first level title
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 provide more high-quality talents for Web3. We dont think that 2 and 3 are binary opposites, and 3 is definitely not constructed on the extreme standpoint of dwarfing 2. More DAO-like Citizens are welcome to join and build together with us. Linktree: https://linktr.ee/2dao3
first level title
Activity review
On July 23, 2022, 2DAO3 held the second closed-door exchange meeting. The event was co-organized by 2DAO3 and Wlabs, and had the honor 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 content has been edited and adjusted.
Speakers:
secondary title
AMA recap
【Macro-Industry Perspective】
1) Overall, what are the similarities and differences between the business models of Web3 games and Web2 games?
Keynote Speaker @Jeffrey Web2
There are basically several types of game business models: download charges, subscription charges, DLC/skin micro-transactions, and in-game ad placement. For Web3 games, what we have seen the most is the fee commission for selling land, selling props, and trading markets. The game business model of Web3 has great advantages over Web2 from the perspective of financing and liquidity. This kind of business model is indeed subversive to traditional games, but many of the games we have seen so far that are obsessed with the Web3 model have turned into funds in the end. Both the founding team and users are paying attention to the trading volume of the market, rather than 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 a 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 smoke skins, or spend time and money watching and skipping 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 thing the founding team should think about is how to get players to return to the game ecology spontaneously, rather than how to design economic incentives to attract players to rush to buy, or what kind of repurchase mechanism the treasury should have. Let the players money-making benefits last longer. Without good game content to attract more users to join in, no matter how excellent tokenomics is, it will be FarmDump in the end. There are many business models from Web2 games that Web3 has not yet seen, 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?
(Delphis article named the fund setting of chain games, which damaged the game sense of some loyal players in the original game) Speaker @Kluxury
Most of my perspectives are based on Web3 players, so some views may be different from those of several guests. Answer the first question first: the difference between Web2 and Web3. Compared with Web2 games, the current Web3 games have a very big gap in terms of gameplay, content, picture quality, etc.; there are off-chain games and on-chain interactions that are generally criticized by everyone. 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 perfectly moved the traditional game quality and other aspects to the chain (game tokens tokenization, game props NFTization, etc.), in my opinion, the liquidity of tokens and NFTs is a more important point, and it is also A rather restrictive point. The very important difference between the business models of Web 2 and Web 3 is that the game props of Web 2 are a one-time fee charged by the game company, and do not have the so-called transaction attribute. For example, the skins we bought or smoked in the glory of the king and the original gods, there is no way to trade them. In the short term, it is beneficial to game companies, as they can continue to launch activities and sell props. But it is not necessarily beneficial to the long-term development of the entire game industry. In Web 3, the tradability and circulation of game items is its core. Game companies generally earn profits from circulation fees, and this fee is repeated 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 various games will be interoperable, which will definitely be good for the entire industry. Liquidity of game funds is very important. Limited mobility also limits the development of the game to a certain extent, including player experience. For example, randomness and game play are some indispensable attributes of many games. Traditional Web2/3 games have various activities such as lottery draws, blind boxes, 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) pool to make transactions, and then store the token in the game. Here, the LP pool needs to have a certain depth. The current gamefi funding depth is not particularly large. Generally, chain game LPs only account for 10% to 20% of tokens. Even if the game content is fun enough, the lack of liquidity will limit the consumption of krypton gold players. There is only so much market liquidity, and there is no way to meet the needs of large players. Farmers World stood out and was largely favored by the sz fund market. The fund accommodating rate is high enough, and large funds can enter the market, so there is no problem. In response to this problem, I have some preliminary ideas: such as borrowing or some Lego games, and at the same time, it can solve the Ponzi problem that has no actual 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 the sharing of NFT between guild players: you still own the equipment, but others can have the right to use it.
3) How to choose between traditional business model and Crypto business model?
