Play to earn model vs move to earn model.

[Cryptomultiplier]

It is of course not as it used to be before when the talk of cryptocurrencies or the Blockchain network was a myth and everyone including me, wanted nothing to do with it, because it felt like a Ponzi scheme or the subject of cryptocurrency was just too complex and incomprehensible to understand.

How can they say money is invisible and decentralized and it can hardly be tracked and it can only be available online and has the same purchasing power as the fait we have grown accustomed to from birth; this was my thoughts until now having known better and understand to the point where I can say that in this world currently, the cryptocurrencies exchanges and the decentralized network use a 'play to earn model' which is different from the 'move to earn model' that apps offering same prices and rewards in tokens like Sweatcoin among others use.
This is the business strategy for most emerging and upgrading technology companies that have been created sinçe and before the bloom, acceptance, regulation and advancement in cryptocurrency and its investment.

Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?

Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?

Or would this 'move to earn model' just follow its hype and fade into existence leaving cryptocurrencies to be the only better innovation that is much more helpful to the economy?

Your thoughts are welcomed!

[1714525571]

1714525571

[1714525571]

1714525571

[1714525571]

1714525571

[hatshepsut93]

Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?

It's not a solution to anything. Microearnings have always been a waste of time. Only the poorest and most desperate people do them, and still it's not worth for them. They would have been better off spending that time on developing skills that could help them earn better money - these days you can learn almost anything on the Internet.

And even thinking about macroeconomic effects of microearnings is just funny.

[Hispo]

Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?

It's not a solution to anything. Microearnings have always been a waste of time. Only the poorest and most desperate people do them, and still it's not worth for them. They would have been better off spending that time on developing skills that could help them earn better money - these days you can learn almost anything on the Internet.

And even thinking about macroeconomic effects of microearnings is just funny.

I agree. In the most of the cases micro-earnings are only appealing to people who are living in very extreme economical conditions, in countries where inflation has completely ground the value of their Fiat, so they need to ding alternatives for it in cryptocurrencies and other payment systems.
For a country to succeed and see some positive changes in their macroeconomics, it is necessary to do actual investment into the education sector, into job creation and building new universities and high education institutions of all kind.
At best, micro-earnings are a temporary solution for people who seek to accumulate a bit of extra money, at the worst, it is a complete loss of time.

Though, I am not going to lie, I first I felt optimistic with the concept of move to earn, but it does not sound to be a sustainable model to do sctisl business, unleds there id dome serious partnership behind all of it, like Adidas or Nike, so those users actually expecting to get paid for sweating could get something worth their time.

[Maus0728]

They both got their own benefits but I'm not going to lie, it's really difficult to make money because they're all taking a lot of efforts to do and the rewards that they give is somewhat not that worth the effort, sure there's some outliers that did made some people a lot of profit but we have to understand that there's not a lot of these outliers out there and most of these projects that do this kind of thing aren't really good with doing follow ups that would lead them to something better, the worst thing too is there's probably a lot of these projects that are a rugpull scheme that doesn't benefit the new players.

[serjent05]

Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?

None are beneficial to me, since earning in this kind of model is very hard.  Like for example, earning in play to earn needs a player to spend some amount in order to gain advantage against other player, they need to spend money in order to get part of the money they spent, this is beneficial to those who have deep pocket but not on normal users like me.

While move to earn scheme also needs to purchase in-game items in order to boost the earnings thus, the models are almost identical to play to earn scheme.  It can also be said that it is borderline a Ponzi Scheme where earnings and rewards came from new people that is introduced to the system and invest money in order to get advantage against other users.

Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?

It is never a solution to both micro and macro economics problems even if adopted on a large scale.  First, the token needs to have a value to use in real life world.  To have stable value or have high liquidity it needs to be backed up by fund that can sustain the market value of the token.  So the main concern is the source of fund to back up the financial activity.  And where does this fund come from?  Obviously, it will come from users and investors who need to purchase certain items to be a premium member.  In the end, the users are first milked with funds before they can milk the system.

According to the business model of sweatcoin, they intend to gain revenue through merchant partnerships but this model is yet to be established.

Or would this 'move to earn model' just follow its hype and fade into existence leaving cryptocurrencies to be the only better innovation that is much more helpful to the economy?

They will eventually fade when new system of earning is introduced, or when their financial model collapses.  We have seen several projects like these to fade into existence after some months of operation because they can't maintain the reward system or the value of their cryptocurrency in the market.

[yhiaali3]

I think you're confusing things a bit, Play to earn model and move to earn model are just some of the small apps that have emerged from blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies.

