Many are chastising the play-to-earn #NFT model, and for good reason - the flywheel is temporary, unsustainable, and creates artificial mercenary demand.
Money coming out of a vacuum (treasury tokens) into circulation creates a breakpoint collapse.
BUT...
Money coming out of a vacuum (treasury tokens) into circulation creates a breakpoint collapse.
BUT...
IMO, that is not the end-game of #P2E. The goal is to bootstrap the in-game economy to the point where it becomes self sufficient.
If the game can pull in revenues (from royalties, ads, sponsorships, tournaments, pro leagues, IP growth, etc), it supplants the need for dilution.
If the game can pull in revenues (from royalties, ads, sponsorships, tournaments, pro leagues, IP growth, etc), it supplants the need for dilution.
The reason it hasn't worked to date is three-fold:
1) The assets themselves are subject to the health of a greater market (i.e, not siloed risk)
2) The exponential growth in the sector created problems for the runway of the bootstrap
3) Many games have yet to reach product stage
1) The assets themselves are subject to the health of a greater market (i.e, not siloed risk)
2) The exponential growth in the sector created problems for the runway of the bootstrap
3) Many games have yet to reach product stage
Gaming is an arduous industry; shouldn't expect PoC/MVP products/gameplay to break through a $500B+ traditional market in the first few years.
P2E/NFT in-game assets is a net benefit for the gaming industry; just not in its current form. I wouldn't write it off just yet.
P2E/NFT in-game assets is a net benefit for the gaming industry; just not in its current form. I wouldn't write it off just yet.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