Keynote Speaker @Aiko
Answer the previous questions first: First, the size of the capital: It is the logic of defi to allow large funds to come in comfortably. If the liquidity is good, large funds can enter the market. But in the logic of the game itself, everyone will expect a large return if they invest a large amount. This is a double-edged sword, and the game has no external liquidity to speak of. But if we now require 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. It may be a technology tree developed by blockchain or Web 3 games. It lets everyone know this The existence of this thing, and then it also brought fire to the guild. However, apart from the first three guilds, their market value is actually very small, and their bargaining power is not high. If there is no top-tier game, the subsequent guilds will have no bargaining power, so it is inappropriate to lend money to the guild on this basis. Borrowing at the same time is something that 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 cant afford the money taste the sweetness, and at the same time keep the landlord from losing money, so that the two parties can play a game, and there are many rules in it. 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 partys own products. There is no absolute right or wrong. Everything is based on the project partys own expectations for revenue. He wants to Cash flow still wants tokenomic. 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. Legendary 4 coins fell particularly sharply. But there are many games in wemix, the currency price of wemix is not bad, and the stock price of wemix seems to have tripled. Everyones source of income is different, so the things you can do are different.
The second is chain reform. Some waist manufacturers, who cannot get the version number in China, want to change this game chain and add a few tokens or a few NFTs to the chain. Conduct INOs and ICOs. But users and VC need to consider the value capture of the currency price.
The third layer is the traditional payment methods, 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 same as Crypto, so they want to recharge directly with credit cards and deposit with legal currency. When charging, I want to use the subscription system and pay according to the duration. Outflow will encounter some troublesome problems, for example, can your token allow players to exchange for equivalent legal currency recharges? Can you set a floating exchange rate, or an oracle, and use the oracle to determine the price.
The fourth level is biased towards games such as defi. For example, league of kingdoms (Note: MMO multiplayer strategy game, PVE is played in that players can buy land in the form of NFT, and land owners can harvest 5% of the game’s internal resources on their land. In addition, 10% of the game’s internal sales The net profit will be shared with landowners in the form of xDAI (USD stablecoin). Later, the game was raised 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), the gameplay is to play three dragons together. There may be some compromises when designing the gameplay, and there may be some compromises with the target users when designing tokens, but it depends on which side the project side wants to lean towards (Defi or game users).
The fifth layer is the game on the whole chain. It is similar to the previous fomo 3D. It borrowed from the mechanism of bancor, and later defi summer appeared. This kind of game game on the whole chain, if it can make some innovations in the contract layer or the game layer, it may be the next generation. A breaking point. Another full-chain game is dark forest, which writes all the gameplay logic on the chain. But we feel that dark forest is actually not a good economic carrier. It now uses xdai to reward users in every round of competition, or uses stable currency to reward, and the community has to engage in competitions round after round. It can actually have a full-chain game with a world view, a very natural mental model. The planning project side of the details is 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 area, which is similar to the big game. This is actually quite fun, and in the current situation, it should be able to arouse everyones fomo emotions as much as possible. When it comes to the traditional game model and the crypto model, I talked to some project leaders or some traditional game owners. What they value most is cash flow. Maybe most of the successful projects now are Maybe IDO and others have paid back their capital. This is actually a bit like a high-leverage model. For example, in the real estate industry in China, developers can basically use 99% leverage to buy land. It is all money from banks or trusts. you. So if an industry develops upwards, 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 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 on the chain game)? Guest speaker @Aiko The entire market is actually changing with the user habits of players. Now the player only has 5 minutes or 10 minutes, which is a particularly fragmented time to play the game, and there is no way to force him to return to the era of MMO. Now many overseas developers of Web3 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 applied to crypto games. Yuanshin or that kind of card-drawing character develops cards, but you have to pile up content, which requires a very high ability for the teams continuous operation, or it requires very high requirements for the overall depth of the character card pool.
