 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
Thank you very much for participating in the discussion of our economic model. This is an important milestone for us and we truly appreciate all your feedback, thoughts and reactions.
We realized that we could not fully convey the essence of our idea. That's why we decided to create an MVP that will include
- basic game mode (Farm Mode)
- one mini game
- the structure of smart contracts, which currently includes several game mechanics and our 1:1 ratio
- control token
And launch it on the testnet so that those interested can get acquainted with our concept directly
We will be back here and would love to hear feedback from the community!
* * *** ******* * *
** ** * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * *** * ***
|
|
|
|
It looks like an excellent idea with a twist from the traditional gaming platforms offering a play-to-earn methodology. I hope you have a good range of gaming catalogs to entertain the users. Since most of the users have already discussed in-depth knowledge about 1:1 ratio pros and cons, I would like to refer to another marketing gimmick that you guys must follow. Most of the P2E start with something similar, however, after the specific period is passed on they fail to achieve actual earning ratios for the users. The revenue can go down dramatically if they start feeling they are not earning enough in-game currency OR the conversion rate is too low for the time spent on any games.
I have seen a few games where they offer real rakeback on in-game assets. For example, selling rarely-found swords or maybe a modern-day car, etc. (Just an example) for the in-game currency. So this keeps users engaged with games and all of them try to hunt down such rare items with increased levels of game difficulty. I am just giving out review as a gamer who would want such feature.
Thanks for your feedback! What you are suggesting is a good idea. Great idea! And this is how we see it. It's not exactly what you're talking about, but it's very similar. In any case, the result for the player is the same Our “liquidity pool” (1:1 ratio) ensures the growth of one economy at the expense of the depreciation of another. And vice versa. While the value of in-game assets remains unchanged in the in-game economy (something like the absence of inflation and deflation). So you can, by timing the moment (or creating this moment yourself), acquire rare and expensive in-game assets for cheap This is one of our many financial plots embedded in the financial matrix of the project |
|
|
|
After the huge decrease of value most of the NFT ecosystem suffered I believe it will take literal years before the mainstream public could be willing to give it a try, a lot of people probably lost a lot of money buying "land" and "properties" in those metaverses and games.
It was the crypto whales who were heavily investing in expensive NFTs, not the people outside of crypto most of the time, and these whales could easily sustain huge losses from NFTs. For them it was just entertainment and a gamble to get even more rich, which some did by dumping their NFTs at the top of the bubble. The general public was never interested in them, gaming communities were very vocal that they will not tolerate NFTs in the games that they play, so large gaming studios quickly dropped their plans to make quick money on the hype, realizing that such integration would only backfire. That's right! When whales enter the game, they destroy the economy with their capital. They're just taking out the market. And if you simply deliver Forex to crypto games, another place of sacrifice will be created Therefore, we need a different approach to organizing the interaction between the game economy and the real one. Level the chances of the whales with their huge capitals, take care of creating opportunities to play on equal terms with ordinary guys and do not forget about the pleasure of the process The problem with NFTs is that every one of them has a different contract, so investors never know what they are getting. If I buy an NFT of some digital asset, how do I know the game won't make one million more just like it and make my investment worthless? Even if the contract says you can't do that, there are loopholes in contracts that can be exploited, or maybe the game company will cheat in some other way. The solution is a system where every single token is treated the same way. That way people can compare the currency in one game to the currency in another game directly. What if we go the opposite way? Let it not be the game (or its developers or owners) who offer the gaming community NFTs (and yes, we agree, no one in this case will protect the gaming community from cloning). And let the gaming community decide when their asset (unique skin and skill) will be converted into NFT. Additionally motivating them to do this by increasing the opportunity in the game for their in-game asset? This way the community will not receive stupid skillless shit JPEG images, but a consciously formed investment |
|
|
|
Until now, I have not seen a role for cryptocurrencies. From what I understand, the game will accept customers’ money in cryptocurrencies and they can replenish the balance. Then all that will happen is a change in the databases according to the player’s activity, and they are more like gems or currencies found in most currencies, but the only difference is that these gems now It has a value and can be withdrawn, and after the player finishes playing, he will withdraw to his cryptocurrency address. Is this true?
