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 ('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 multi-utility token model.
Personally, I think that after Axiinfinity, I created two tokens directly linked to the blockchain for my game project without much thought and used them as a utility token and a governance token, respectively. There was already a successful case in the market for this method, so there was no need to think deeply. But now it's time to think deeply. It is not a matter of how many tokens are linked to the game, but fundamentally, whether it is necessary to directly link tokens that are directly linked to the blockchain to in-game should be considered.
If you replace the utility token with a more familiar word to us, you can call it ‘dia’. There is a complete one-to-one correspondence with Dia. Diamonds can be exchanged for fiat currency at the in-game marketplace. Conversely, diamonds cannot be exchanged for legal currency. Most games strictly control transactions in the opposite direction, and this direction exchange must be controlled in order to comply with Korean law. Diamonds can be exchanged for in-game currency and other resources. They can be exchanged for resources through the Exchange where players produce their own resources, or they can be exchanged for in-game currency, or gold as we are more familiar with the term, in the in-game marketplace. Most of the transactions in the opposite direction are still strictly controlled, and this feature is an important mechanism for maintaining the economic system of traditional games.
Governance tokens have no counterpart in traditional games. Crypto games open a way for the game user - as distinct from the player - to participate in the game's key decision-making. Governance tokens are used as a means to participate in key decision-making in the game. It can be matched to shares with voting rights in the real world. Crypto games employing governance tokens try to reduce uncertainty about inflation by limiting the total amount of issued governance tokens and create value with the limited amount of issuance itself. In addition, governance tokens are mainly acquired by investors.
The problem that arises from this structure is that, as is widely known, there is a difference in the orientation of the actual in-game players and investors, and the will of the players is not reflected in the main decision-making of the game. Traditional games have a lot of ways for players to have a voice, and this opinion will influence future updates to the game. Crypto games that employ separate governance tokens can affect updates only by holding governance tokens, so decisions can be made in a way that is irrelevant to players' wishes. In theory, holders of governance tokens should make decisions from the right perspective in the long run - primarily what makes the players happy - but in practice this may not be the case.
I can't agree with the statement that one token cannot be optimized for multiple goals, as mentioned in the takeaway in the tweet thread above. However, I agree that the two-token model did not fail on its own, but because the economy as a whole was unsustainable. However, the explanations listed above the claim do not support the claim that one token cannot be optimized for multiple goals. There are still no clear criteria for which token model to introduce in crypto games, or a case that does not work only in bull markets.
Here, we propose a no-token model. The no-token model is literally a system that does not have a currency linked to a blockchain that is used in-game. Similar to the economic system of traditional games described above, diamonds, gold, and resources are circulated in-game, and resources are issued through exchange with legal currency outside the game, diamonds can be exchanged for gold and resources, and gold is also exchanged for resources, but each The reverse exchange is a limiting system. Here, we propose the composition of legal currency - expressed as off-chain currency - and resource NFT linked to blockchain that can be used for in-game.
The game can still control the economy through the minting and burning of in-game currency. What is embarrassing when trying to design an economic system that allows tokens linked to the blockchain to be directly used in-game is that the in-game economic system remains intact despite the situation in which transactions occurring on the blockchain that the game cannot control directly affect the in-game. is to make it work. Theoretically, it's possible, but in practice it's likely to break easily. Therefore, if the token linked to the blockchain enters the in-game through a one-way exchange step like the relationship between legal currency and diamond, the same method of designing the economic system of traditional games will be applied and the know-how of economic system design over the past 20 years will be used. you will be able to This is not a problem from a traditional game perspective, but player and investor orientations are not divided at the token level, reducing the possibility of playing solely for tokens or making short-term profit decisions.
From a crypto-gaming perspective, players can still own their in-game investments via the blockchain by NFTing their in-game resources. Until they are issued as NFTs, in-game resources are blockchain-agnostic, so they don't require a wallet and thus don't 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 the need to manage tokens linked to the blockchain, thus providing relative freedom from regulatory issues.
Compared to the one-token model or the two-token model, I used the rather sensational term of no-token model, but I think it's more accurate to see it as a multi-utility token strictly speaking. If it's a true notebook model, it's exactly the same as the traditional game. Here, it should be noted that when in-game resources are NFTized, the NFT's T is still a 'token'. Many 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 be defined as a multi-utility token model with very limited access to in-game.
Resources once issued as NFTs are likely not immediately burned when they return to the game due to the possibility of technical failures. There have been cases where some games have had technical issues when importing resources on the blockchain into in-game. Therefore, in recent years, rather than bringing resources on the blockchain into in-game, in-game only checks in-game resources and NFTs pointing to the same resources in-game, and when actually used in-game, in-game resources are used immediately and NFT resources on the blockchain are incinerated 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 multi-utility token model will not have any distinct advantages over the previous one-token or two-token models. However, there is a 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 compared to directly collecting utility tokens in-game.