If the card refers to the card of pure Hearthstone, an example is sky weaver. It actually uses AMM cards. You can think about it, does my card really need so much liquidity? Its value and how to guarantee the efficiency of each field. sky weaver has a 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. They will have tokens and sticker card skin rewards in the next version, and the fee structure will be very rigid. Their team does not make games, so they don’t think from a player-first perspective, but are more technical, because they have things like wallets and AMMs, so they don’t think from a player-oriented perspective. For match-3 leisure, you can take a look at gamee ($gamee), which was used a lot in polygon India. Every time you finish a mini-game, you will be given a little cash. The traditional Web 2 is also doing this. The main problem here is the perception of currency value. Compared with traditional Web 2 casual games that do cash dividends, the value perception is weaker and the threshold is higher, so 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 to sell NFT, and everyone will not use it in 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 natural warfare in it, which is a consumption mode. Can current players understand this mechanism? Secondly, at the level of go to market, if its user ecology is not a balanced ecology of Web 2+Web3, but an ecology of pure Web3 players, it is actually no different from the current Ponzi, which is the internal mutual game and competition.
An interesting example of Auto Chess: Arrivants economic model. For example, from level 1 to 100, I can only obtain resource A at level one, resource B at level two and resource C at level three; recruit some friends in the guild, and gradually upgrade, and friends at other levels can collect other resources Come and feed me. I don’t think this model will work. The time spent by a player will be linked to his experience, growth, and growth to his level. It’s hard to calculate how many level 20 players there are in a server, and how many 60 players, and then you have to give them resource cards. Its gameplay is to look like tower defense (note: tower defense game refers to a kind of real-time strategy computer game that prevents enemies from reaching fortresses in the game by building turrets or similar buildings on the map.), but it is a rhythm Very fast tower defense. I can play five waves of enemy attacks in 5 minutes, and I basically change my tactics every minute. 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 is a fee, a bit like some cards.
【Micro - Investment Perspective】
What kind of services and assistance can VC provide for start-up companies or transforming enterprises? (What should the team ask for VC) Keynote speaker @Aiko
What I want to talk about more is, as a project party, what do you ask the organization to do? Just go ask them, dont be shy, if they dont give you thats 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 come into contact with some institutions and FA recommended resources at the earliest stage. There are good and bad in this field, and as I said just now, it depends on the expectations of the project party itself. If I just want to make games well, create new ways to play, and want more Web2 players, I may go to the flow ecology or the solana ecology. But your FA is someone who is familiar with some local dog dishes, so you may still need some snacks when you go to find them.
The first point is that you can ask them to sort out the project developers and user ecology in each ecology of the chain for you, and he can contact you for any support from the side of your chain ecology. These are the things you need to negotiate early on.
The second point is that you have to adjust your VC as well. Your VC knows a lot of people, but you dont want to be everything.
The third point is financing advice. When you seek financing, it doesnt have to be VC, but it can also be the project itself. Reliable projects may give you greater help in terms of technical cooperation, ecological cooperation, or funding. The game team goes to reach out some guilds early in the seed round.
【Macro-Transformation Perspective】
If a Web 2 company wants to transform, how should it choose between [Chain Game Development to Metaverse] or [Embedded Chain Game in Metaverse Scene]? Keynote Speaker @Kluxury
Card games: Whether it’s skyweaver or earlier splinterlands (which occupies the top of the Dappradar user list all the year round), it mainly relies on offline competitions to maintain its popularity. Card games are not suitable for the existing P2E model. If there are no new ones With a completely subversive model, it is difficult to stand out at GameFi.
SLG strategy: I think our blockchain is currently one of the most difficult types of chain reform. Because SLG war is an early experience game, after getting familiar with the game, players start to conflict, and the more conflicts in the later stage, the more resources will be consumed. There is no doubt that it is a game type with strong krypton gold ability, but the game rhythm is relatively slow and hot, and it is not suitable for the fast-in and fast-out rhythm of the current currency circle.