There is already. What about those gaming cryptos? And play to earn games here in cryptos? But, what you said is only light and it already happened before, using a fiat and other similar payment methods. Maybe there is a reason on why they can't display the same cryptos that we have deposited? But anyways, the long wait is finally over because like I said earlier, there is already play-to-earn games that can have this function and many more. However, both of them still has the ability to withdraw crypto from the wallet of our choice. The impact of gaming in the real economy can mostly be positive. As we all know their growth through the years. There is only people who can get addicted with it. This is only their downside. We cannot say that NFTs or play-to-earn games do not contribute anything to the field of cryptocurrency, especially in these times. Many games that can be considered priests in different parts of the world are obsessed with it because of the technology that we have in this era, to be honest. Even if the others don't know anything about the crypto trading category but are experienced in the gaming industry, they can still be considered helpful, just like NFT or play-and-earn games. Therefore, they still have a big impact on what I see and observe to this day. Cryptocurrencies in gaming, especially in play-to-earn models, operate similarly to traditional in-game currencies. The major distinction lies in their tradability and withdrawal capabilities It's fascinating to see how the gaming industry has embraced cryptocurrencies, creating new opportunities for players. The challenge of displaying deposited cryptos might be rooted in ensuring a seamless gaming experience and regulatory considerations. However, the emergence of play-to-earn games with withdrawal options would be a little problem for regulatory The intersection of gaming and cryptocurrency opens up new possibilities, attracting enthusiasts from various digital communities. Even those with no prior knowledge of crypto trading can find value in these technologies within the gaming space |
|
|
|
Also a huge problem for large gaming companies is that they can lose their old-school audience by introducing cryptocurrencies and NFTs. These guys are used to their games and don't want changes. Companies risk breaking their old ties by refocusing on a new generation of players. And this promises them huge losses. Their infrastructures are simply not configured to work with crypto
happened with epic game store, people labeling it as shit tier game store not because it was truly shit tier but because some people like to follow influencers and shouting the same word over and over again, the thing is that there are also many old school audience that are also influencer keep saying that blockchain integrated and even NFT is a gimmick, while some time its true that it might just be used for some gimmick not to mention the fact that many blockchain based game are just some recycle of failing mobile game and so on, doesn't really mean that the tech itself is not useful, right now many these blockchain game devs are realizing that building game that can be rated AAA requires massive funding, and most developers are just having some small funding about few million dollars of course it won't be sufficient, therefore the devs need to learn to raise some funds first then creating games. Yeah! Very interesting opinion! We agree with the statement that to launch a AAA game on the blockchain you need a lot of money  And that you first need to convince the investor to finance it. But how to do that? How to convince investors to invest millions in a sector that was not so long ago the site of theft. A sector that is poorly organized from a regulatory point of view. Dangerous sector. What do you need to show an investor to convince him to get into it? |
|
|
|
The biggest stupidity is doing the same thing every day and expecting a different result. Poor people follow this rule and prosper in their poverty. It would seem that it’s enough to just change your usual life schedule a little and several options for how everything will develop next will appear. But the poor don't do that. The poor remain in their familiar world So if you want to stay poor, just keep doing what you've always done. And you will succeed in this  |
|
|
|
After the huge decrease of value most of the NFT ecosystem suffered I believe it will take literal years before the mainstream public could be willing to give it a try, a lot of people probably lost a lot of money buying "land" and "properties" in those metaverses and games.
