The one-token model or the two-token model has been a crypto game for a while - it is commonly referred to as a web3 game, but personally, I think this term describes nothing about the characteristics of the game, so I will call it a crypto game - to design an economic system or tokenomics. It has become a pretty big topic. From the point of view of a person who designed a traditional game, I saw a tweet "One token models or two token models have been a hot topic in the design of economic systems or tokenomics for crypto games - which I personally prefer to call "crypto games" rather than "web3 games," as the latter term does not really describe the characteristics of the games - for a while now. A tweet suggesting a model called "no token model" for web3 games ('1 token model? 2 token model? How about a no token model for web3 games!') proposing a model using the rather sensational term, the so-called no-token model. After interpreting the model, I would like to explain that it is actually closer to a tentative got me thinking about how a traditional game designer might interpret a no token model, and in fact it seems to be closer to what is called a multi-utility token model."
Personally, I think that after AxiinfinityAxie Infinity, I created thought it was fine to just create two tokens directly linked to the blockchain for my game project without much thought and used projects and use them as a utility token tokens and a governance token, tokens respectively. There was already a successful case This approach has already had successful cases in the market for this method, so there was no need to think deeply about it. But now it's However, now is the time to think deeply about it. It is not a matter of how many tokens are linked to link to the game, but fundamentally, we must consider whether it is necessary to directly link tokens that are directly linked to the blockchain to in -the game should be considereditself.
If you replace the A utility token with a more familiar word to us, you can call it ‘dia’. There is a complete can be called a "diamond." Diamonds correspond one-to-one correspondence with Dia. Diamonds can be exchanged for with fiat currency at the in an in-game marketplace. ConverselyOn the other hand, diamonds cannot be exchanged for legal fiat currency. Most games strictly control transactions in the opposite direction , and this direction exchange must be controlled of the trade in order to comply with Korean law, so they must control the opposite direction of the exchange. Diamonds can be exchanged for other resources in -the game currency and other resources. They . Resources that players produce themselves can be exchanged for resources through the Exchange where players produce their own resourcesthrough a marketplace that rises, or they can be exchanged for in-game currency , or gold as we are more familiar with the term"gold," which is a term that is more familiar to us, in the in-game marketplace. Most of the transactions in Still, most games strictly control the opposite direction are still strictly controlled, of the trade and this feature is an important mechanism for maintaining the device that maintains the traditional game's economic system of traditional games.
Governance tokens have There is no counterpart to governance tokens in traditional games. Crypto games open provide a way for the game user users - as distinct distinguished from the player players - to participate in the game's key major decision-making of the game. Governance tokens are used as a means to participate in key major decision-making in of the game. It They can be matched compared to shares with voting rights in the real world. Crypto games employing that adopt governance tokens try aim to reduce uncertainty about inflation by limiting the total amount issuance of issued governance tokens and to create value with from the limited amount of issuance itself. In addition, They also mainly allow investors to acquire governance tokens are mainly acquired by investors.
The problem that arises from In this structure is that, as is widely known, there is a difference in the orientation of , the problems that arise are well-known: the actual in-game players and investors may have different goals, and the will of the players is not players' desires may not be reflected in the main major decision-making of in the game. Traditional games have a lot of ways for allowed players to have a voice, and this opinion will voice their opinions through various means and have had those opinions influence future updates to the game. However, Crypto games that employ adopt separate governance tokens, such as Cryptokitties, can affect updates only by holding be influenced by updates through the possession of governance tokens, so decisions can be made which means that decision-making can occur in a way direction that is irrelevant unrelated to the wishes of the players' wishes. In theory, governance token holders of governance tokens should make decisions from the right perspective in the a long run - primarily what makes the players happy - but in practice -term, player-centered perspective, but there is a possibility that this may not always be the case in practice.
I can't cannot agree with the statement that one token cannot be optimized for multiple goals, as mentioned in the takeaway in the tweet thread abovein the tweet thread that was mentioned in the perspective that it is not possible to optimize for multiple goals with just one token. However, I do agree that the twoTwo-token Token model did not fail on its own, but because rather that the entire economy as a whole was unsustainable. However, the explanations listed above the claim do not support provide a solid basis for the claim that one token cannot be optimized it is not possible to optimize for multiple goals with just one token. There are is still no clear criteria for deciding which token model to introduce adopt in crypto Crypto games, or a case that and there are no clear examples of cases where a token model does not only work only in a bull marketsmarket.
