"CT Chinese · Crypto Circle Open Mic" is a monthly audio interview program created by Cointelegraph's Chinese site, held every two weeks. The show invites core practitioners and observers from various fields such as blockchain, Web3, DeFi, stablecoins, the Ethereum ecosystem, and policy regulation to enter the studio and discuss industry hotspots, market dynamics, and in-depth perspectives. In a relaxed and open dialogue atmosphere, it presents a more authentic, diverse, and cutting-edge crypto world to the audience.
This episode's theme is: Web3 Games and Token Economics: New Possibilities from Gameplay to Economy
Our invited guests include:
Marketing Manager Roxanne from Angland,
Marketing Manager La Nieve from MEET48,
and two well-known KOLs from the Chinese community: Yuki and Scarlett.
(The audio transcription has been processed by AI, with some content edited and modified. For the complete audio, please visit the X platform to listen.)
Host Eva:
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this episode of "CT Chinese Crypto Circle Open Mic." I am your host, Eva.
Today, we are once again focusing on one of the most controversial yet potentially promising tracks in recent years—Web3 games. The theme of this AMA is "Web3 Games and Token Economics: New Possibilities from Gameplay to Economy."
First, let’s quickly review the latest industry dynamics. According to DappRadar's latest report for Q2 2025, the number of daily active wallets in Web3 games has decreased by 17%, with over 300 game projects choosing to shut down this quarter. It sounds alarming, but what's more interesting is that despite this, Web3 games still account for nearly one-third of the overall activity in blockchain applications, making it one of the most active tracks in the Web3 space.
This means that players have not left Web3 games; they are just waiting for truly playable, sustainable games that can retain them long-term.
At the same time, we are also seeing an important trend: a gradual transition from the past "Play-to-Earn" model, which focused on making money, to the "Play-and-Own" model that emphasizes asset value and long-term experience. The world of Web3 games is undergoing a shift from "short-term gains" to "long-term value." This is also the core of our discussion today.
We have a strong lineup of guests tonight, including Marketing Manager Roxanne from Angland, Marketing Manager La Nieve from MEET48, and two KOLs from the Chinese community, Yuki and Scarlett. Thank you all for joining us.
Before we start our AMA, let’s have each guest greet our audience.
Roxanne:
Hello everyone, I am speaking on behalf of Angland. We are a GameFi project, but we are a very new game that has not officially launched yet. So if you are interested, please check out our official Twitter. We are planning to launch around November 29 or early December. To briefly introduce our game, as mentioned earlier, everyone is now more focused on long-term aspects. Angland is a fishing-themed game, but it serves as a sustainable economic experiment. There are NFTs in the game, but these NFTs are not artworks; they are items that provide emotional value. Our main goal is for players to engage in long-term gameplay and gradually grow.
Nieve:
I am the Marketing Manager at MEET48. We are currently incubating a new game, which is expected to have a small-scale release and testing in early December. Over the next two weeks, we will be conducting various promotional activities, so if you want to take advantage of it or learn more about the project, feel free to follow our account.
The game we are incubating is primarily based on Web2 gameplay, but it features a unique dual-token model and includes both POP and POS gameplay, which I will explain in detail later. Thank you.
Yuki:
I am a content creator in Web3 and a content KOL, as well as the founder of the T1_Labs gaming community. I am very grateful to be invited to participate in this thematic discussion.
Scarlett:
I am Scarlett, and I used to work at ByteDance. I believe I have a say in content matters. I have previously created token economic models for projects and have been deeply involved in the operation of projects from 0 to 1, as well as in writing their economic models. So today, I have some thoughts to share regarding games and economic token models.
Host Eva:
Thank you, everyone. Now we will officially start today's AMA discussion. The first question I would like to ask Yuki and Scarlett is: According to DappRadar's report, the number of daily active wallets in Web3 games decreased by 17% in Q2 2025, with over 300 game projects shutting down. What do you think are the main reasons behind this fluctuation? Is it due to unsustainable token economic designs, or have players' expectations of "earning tokens" diminished? How are project teams responding to these fluctuations in their designs to improve user retention and sustainability?