It was the crypto whales who were heavily investing in expensive NFTs, not the people outside of crypto most of the time, and these whales could easily sustain huge losses from NFTs. For them it was just entertainment and a gamble to get even more rich, which some did by dumping their NFTs at the top of the bubble. The general public was never interested in them, gaming communities were very vocal that they will not tolerate NFTs in the games that they play, so large gaming studios quickly dropped their plans to make quick money on the hype, realizing that such integration would only backfire. That's right! When whales enter the game, they destroy the economy with their capital. They're just taking out the market. And if you simply deliver Forex to crypto games, another place of sacrifice will be created Therefore, we need a different approach to organizing the interaction between the game economy and the real one. Level the chances of the whales with their huge capitals, take care of creating opportunities to play on equal terms with ordinary guys and do not forget about the pleasure of the process |
|
|
|
There are tons of digital assets within games that are worth lots and lots of money. Game currencies often have their own USD exchange rates, at least through informal markets. These currencies get their value from the popularity of the game, not the underlying technology that stores their currency, which is essentially meaningless in that context. The question is, can you convince game makers to essentially open up their currencies for open trade with other currencies, including USD and whatever else? Game manufacturers would need to be convinced that an externally-traded currency will increase their sales, and/or give them a new revenue stream (e.g. the game launch being the equivalent of an ICO). Of course this all will cross into the same problems* that NFTs have: opaque or complex contracts that leaves investors with no real idea of what they are getting, leading to panic selling and a collapse in price--and no way to compare one game's currency against another because they all have different contracts (for example different currency supplies, different policies on minting more currency, different policies on follow-on currencies with the same game/brand, etc.). (* Disclaimer: I like to think my company has solved these problems ). Also a huge problem for large gaming companies is that they can lose their old-school audience by introducing cryptocurrencies and NFTs. These guys are used to their games and don't want changes. Companies risk breaking their old ties by refocusing on a new generation of players. And this promises them huge losses. Their infrastructures are simply not configured to work with crypto |
|
|
|
So far none of the blockchain/crypto/nft games has proven to be successful because the gameplay is always garbage, plus gamers have shown zero interest in crypto and in general scoff at it, as evident by the complete failure of major gaming companies like Ubisoft or EA to integrate blockchain technologies in their games.
I believe that one of the biggest mistakes those NFT games committed had more to do with the marketing approach they decided to go for, they decided to make much emphasis into the play-to-earn aspects of the game and they never tried to catch the attention of people who may just be interested to participate in their ecosystem by pure entertainment purposes. I would say Axie Infinity had the best shot to become an actual massive ecosystem, but that project also committed the same mistake and instead developing and improving their game play and the features in the game, they went all in with the play-to-earn marketing. The P2E mechanisms of the game could have only been sustainable if they managed a lot of people only interested in having fun to engage, but they did not seem to understand that. After the huge decrease of value most of the NFT ecosystem suffered I believe it will take literal years before the mainstream public could be willing to give it a try, a lot of people probably lost a lot of money buying "land" and "properties" in those metaverses and games. This is a point! This is what we are trying to say. "So many of them just so shit in creating good gameplay." Projects need to reach the next level of quality. Give good entertainment. And make a product that will connect real and game economies seamlessly The first P2E projects were more interested in raising money quickly and played on the greed of people to make quick money. Back then it was a new thing and there was no experience or statistics in this field. Now, after a wave of scams and disappointments, the time comes for quality infrastructure. Not only in crypto gaming and entertainment. But also in other areas. We mean DeFi |
|
|
|
|
In our view, currently, NFTs, despite their popularity, have limited value, especially beyond gaming applications and digital art. In most cases, their value is confined to the interest of a narrow audience of enthusiasts or speculators