In fact, they do not constitute any important economic strategy and do not provide any solution to any economic or technological problem. They are just small applications for profit and nothing more, and the profits that come from them are very small and cannot constitute economic income for individuals, let alone support the economy or influence it.

[wxa7115]

Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?

It's not a solution to anything. Microearnings have always been a waste of time. Only the poorest and most desperate people do them, and still it's not worth for them. They would have been better off spending that time on developing skills that could help them earn better money - these days you can learn almost anything on the Internet.

And even thinking about macroeconomic effects of microearnings is just funny.

It is really that simple, those using their time in this kind of activity are not really think things through, as they would better off just using that time looking for a regular job than spending their time doing this.

As even if they could manage to get an amount of coins that was considerable after a long time of doing this, there is no way for them to know if by the time they want to make a withdrawal the coin will still hold any value.

[retreat]

After trying both types of games, I realized that they are essentially the same, merely wasting people’s time. I don’t know about other people’s experiences with them, whether they are better or just like mine, but I feel that the system is akin to an MLM pattern where you need to buy their tokens and then use their services to earn the rewards they offer. In reality, the rewards they provide are also very low, so you need a lot of time just to collect 1-2 dollars, which is actually not worth it. Yeah, maybe some people say that they don't have a problem with this, but I personally conclude that this microearning platform is just a waste of my time.

[blckhawk]

Most of these apps that offer this kind of earning model are too small and aren't worth much to be able to contribute to the economy in a big way, not to mention that most of the time, it's really difficult to earn in most of them, the only time that something like this model has ever been successful is when Axie Infinity boomed in popularity, that one was driven by too much hype investments that it lead to that point though. Maybe the only thing that these models can contribute to the economy is that it rewards individuals that are participating in the game a small amount of reward that they can then sell to get fiat or any other cryptocurrency and then they can use that money to spend on something thus making some contribution to the economic cycle of buying and selling products and services.

[Uhwuchukwu53]

After trying both types of games, I realized that they are essentially the same, merely wasting people’s time. I don’t know about other people’s experiences with them, whether they are better or just like mine, but I feel that the system is akin to an MLM pattern where you need to buy their tokens and then use their services to earn the rewards they offer. In reality, the rewards they provide are also very low, so you need a lot of time just to collect 1-2 dollars, which is actually not worth it. Yeah, maybe some people say that they don't have a problem with this, but I personally conclude that this microearning platform is just a waste of my time.

This got me laughing because this micro earning as you called it is very disheartened if you calculate all effort put just earm 1-2 dollar is very disgusting the worst of it they keep seeking attention and protecting their road map and with good article to convince you at the end of following in participating you will realize the effort was made in vain.

It remains me the last game I involved the time and energy spend coming up to see that it was just wasted efforts.
Until they change their pattern of rewards they will end up loosing all their investors and other inventors are coming up with better earning strategies with good rewarding system.

[aioc]

Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?

Or would this 'move to earn model' just follow its hype and fade into existence leaving cryptocurrencies to be the only better innovation that is much more helpful to the economy?

I have these two tokens, and the application, and active on both platforms, it's a total waste of time imagine spending hours playing and making you sweat for a few cents worth of tokens you cannot do these two at the same time.

And if you do this on a large scale can the price sustain to make it worth the effort of those doing the tasks, Axie Infinity was a huge success but after they crashed all the other play-to-earn models followed similar paths same thing with the move to earn models.

[ultrloa]

Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?

It's not a solution to anything. Microearnings have always been a waste of time. Only the poorest and most desperate people do them, and still it's not worth for them. They would have been better off spending that time on developing skills that could help them earn better money - these days you can learn almost anything on the Internet.

And even thinking about macroeconomic effects of microearnings is just funny.

People always believe on something easy for them to do then earn that's why they always get fucked up by those scammers pretending to create something innovative things that reward on every movements they make.

Maybe its better for people to ignore this especially if they need to buy something expensive NFT just to increase their earnings since usually they are just scam and they will fall the same with other scam gamefi which came out first after they gather a lot of money from people who believe that this is really great and for long term.

[btc78]

Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?

Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?

Or would this 'move to earn model' just follow its hype and fade into existence leaving cryptocurrencies to be the only better innovation that is much more helpful to the economy?

First of all move to earn project is a good thing for the individual himself as it does not only allow for income but also allows for the individual to build healthier lifestyles. I think that move to earn project is a little better if we are talking about long-term results here.

However we cannot ignore the fact that move to earn is a little less convenient than play to earn projects. Some people are not privileged enough to have the ability to move to earn when they are tethered to work or to their homes.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?