MMORPG category: It is not optimistic in the short term, and the requirements for difficulty and cost are too high. However, as the future vision of Metaverse, once the basic framework is established, the adaptation scene of MMORPG will appear. As a traditional game, the MMORPG PC side has indeed stagnated for a long time. Now everyone is playing some games from 2014 or even earlier, and more manufacturers are telling stories. I think it is caused by the whole environment and the fragmentation of players time, but if given the chance, I believe many players will still look forward to the scene of Top Player.
[From game development to Metaverse] Originally, I just wanted to make games. Games have a life cycle, and when they reach a certain stage, they transition to storytelling. Make the second and third games and combine them into one platform. Some projects, including axie/Raca, are in the stage of teaching users about the metaverse.
[Embedded chain games in metaverse scenes] 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 other things in the future. Gala definitely wants to create its own entire ecology, but its rhythm is very 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 endless relatively large RPG games, from Web 3 users From a perspective, everyone doesnt pay much. The key is that the entire ecology is not connected enough. Between the two games, apart from selling NFTs and some linkage between NFTs, there is no other content, not to mention the in-game composability that players are looking forward to. Projects like sandbox with land as the core currently show more social or IP creation content, which I have not included in the big ecology for discussion.
My personal point of view is that the entry point will not affect too much the development of the entire project in building the game ecology, but there will be some differences in the difficulty of entry and the risk factor. The difficulty of entering a single game will be relatively small, but due to life cycle, environmental issues, and the consensus of speculating new ones rather than old ones, once the popularity goes down, it will be much more difficult to get back up.
Those traditional game companies in 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 they are actually implemented. In my opinion, a very critical point is that their thinking mode is still stuck in the tradition. For example, if you build a game platform, take a few outdated games from the database and put them on the shelves, boast about IP, and sell PFP, players may not necessarily pay the bill. Not to mention the chain change of a single game, gold coins into sub-coins, diamonds into parent coins, and blind boxes into NFTs.
Players of Web 3 are not pure gamers. The entire ecological economic model is also critical. Storytelling should be well-founded and implemented step by step in combination with your own roadmap. They dont care about the background of the big Web 2 companies, but more about the implementation of the roadmap, which will give more confidence to community users 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 ideas on the design of the economic model? Keynote Speaker @Kluxury
There are several schemes already in place. In the future, NFT must be a very important part of gamefi. Let’s take a brief introduction to the NFT template today:
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 currently the most stable system and has been verified by the market. So I am using the dual-token model for the time being.
NFT trading market: It must be the project partys own trading market, and third-party trading markets cannot be used. Taxation is at least at the current stage the main source of income for the project party.
DAO treasury: At present, more are still in the narrative stage. The main scenario 1 is a common scenario of GameFi1.0 with partial Ponzi structure, and the later entry funds continuously contribute to the previous funds. In many cases, the project party puts the selling pressure of tokens on NFT, and when the NFT reservoir overflows, it will cause a death spiral.
Extending upwards, here we feel that there are too few role choices for players in many projects. 99% of the players who enter the field earn money by mining, raising and selling this single scene. Therefore, we increase the scene and increase the reservoir. . PVE, PVP, and scenarios need to be differentiated. Overall, it is to give more empowerment through interests and consensus. Of course, these are all at different times. Horizontally, enrich the setting 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, the judgment standard and repair of the lifespan mechanism.
Extending downwards is different from extending upwards. The number of props increases significantly when going downwards. Delay the life cycle of the entire project through various ways of playing. The content of downward gameplay is also what traditional games are best at. A few points of view:
At least for now, Web2 users and Web3 users have very different attributes, and the ways of drainage are also different.
Ponzi has no problems in the initial stage of the project, the key point is whether the subsequent model can absorb the previous bubble
The money earned by the project party must mainly rely on taxation, rather than completely relying on funds that enter the market later
The establishment of consensus is not difficult, especially with the blessing of a certain IP. The difficulty is how to maintain it. The community is very important.
If the project party is very confident in its game content, gameplay, image quality and other aspects, no matter 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 in the future. For example, when a society was first established, everyone could beat local tyrants and share the land. Slowly entering the prosperous period, we must have a system and stable taxation; I hope to discuss this point with the audience later.