However, it's worth noting that we may be just beginning to see the potential of NFTs, and in the future, they could find applications in broader areas. For example, NFTs could become an integral part of identification systems in various fields, such as personal identity, access, and actions. Similar to the MultiBanco system in Europe, where you can provide a third party with a special code to withdraw money from your bank account, NFTs can ensure security and transparency in such operations
However, one of the main obstacles to integrating NFTs into real life and unlocking their full potential is their current gray area. Therefore, it's simply not possible to connect them with the real world at the moment. Perhaps, once this happens, thousands of developers will offer their use to the world, not only for games or digital
|
|
|
|
I understand, in terms of gaming in the economic environment, it is becoming more and more influential, the internet is becoming more and more widespread, the trend of gaming is also getting bigger. But let's not talk about your content here, only if you are actually describing something that is somewhat similar to some products in the crypto space that have attracted a lot of attention like Axie Infinity. And you need to study their economic model more about AXS & SLP, but according to my observation in the crypto environment, the gamefi field is still very limited and rather the hype and news manipulation is common. If you are serious and do not intend to follow short-term trends, prepare your product carefully before launching. Anyway, currently there is quite a lot of competition to attract attention. Both yes and no Axie Infinity is an amazing project. We consider them pioneers in the world of crypto-games. The first to offer something really worthwhile. And at the time, their economics were great But the world has moved on. Users want more quality in design, story, gameplay, sound, earning and reward mechanics, Project Economy, Service. SLP rewards alone are no longer enough to retain players and attract new ones in the long run. And we agree that hype and news manipulation are commonplace. To play in the long-term you need a well-balanced product with a great pitch to the market. |
|
|
|
So far none of the blockchain/crypto/nft games has proven to be successful because the gameplay is always garbage, plus gamers have shown zero interest in crypto and in general scoff at it, as evident by the complete failure of major gaming companies like Ubisoft or EA to integrate blockchain technologies in their games.
Yes, all crypto games that exist today are scam. Their economics implies this from the beginning. This can be understood by huge marketing budgets and lack of quality gameplay, design, interface and game and/or financial plots. And the time of such projects is really gone. The crypto community now wants quality. Old classic gamers strongly resist blockchain solutions in gamification, but that's okay. Society has always resisted change, especially technological change. It wasn't that long ago (by the standards of the universe) that people were burned at the stake for it. The new generation of gamers is more open to innovation, in particular the shift of gameplay to blockchain. They see more freedoms and choices in how to spend their time. The question of when blockchain will be implemented in gameplay is not that far away. It's already happening |
|
|
|
An infinite amount of game currency, with a finite amount of cryptocurrency, that is 1 to 1 tied to each other... You do realize that it is not going to be 1to1 right? The whole concept doesn't make it 1to1, if there are 5 billion of the crypto one, and then 1 more is issued at the game for the in game one, then the 1 to 1 is gone. Aside from that, I can say that it's been tried, the "play game to make money" is not a new idea, been around for decades, and last bull run, was popular at crypto too.
Some worked, some didn't ,eventually they all faced bear, just like any other crypto, it is not easy to keep somethings up, specially when you promise people free money for just playing games, so it is very difficult to keep it alive.
The value of the MOTU token to the in-game currency M.O.L. is in a 1:1 ratio in the circulating volume of these currencies Cost of 100% volume MOTU coins = cost of 100% volume of M.O.L. It's like a liquidity pool (LP). We give users an economy (game rules), just like other economies do (doesn't matter crypto or fiat). Everything is built on the value of the system. And you're absolutely right it's not a simple case. We will have to work very hard to make the system earn the money we want it to. |
|
|
|
If your crypto is capped at 5 billion and the in-game currency is at at an infinite amount, wouldn't that not be a 1:1 since it's likely that the in-game currency will reach higher than that of 5 billion and I don't think that's a viable economy. I like the idea of the voting each season, that means that the people have a say as to what they have to do with what's happening in the game but seeing the potential imbalance in the ratio of in-game currency and your cryptocurrency, I hope that this game becomes a real thing though, this seems like it will get more people to consider it despite doubts if it becomes a real thing.