Or would this 'move to earn model' just follow its hype and fade into existence leaving cryptocurrencies to be the only better innovation that is much more helpful to the economy?

I have these two tokens, and the application, and active on both platforms, it's a total waste of time imagine spending hours playing and making you sweat for a few cents worth of tokens you cannot do these two at the same time.

And if you do this on a large scale can the price sustain to make it worth the effort of those doing the tasks, Axie Infinity was a huge success but after they crashed all the other play-to-earn models followed similar paths same thing with the move to earn models.

With the move to Earn (M2E) model which involves earning through physical activities, like walking, running, swimming, being tracked by ones device to earn tokens and points, it is obviously tied to real-world movements and health care benefits for those who need to burn off some fat or stay fit.
The Play to Earn (P2E) model, is a kind of web3 game that focuses on in-game accomplishments which is centered on virtual gaming rewards.

Many business models may focus on either of both models, if they intend to become economically suited to fit the decentralized system and virtual reality environments, but I understand the fear is that, these models have yet to be the best of ideas for anyone wanting to earn passive income stream seeing that they are a results of the progress cryptocurrencies and the decentralized system including advancement in AI bots has so far made.

I think the world is more focused right now on making cryptocurrency and AI bots work better than virtual reality environments with less users and unusable tokens.

[Yogee]

[...]
Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?

I have never invested or tried any move to earn projects so I can only answer the other option.

The move to earn model sounded great during the pandemic since a lot of people were unable to get out and do their usual physical activities. It died down a couple of years after the pandemic since those who usually don't exercise were back to their old habit. The market for this project is limited to people with active lifestyle and that's less than the market of gamers.

[Die_empty]

[...]
Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?

I have never invested or tried any move to earn projects so I can only answer the other option.

The move to earn model sounded great during the pandemic since a lot of people were unable to get out and do their usual physical activities. It died down a couple of years after the pandemic since those who usually don't exercise were back to their old habit. The market for this project is limited to people with active lifestyle and that's less than the market of gamers.

The days when it was easy to get valuable cryptocurrencies through accomplishment of tasks have past. Engaging in these play or move-to-win projects rewards participants with worthless coins. I might consider engaging in these tasks if it will have other benefits beside the coins. There are some of the projects that might bring health benefits or help to develop some physical or Intelligence Quotient. The easiest way to own a valuable coin now is either to mine, buy or over services.

[kryptqnick]

The whole digital money thing was pretty difficult for me when I first heard of Bitcoin as well, but I think it's the kind of issue that newer generations (starting with Gen-Z) don't have because they grow up with digital stuff as a part of their lives since birth, so money that only exists digitally is just added to a long list of digital-only things, and being digital doesn't mean being less real.
As for 'move to earn', I think it's a problematic concept because of how physical movements are capitalized, which reminds me of some episodes of Black Mirror showing dystopian worlds. I don't think this model has a fighting chance against major cryptos, and I hope it won't become popular, to be honest.

[sokani]

Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?

None has benefitted me and I've never subscribed to any of them because they are not really worth it. I'd rather invest my time doing something profitable than wasting my time on these micro earning opportunities. The developers of these apps are the ones smiling to the banks, they generate a lot of revenues from running ads, collecting and selling users data but the users are rewarded with peanuts for their data, time and effort.

[Sim_card]

Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?

None has benefitted me and I've never subscribed to any of them because they are not really worth it. I'd rather invest my time doing something profitable than wasting my time on these micro earning opportunities. The developers of these apps are the ones smiling to the banks, they generate a lot of revenues from running ads, collecting and selling users data but the users are rewarded with peanuts for their data, time and effort.

You are right. Only devs are benefitting from it since they did it as a means to make people help them make their token and apps known, and decieve them with having returns, which I see to me as an empty promise. It is all a waste of time and energy on these micro earnings app, because those token might never have a high market value. You will just be there enslaving yourself while the devs are smiling and enjoying the effort of your labour. If you have better plan for your future, then learn a skill, get a job and use 10% of your income to invest in bitcoin. Micro earnings cannot improve anyone's  financial status, talk more of solving any economic problems.

[electronicash]

they are paying coins to move. i don't see this working there is some kind of big fitness gym supporting such a project and making its tokenomics that is beneficial for all. play to earn is more realistic already but this one is just a dream. People today are already used to memecoins and they could forget about Sweatcoin. There are just more projects out there that are already working with a great community.  Upon reading, Sweatcoin and Sweat Economy are just one right?