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...
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.
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
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.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a really unfortunate development in the space.
Frozen NFT assets is a problem just waiting to happen - eventually, a non-insignificant percentage of a collection will be deemed stolen in some capacity.
What happens when you reach the point of no return?
It also impacts many who have no intent of being participants.
For example: @LooksRareNFT creates a collection bid feature. User A bids on entire collection. Stolen/hacked asset X gets sold to highest bidder, i.e. the collection bidder (user A). No intent, all the repercussions.
This all boils down to the same argument as tainted BTC; since the asset happened to hop through a deemed “bad” waypoint, it is somehow worth less as a result.
This is exacerbated because BTC is fungible, while NFTs are not.
Phase I of NFT-based gaming was the introduction of P2E mechanics and the activation of the sweat equity —> equity migration of user<>game relationship
Phase II, in my opinion, will be led by the introduction of games that are playable without financial incentives
What takes us there?
Likely the introduction of IP heavy gaming with lore/backstory and continuous non repetitive gameplay
Think that a traditional game with NFT ownership overlay makes a lot of sense in Phase II.
We are not yet ready for fully on chain games.
Having a traditional game with NFT overlay may also add a tack on benefit of enticing the gaming community at large.
It is a big roadblock that they hate NFT gaming, which is inherently beneficial for them.
1/ Today, the Arca NFT Fund acquired two plots of Genesis Land in the @AxieInfinity ecosystem. The @SkyMavisHQ team was able to catch lightning in a bottle, popularizing/implementing the term “play-to-earn” and kicking off an impressive growth period for the gaming sector.
2/ Being long term supporters of Axie means that we have had the opportunity to watch the ecosystem grow first hand with assets like $AXS, $RON, $SLP; however, until now, we had no avenue to gain direct exposure to in-game assets.
3/ We carry the belief that there is a significant dislocation in the entire market between the aggregate value of NFTs in an ecosystem and the value of the ecosystem itself. Lower TAM, less infrastructure, and less knowledge/comfort in the direct NFT ecosystem are key drivers.
If I am understanding this correctly, this falls directly in line with @eliasimos thread on 'untagged' miner addresses gaining ground and the news break of large scale Bitcoin mining facilities popping up (Texas, for instance).
Nonce patterns like this (gaps in the pretty chart that @100trillionUSD made) indicate that nonces are occurring *significantly* less often in certain regions. In theory, nonce values should be randomly generated, however based on a pool setup, certain patterns usually emerge 2/x
You can see this in action in the bottom left of the chart, where Satoshi (presumably) mined the majority of the early blocks. While nonces are speckled across the Y-axis (nonce value), they is certainly a volume disparity in location of the nonces. 3/x
I see this argument pop up every once in a while - the numbers look shocking. While the number that @iam_preethi provided is less than shown on @bitinfocharts (2.83%,95.44%), there is a frame of reference that needs to be taken into account: Mini thread
Of the Top 10 richest Bitcoin addresses, 7 of them are exchange wallets (4.0894% of total BTC). Exchange wallets are either amalgams of their customers holdings, or insurance funds in the event of a breach.
Of the remaining 18 out of the Top 25 wallets, 9 of them were first created prior to 2017 - 2 in 2010, 1 in 2011, 1 in 2013, 1 in 2014, 2 in 2015, and 2 in 2016. These wallets contain 2.3471% of total BTC.