Interesting fact! If you look at the "friendship" of Bitcoin and the US dollar. Bitcoin emission is limited. While the emission of the dollar (by the way not backed by gold reserves today) is increasing (they just print money) we can say unlimited. Meanwhile Bitcoin is worth more than 40k usd. So its economy is 40 thousand times stronger than one of the strongest fiat economies in the world. Yes, that is a very superficial point. There are many factors involved. And in general Bitcoin is a crypto and the dollar is a fiat economy and the rules are different. But still. Let's dig deeper! Cryptocurrencies themselves, in terms of economic value, are weak. You can't buy anything with them. Today, for projects like ours, cryptocurrencies are a pioneering technology and something like an intermediary between fiat and gaming (DeFi) economies. Which are very similar in their essence - one is virtual and the other is real, but in essence the same processes take place there. The functions of money in them are identical - a measure of value, means of payment, means of accumulation and savings. While cryptocurrency is a means of speculation. It is not at all certain that the issue of in-game currency will exceed 5 billion. After all, some will try to increase the value of in-game currency while others will do the same for cryptocurrency (gavernance coin). Besides, in-game currency as we said above is very similar to fiat currency in its functions. It is spent to buy in-game assets or buy cryptocurrency. If the issue of in-game currency exceeds the issue of cryptocurrency, it will cause the holder(s) to turn in the other direction. Towards a different economy. Bulls and bears. Very much like bulls and bears |
|
|
|
This idea shared looks very similar to the metaverse innovation of applying cryptocurrency and economics in one, which serves to provide users with an experience on the Blockchain network while they make profit or loss still in the process of playing games and partaking in other bounty activity.
Once the game has been created, I doubt users would wait for long to enjoy the innovation of combined gaming and economics, mostly when they have a control over how they can manipulate their funds to their best advantage.
Will the introduction of bots or A.i assistance be necessary at the onset or is it after a while of implementing this concept and analyzing the statistics that it will be introduced? Or it has got nothing to do with such an idea?
That's a very cool question! It's one of the hypotheses we want to test. The first two seasons are gonna be test seasons. We hope to gather enough feedback to answer this question to be sure that we are not wrong in our calculations. But it is important to understand that if we make a release without quality (financial and game plots, graphics, sound, gameplay, dashboards, variability of earning and diversification mechanics) then yes, you are right, users will leave the project very quickly because it will look like another scam. |
|
|
|
the problem is that those who like to combine investing and finance with entertainment are usually not the ones who will survive their first year of "investing". Forex is already unpredictable enough, and at high leverage it provides above-average emotions. I doubt anyone would need forex in the form of a game especially combined with shaky, illiquid, small token that is backing the system. Forex. Lottery. Casino. Binary options. It's all about hope. People spend billions what to bet in the hope of getting a lot of money back. DeFi presented as P2E is no exception with some difference - in gamification this process is more involved. The gamification of the processes gives people entertainment in addition to hope (about which we wrote above). Even if you don't win your bet, you will at least enjoy the gameplay if the project has good graphics, gameplay, sound, inferface, everything that classic games have today. this is a good idea for a game. Do it, build userbase, make your first million, build a team and come back and do v2 on blockchain bringing here your userbase. There are currently at least 1000 metaverse and gaming(GameFi) projects.
I suspect you are competing for only 10,000 people who are here in crypto and would like to try such games at the current level. It will be different in 10 years, AAA titles, on VR goggles (meta quest 10) and full immersion. There, adding good economics to a good game can be a success. But not a mini-game made by a few people in 2024.
That's right. It needs something bigger. Greater. More qualitative. There is nothing in cryptogaming today but the hope of a quick and big profit. Scammers have made good money on it by pretending their projects as a Klondike, as the last few years have demonstrated. It has always been and always will be. When something new appears, the first wave is scam. Then quality things start to appear on the ruins left by scammers. So it's time to build quality infrastructure for blockchain. In general, the public is more willing and open to Gaming and Entertainment. It's great to have fun! And few people realise that if someone earns money, someone else pays for it. It's a simple law of money distribution. On the other hand, classic gamings with juicy graphics, game plots and spoilt audience who are not enough and want new experiences (although they pretend they don't need innovations). A headset for complete immersion of the player in the game world like in the Sci-Fi novel " Ready Player One" is indeed the future of gaming and entertainment industry. |
|
|
|
Banks were originally invented to manage the economy of the society while the king was at war. But over time, they changed beyond recognition. And with the abolition of the gold standard, the value of money turned to dust. Today, banks give you an IOU (voucher) in return, a piece of paper, taking away your time and freedom. Loans are a special topic. If you think about it, it is mathematically impossible to pay back a loan. You can't take 100 per cent of your money and pay back 110 per cent. Or rather, banks can. Just print more. But the lender can't. At least, it's not legal |
|
|
|
Until now, I have not seen a role for cryptocurrencies. From what I understand, the game will accept customers’ money in cryptocurrencies and they can replenish the balance.