【Macro-Transformation Perspective】
RCTs practical experience and challenges (financing, products, users) from Web2 game company strategic transformation to Web3 (mirror world, delysium, etc) guest speaker @Jeffrey
Since 2018, RCT has been strategically positioned 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 create a multiplayer shooting game familiar to traditional Web2 game players. The future goal is to provide an in-game editor, so that users and publishers can create their own game scenes and props, while adding interactive digital asset practices.
In September last year, we started to work on the Mirror world project, taking over RCTs original idea and doing a complementary meta being. The team spent a month making AI NFT, while doing community content and learning experience. In November last year, I joined the gamefi direction, intending to do more in the digital world of asset interaction in the game.
At present, the capture of the ecological value of NFT transactions 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 varies greatly. We are currently starting with casual games on the mobile side. The multi-game interoperable game Matrix can solve the user experience, including the fluidity problem of game ecological decentralization. On top of this, we will provide game developers with mobile SDK to create new content. The ultimate vision is to allow all players who play our games and developers who use our editors to be under a closed ecological loop. We recently joined the ecology of solana in May, their hardware phone, and we hope to see more developers join the ecology of Web 3 mobile applications 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 strong metaphysical and philosophical thinking abilities. The articles on RCT’s WeChat official account are particularly good. The underlying AI also has a game engine, and the accumulation of technology is also very strong. The middle is the commercial part, including the understanding of gamefi and user experience in these dimensions.
【Micro-User Perspective】
How can Web 3 games impress Web 2 game users? What user needs need to be met? Keynote Speaker @Jeffrey
First, the gameplay of the game. The most fundamental product appeal is to become a way of pastime for people. The successful cases of Web3 with a very large transaction volume are often not pastime, but gold mining. But in the ecology of traditional games, making gold is only a small part. A good gold mining ecology requires giant whales on the one hand, and a good growth base of casual gamers.
Secondly, closely related to the gameplay is the price. More than half of Web2 game revenue comes from free-to-play games. Call of Duty, a paid game with head traffic, only sells a copy for 70 dollars, and the development cost of the next Call of Duty is as high as 300 million U.S. dollars. From the perspective of impressing Web2 users, it is unrealistic for players to spend a few hundred dollars to buy tickets to a gold mining game that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to make.
Next, is user experience. In traditional games such as mobile games, players complete a micro-transaction, at most two or three operations, and the consumption threshold is extremely low. However, for Web 3 games, it is necessary to see which trading platform has the lowest handling fee, prepare it in the wallet in advance, and have to switch to multiple platforms at the same time. The threshold for getting started is too high for traditional game players. Multi-platform transactions outside the game will also cause game developers to miss many points of value capture. Most project parties will eventually return to the original selling land and props. Finally, for Web 3 games, good player socialization and network effects are the key to surviving when the crypto market is turbulent. Although many Web2 games do not design strong player social and interactive mechanisms. Because doing p2e, assets are on the chain, and liquidity is closely related to the encrypted 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 the intrinsic value given to NFT props. And when the market falls and giant whales start to ship, the interaction and intrinsic value of these props will become the key to the user Hodl.
text
1. From the perspective of financial regulation, especially macro-prudential regulation, how do you view the impact of tokens and stablecoins in the game on the financial system?
@Ken——Partner of PwC China Financial Institution Services Department
The overall design of economics is very much related to the logic of this finance. From my point of view, there are two very important issues in the middle:
The first problem is to solve the trust problem. When people trade with a centralized market, it is an unequal transaction in finance. It is necessary to build peoples trust in the system and solve the problem of expectations. It can be said that everyones value of 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 cryptocurrency, 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 cause systemic problems in the financial system. Risky - behavioral resonance effects. So this is why I saw the risk of terra before. After many security token ICOs, because it does not have a very reasonable mechanism, because there is no hedging effect on 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 income by doing long NFT, and some people get income by short selling. What is simulated is the expected situation of the financial society, and thus the price formed, not just the income brought by the appreciation of assets by all people, thus forming the Ponzi state. At the very beginning, the value structure of the asset base can be formed through Ponzi. But if the value of the entire asset is maintained under this Ponzi, a very large bubble will appear. If there is no self-digestion mechanism in the whole system, a reaction in the same direction will be formed.
