, Topology, Lattice, etc. In the absence of economic incentives, it is difficult to predict whether more teams will join. It is undeniable that full-chain games have a beautiful expectation of "self-sovereign worlds," which has a high appeal for most people.

Recently, I have also looked at some full-chain projects, two of which left a deep impression on me:

1. GoL2, which brings the concept of "Conway's Game of Life" to life. With just a few simple rules, it can simulate the evolution of life, giving birth to infinite possibilities. This is also the origin of the earlier point; an AI that evolves automatically based on a decentralized system can even work without AI, just needing a few simple logical rules, which is truly mind-blowing and spine-chilling at the same time...

2. Briq, a game based on the concept of "blocks" (which can be understood as bricks/pixel blocks). Each Briq used in the game is an NFT stored on StarkNet that follows the ERC-1155 standard. Anyone can use these Briqs to build a structure collection and store them as NFTs. Users will collect blocks to create structures but will also need to dismantle existing structures to recover blocks and use them to build new ones. They can also combine NFTs to create more complex structures.

Blocks and buildings are infinitely modular.

How to put it, this project also gave me a jolt. Although, like GoL2, it merely brings the MineCraft idea onto the chain. But this atomic-level co-construction and infinite modularity really make it hard not to let one's imagination run wild. In last year's annual summary, I mentioned that the future of NFTs goes far beyond small image pass cards, but rather "everything on-chain"; then linking it with Briq's design and the concept of dNFTs, it could be very interesting!

Of course, going around in circles to simulate the real world does not have much meaning at the current level of productivity; it’s just a thought experiment.

Regarding full-chain games, I believe some changes worth recording include:

1. Changes in player roles. Players are no longer purely players but become community participants and even game developers. The roles of producers and consumers in games have completely blurred; everyone jointly builds something, and then everyone jointly uses it. This is what current blockchain games claim but cannot achieve, nor is it necessary to do so.

2. Separation of development, operation, and governance rights. Developers or operators are no longer the "designated" stakeholders; the governance and maintenance of the game can be completely transferred to the community, and full-chain games will truly belong to the players. It is even possible to NFT-ize the operational rights, achieving semi-free flow.

I wonder if anyone still remembers the Wolf-Sheep game. Once full-chain games reach a certain stage, there will definitely be a fork in the path: one will continue to innovate and explore the limits; the other will delve into deep strategies and game theory. Given the fervent speculative nature of the crypto community, it is hard to say there won't be a wave of excitement.

Gamified Products

This is the last point I want to briefly mention in this article.

I have always believed that most of the ideas behind games and products overlap significantly. The difference is that games have more complex internal systems; while products strive to simplify player operations, in addition to meeting emotional needs, there are also many practical business needs.

A distinguishing feature of blockchain-based projects is that the introduction of tokens changes the relationship between products and users. Traditional products cater to user needs, while web3 projects (of course, they also need to cater) create demand. Stepn is a typical example; I often compared it with Keep, pointing out its advantages in user incentives.

Of course, economic collapse is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed, whether through consumption or transfer payments from B-end advertising revenue. Many applications in the Toutiao ecosystem pay users for daily activity, which is a normal logic—some users cherish their attention, while others do not (and are not even aware of the value of attention).

When will users actively clarify the value of their attention and data? It is hard to say. Because producing attention and some data (referring to passive production) incurs almost no cost for users (or they are unaware of the consumption), they naturally do not seek returns.

This is precisely where web3 products can achieve a dimensionality reduction strike. However, to stimulate players' interest in participation, more game elements need to be incorporated into the product. Countless people criticize games for being pay-to-win and addictive, yet no one notices the profound insights into human nature behind game design. I will place a small bet here: gamified products will become a popular product form as blockchain moves towards widespread application; if I lose the bet...

Then I will have lost fifty cents in my total assets👀

References

https://mirror.xyz/matchboxdao.eth/d3lVAOa9Bi0kY-caoUT3lDC6E61mWJqtP1q6tME4xGY

https://naavik.co/deep-dives/forte-blockchain-infrastructure

https://0xparc.org/blog/procgen

https://www.guiltygyoza.xyz/2022/08/game2-in-schematics

https://mirror.xyz/matchboxdao.eth/VXOvLKIvfXHP-cusKHw55zqlHpvvWwzh_fqm6j48Yek

Mysterious Links

@jojonas_xyz Node Layer Article Public Chain Article