These are two economic units. An in-game one and an out-game one. Very similar to a currency pair or a liquidity pool. Above we gave an example with a bar where the price of drinks changed depending on demand. Yes, as for the gaming part of the project, users can buy in-game assets for cryptocurrencies on the platform Then all that will happen is a change in the databases according to the player’s activity, and they are more like gems or currencies found in most currencies, but the only difference is that these gems now It has a value and can be withdrawn, and after the player finishes playing, he will withdraw to his cryptocurrency address. Is this true?
As for the game part in general, everything is written correctly. A player deposits funds and time on the platform (it is possible to participate without money), performs actions according to his trading plan (tries to change the balance of the database to his advantage) and if he earns money and has something to withdraw, he withdraws it |
|
|
|
- Players and traders influence the value and availability of M.O.L. and MOTU currencies. (in-game currency and management token respectively).
In-game Events and Tournaments: Contribute to fluctuations in the economy by influencing supply and demand.
So, it's just another ICO for a metaverse coin that comes with fancy promises and has zero utility? Simple question, why do you need a new coin to do that and not use Bitcoin? Already know the answer! Bitcoin is an amazing thing that combines a large number of technologies and solutions invented at different times by smart people. And it was Satoshi Nakamoto (whoever he or they were) who inspired us to create MOTU. Combine existing gaming and financial mechanics in one place What makes our system unique is that these currencies are linked 1 to 1 within their circulation. This model creates a dynamic two-way interaction between the two economies, constantly motivating players to move between the game world and the real world. Why?
Seriously why should I fee motivated to do any of my tractions in the game world where I can simple do it for real?
Besides, how do you even comes close to envision such a thing, I go out and buy coffee, I drink it I enjoy it, how does that work in a game world, I sit at the screen seeing how my avatar drinks a coffee? There is The Sims for it! You're right. We're not replacing your cup of coffee in the real world. So far we are just talking about gamified finance. But we believe we'll find a solution to that problem as well The metaverse ICO coin fomo is long gone, you've missed the train!
We are of the same opinion! The time of ICO has passed. But the project doesn't need it |
|
|
|
The 1:1 relationship between in-game cash and cryptocurrency is good. Players may participate in unusual economic involvement due to this dynamic. I am interested in the possible fluctuation risks, though. Real economies back currencies with assets or government policy. Given the endless issuance of in-game cash, how does your model handle unexpected currency value fluctuations? Players setting economic norms adds a fascinating democratic element. Good approach to keep gamers interested in the game's world. How will you prevent player-driven policies from creating unsustainable economic scenarios? These features may attract economically savvy players who can appreciate and contribute to your game's economy
That is why some NFT games are still up until today because gamers find it convenient to have an ingame currency based on crypto. But the only draw back here is the volatility where players might get intimidated or pressured when there is instability. I was once an NFT player for p2e and f2p games and had that experience when the games currency became unstable and that drives me to make mistakes with decisions. But yeah NFT games are fun and for me has positive effects on economic growth. Volatility. Exactly. Users are going to encounter it, and they need to have a cool head so they don't do anything stupid. But that's the point. Think, do the math, diversify. The stakes are high. Winning will bring big money and the opportunity to choose the local economy plots for the next season, which only the winner will be ready for. That great motivation will take care of the volatility moment! |
|
|
|
|