Here, we propose a nothe No-token Token model. The noNo-token Token model is literally a system that does not have a currency linked to a blockchain that is used in-game. Similar in which there is no currency that is integrated into the blockchain that is applied to the game. It is similar to the economic system of traditional games that has been described aboveearlier, in which diamonds, gold, and resources are circulated in-within the game , and resources are issued through exchange with legal currency tender outside of the game, diamonds . Diamonds can be exchanged for gold and resources, and gold is can also be exchanged for resources, but each The reverse the opposite direction of exchange is a limiting systemrestricted. Here, we propose the composition of legal currency tender - expressed referred to as off-chain currency - and resource NFT linked to blockchain resources that can be used for in-on the blockchain that is integrated into the game.
In English:
The game can still control the economy through the minting issuance and burning of in-game currency. What is embarrassing when trying to design When designing an economic system that allows directly uses tokens linked to the blockchain to be directly used in -the game, the challenge is that to make the in-game economic system remains intact despite the situation in which transactions occurring work smoothly, even in situations where transactions on the blockchain that , which the game cannot control directly affect the in-game. is to make it work. Theoretically, it's , have a direct impact on the game. It may be theoretically possible, but in practice it 's is likely to easily break easilydown in practice. Therefore, if the token tokens linked to the blockchain enters the in-are made to enter the game through a one-way exchange step stage like the relationship that between legal currency tender and diamond, diamonds, it will be possible to apply the same method of designing the economic system of systems for traditional games will be applied and the , using the economic system design know-how of economic system design accumulated over the past 20 years will be used. you will be able to This . From the perspective of traditional games, this is not a problem from a traditional game perspective, but the player's and investor orientations 's preferences are not divided at the token level, reducing so the possibility of playing solely for play for the purpose of obtaining tokens or making short-term profit decisionsdecision-making for profit is reduced.
From a crypto-gaming perspectivethe perspective of Cryptocurrency games, players can still own their investment in -the game investments via through the blockchain by NFTing their tokenizing in-game resources . Until they are as NFTs. Before being issued as NFTs, in-game resources are blockchain-agnostichave no relation to the blockchain, so they don't do not require a wallet and thus don't do not complicate onboarding. Also, players are not directly affected by fiat currency inflation. Of course, it can be affected indirectly because NFT prices fall. However, the in-game economy will not be directly affected by external inflation as when the currency linked to the blockchain is used directly in-game, and at least in-game, it can be expected to operate the same as before. Finally, it eliminates Players also do not receive direct impact from the inflation of legal tender. Of course, there is a possibility of indirect impact if the price of NFTs decreases. However, when tokens linked to the blockchain are directly used in the game, the in-game economy does not receive direct impact from external inflation, and it is expected to function the same as before at least within the game. Finally, the need to manage tokens linked to the blockchain , thus providing relative freedom from regulatory issues.Compared to the oneis eliminated, making them relatively free from regulation issues.
Although the term "notoken model" is somewhat biased compared to the "on-token model" or the "two-token model, I used the rather sensational term of no-token model, but I think it's " I think it is more accurate to see consider it as a "multi-utility token strictly speaking. If it's a true notebook model, it's ." A true "note-token model" is exactly the same as the a traditional game. Here, it should be noted that when When tokenizing in-game resources are NFTized, the NFT's T is still a 'token'. Many as NFTs, it is important to note that the "T" in NFT still stands for "token." Various in-game resources remain as in-game resources when issued, but can be converted to NFTs and traded through the blockchain when players want. These tokens can then be returned in-game through a conversion process to affect the economy, making them comparable to tokens in traditional crypto games. Therefore, it should desire. This token then affects the economy by returning to the game through the conversion process, so it can be correlated to the token in a traditional cryptocurrency game. Therefore, this must be defined as a multi-utility token model with very limited access to where in-game entry and exit is slightly restricted.
Resources once issued as NFTs are likely not immediately burned when they return Once an asset has been issued as an NFT, there is a high possibility that it will not be immediately burned upon returning to the game due to the possibility of technical failures. There have been cases where some problems. Some games have had experienced technical issues when importing resources on the bringing blockchain assets into in-the game. Therefore, in recent years, rather than bringing resources on the blockchain into in-recently, instead of bringing blockchain assets into the game, in-game only checks in-game resources assets and NFTs pointing to that represent the same resources assets are checked in -the game, and when actually used the in-game , in-game resources assets are used immediately and while the NFT resources assets on the blockchain are incinerated burned through smart contracts. method is used. Therefore, in terms of quantity, resource NFTs are likely to gradually increase as game services continue.Therefore, the tentative as the game service continues, the NFT assets may gradually increase in quantity.
The so-called multi-utility token model will not have any distinct advantages over a clear advantage compared to the previous one-token or two-token models. However, there is a the possibility that the sewer mechanic of traditional games can be utilized more actively as the utility token linked directly to the blockchain by the resource metaphor can be relatively less repulsive negative perception towards directly using utility tokens on the blockchain within the game can be reduced relatively when compared to directly collecting utility tokens in-gameresources in the game, and this may allow for more active utilization of the traditional game's underworld mechanics.