Thank for you sharing Kydo and Aiko - great article! A couple of questions below:
- Bancor's Vortex system: Currently, in Vortex, 1 vBNT can be traded for 0.6 BNT; does that mean the holders of vBNT are selling it at a discount in exchange for better liquidity?
- Protocol printing these tokens should be communicated to the player base or through governance - I'm wondering if this should be done via a smart contract at a pre-determined exchange rate? This can stabalise price/curb speculation and minimise situations where people joining late are left holding the bags
- What is the purpose of separating govnft/fast governance and govtoken/slow governance? Is it based on the notion that the majority of gamers aren't too concerned about slow governance/major game logics?
- Since each veGOLD represents 1 or more GOLD, this is more capital efficient - should this be the other way round i.e. 1 or less GOLD?
- Token buyback is a method to increase native token buying pressure through exchanging protocol revenue for native tokens. However, this design is powerless in the crypto game space - is it due to the fact that you are effectively buying GOLD with GOLD, hence you will need leverage per the first point (<1 veGOLD per GOLD) to generate buying pressure?
Hey, just discovered this post and was reading your questions.
On your point# 1 > If the game buys back vBNT from the user, then it is buying back all the staked liquidity from the user. The more liquidity the protocol owns, the more control it has on the rewards allocated to users for staking (Olympus DAO & Wonderland Time were both built on this construct).
But (thinking out loud), isn't this circular in nature - there is no additional value flowing into the system. The existing user base gets rewarded with in-game utility token for providing liquidity. This will increase the in-game token supply and will be inflationary in scope. Unless the game has enough sinks to spend these tokens, non-gamers / investors will not have enough reasons to burn these tokens. Consequently, the tokenomics will not scale.
Bravo, just an outstanding article from start to finish! I really hope more gaming projects take this type of approach like soon. As a causal gamer myself who got into NFTs last year I 100% see the potential for P&E games but like you mentioned as it stands it’s the first and early ones that make out with everyone else holding their bags. We need AAA quality games with sustainable tokenomics that also don’t have a 1eth cost of entry if you want to bring in the masses. All the P2E gaming pump/dump YouTube vids by these “influencers” don’t help either , you get rugged/burnt a few times you probably won’t come back to the space and proceed to tell your frens it’s all a scam etc. Again just an excellent article and we need more ppl like you in the space to be heard more!!
Thank for you sharing Kydo and Aiko - great article! A couple of questions below:
- Bancor's Vortex system: Currently, in Vortex, 1 vBNT can be traded for 0.6 BNT; does that mean the holders of vBNT are selling it at a discount in exchange for better liquidity?
- Protocol printing these tokens should be communicated to the player base or through governance - I'm wondering if this should be done via a smart contract at a pre-determined exchange rate? This can stabalise price/curb speculation and minimise situations where people joining late are left holding the bags
- What is the purpose of separating govnft/fast governance and govtoken/slow governance? Is it based on the notion that the majority of gamers aren't too concerned about slow governance/major game logics?
- Since each veGOLD represents 1 or more GOLD, this is more capital efficient - should this be the other way round i.e. 1 or less GOLD?
- Token buyback is a method to increase native token buying pressure through exchanging protocol revenue for native tokens. However, this design is powerless in the crypto game space - is it due to the fact that you are effectively buying GOLD with GOLD, hence you will need leverage per the first point (<1 veGOLD per GOLD) to generate buying pressure?
Hey, just discovered this post and was reading your questions.
On your point# 1 > If the game buys back vBNT from the user, then it is buying back all the staked liquidity from the user. The more liquidity the protocol owns, the more control it has on the rewards allocated to users for staking (Olympus DAO & Wonderland Time were both built on this construct).
But (thinking out loud), isn't this circular in nature - there is no additional value flowing into the system. The existing user base gets rewarded with in-game utility token for providing liquidity. This will increase the in-game token supply and will be inflationary in scope. Unless the game has enough sinks to spend these tokens, non-gamers / investors will not have enough reasons to burn these tokens. Consequently, the tokenomics will not scale.
Bravo, just an outstanding article from start to finish! I really hope more gaming projects take this type of approach like soon. As a causal gamer myself who got into NFTs last year I 100% see the potential for P&E games but like you mentioned as it stands it’s the first and early ones that make out with everyone else holding their bags. We need AAA quality games with sustainable tokenomics that also don’t have a 1eth cost of entry if you want to bring in the masses. All the P2E gaming pump/dump YouTube vids by these “influencers” don’t help either , you get rugged/burnt a few times you probably won’t come back to the space and proceed to tell your frens it’s all a scam etc. Again just an excellent article and we need more ppl like you in the space to be heard more!!