The second is a cross-game transaction 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 the value of different games, which can be dispersed under the expectations of different people to form his expectations and form differences in expectations. Finally, to solve the problem of trust, there needs to be a relatively more neutral intermediary organization, and value acquisition is based on social structure, for example, some people supply labor, and some people increase assets (sell land). Thereby forming a hedge and reducing the overall risk of the macro environment.
Finally, when forming a consensus mechanism, different rule designs need to be incorporated 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 will be no way to stabilize the structure at the system level.
Moderator @Mike
From the standpoint of the players, we found that if all players in the game think that the payback period is 30 days, the death spiral of the game will be faster than anyone else; if the entire model of a game is more complicated, the payback period calculated by the players will fluctuate within a range , the life cycle of the game is longer instead. We add nesting dolls and replicas layer by layer in the model, which will increase its overall volatility.
@Ken—— Partner of PwC China Financial Institution Services Department
text
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 learn from the relevant experience and lessons of defi? @mindao - Founder of dforce
The three axes of DeFi: stable currency, lending, and swap; the combination of NFT side is more lending scenarios. Many people think whether gamefi also needs to have a stable currency with the dollar or a specific currency.
Decentraland is the earliest Metaverse game on Ethereum. Land pricing is basically priced with mana coins, but the friction cost is high. We are now seeing another trend, the fiat currency stable currency, or the stable currency of its own system will become the core component of gamefi in the future. This has several very typical benefits. We have seen that decentralized stablecoins in defi have already come out. This is already a verified model through over-collateralization.
GameFi is a crypto economy, which has the needs of transactions and loans, and it is an organic demand. The logic here will be healthier than the logic of defi we have seen. The demand is a benign and essential consumption demand, unlike Defi, which is mostly mining and leverage demand, which is very cyclical. For gamefi, the benefits of being a stable currency are self-evident.
Metaverse games need to interact with other games to form an economy, and the economic value spills over, which highlights the value more. Here, the stable currency is a very natural bridge, connecting the outside world and other game economies without friction. The stablecoin interest rate policy regulation itself is controlled by the gamefi operator, which is convenient for extending the entire economic system outward. Now the Gamefi stablecoin doesnt think so much.
I think it’s mainly a matter of stages. For example, STEPN’s self-built DEX, because DEX is the scene with the largest exchange demand, and stablecoins may reach the next stage; the lending scene has begun to expand, and various NFTs have mutual lending and mutual leverage needs. At this time, stable currency will naturally become an option. I think that in the next one to two years, gamefi will definitely launch a stable currency from the system. I think its best to design stablecoins into the Gamefi economic model early on. The sooner it is done, 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.
text
3. How to set up a mechanism to allow game users to trade more on the built-in NFT platform to prevent outflow to the Opensea platform? @Mike Kluxury
Two ways. The first one is that on the built-in platform, the fee is lower than that of Opensea; the second is that it is written in the contract that 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 problem involves the problem 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 studios script production efficiency is much higher than that of ordinary players, which affects fairness. We hope to use the built-in NFT platform of the project to solve the problem of scripting: In terms of transaction threshold and handling fee settings, it is uneconomical to transfer NFT to another account on the external trading platform, and then deposit gold.
From a players point of view, they are actually not very good at trading on Opensea. opensea is oriented to all NFT projects, and game NFT attributes are very diverse. Its own platform will have a screening system, making it easier to compete. Chain game aggregator, as Gamefis 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 with a life cycle of half a year to a year, then there will be more and more such aggregation platforms (stepN already had such a plan before).