Yuki:
I am not surprised at all by the current market situation and this fluctuation. The patience of players in the entire Web3 gaming environment is getting shorter. However, compared to game projects and other projects, the economic pressure on game projects is increasing. Most games initially offered high outputs and high returns to attract users. This method can quickly draw people in, but it fails to retain them. As a result, many who come in are there to mine rather than to play. You will see many game projects with high outputs and selling pressure, leading to the entire economy being drained, which may be the fundamental reason behind the recent disappearance of these 300 projects.
In addition, I think there are two more points: players may have diminished expectations regarding P2E—earning expectations are no longer as high because the returns from other projects are certainly higher than those from playing games. Playing games requires time and financial investment, which leads Web3 game players to lean towards other higher-yield projects. Furthermore, project costs are rising while conversion rates are declining, causing many games to struggle to sustain themselves due to excessive spending. For currently stable projects, like the previous MapleStory, they initially used high returns to retain players, and later, some players remained simply because the game was enjoyable. Now, those who stay are mostly loyal players of that game.
First, I think we should reduce yield-based rewards and better align outputs with players' actual contributions. Second, we may need to increase the consumption scenarios for tokens to create a complete economic cycle. Third, sustainable rewards should replace short-term incentives; only such projects can last long. Fourth, future game projects need to offer more gameplay and improve overall game retention, rather than relying on explosive growth. Because while exposure is good, whether you can retain people through that exposure is crucial. I feel that the current gaming environment can no longer rely solely on high-yield incentives to keep players. Either your game has to be more fun, or your assets must have long-term value, or your economic model must be stable.
Scarlett:
To understand why people are not playing blockchain games now compared to when they were, we need to clarify the logic behind both scenarios.
I have always pointed out that the economic model of GameFi ultimately leads to one outcome: a death spiral. No game has been able to avoid the endpoint of this death spiral from start to finish.
So what causes this result? We can analyze it from the perspective of behavioral finance. We can roughly categorize the participants in GameFi 1.0 into four types—investment institutions, project teams, old players, and new players. All four types come to the battlefield with the intention of making money. Investment institutions invest in project teams, and when project teams profit, they give back to the investment institutions. Players enter the game through primary and secondary markets or by purchasing NFTs. Thus, the core purpose of everyone involved in blockchain games is to make money; they are there to earn, not to play.
So who is most likely to make money? First, project teams are the most likely to profit because they have the weakest information asymmetry. If they want to act maliciously or have the idea of a soft rug pull, they are likely to succeed. Investment institutions are also likely to make money because once project teams profit, they will generally bring investment institutions along for the ride.
Who is most likely to lose money? It is the players at the bottom of the food chain. Because there are many players, and when they see others making a lot of money, everyone rushes in. Among them, old players are the most likely to profit because they entered early, so their costs are low, or they recoup their investment while the project is still profitable, leaving only profits to play with, while new players are most likely to lose money. From a behavioral finance perspective, all four parties have the same goal of making money; who would want to lose money? As we know, the crypto space is a classic zero-sum game. The money you earn or lose is essentially the money that someone else has put into this circle. We can see that this economic model is indeed heading towards a death spiral.
Returning to the question of why we initially gave rise to blockchain games, they can be said to have gradually emerged during the Axie era and more recently with games like MapleStory. Why did this happen? We experienced the DeFi summer and the NFT era, and then everyone began to explore what else blockchain could bring us. Ultimately, what emerged seemed to be the final form of blockchain, which we embedded into games. We allowed players to both play and enjoy while also earning money through their actions and assets on-chain.
In this process, I can also profit in various ways. For example, I can issue NFTs; most blockchain games have token passes, meaning I must hold a certain NFT or SDT to enter the game. Once in the game, you can earn tokens. Tokens can be divided into several types, possibly including a parent token and child tokens. Then we can embed various elements into this token economic model, such as time taxes—if you withdraw early, you receive fewer tokens—or establishing a DAO, where the amount of tokens you hold or how you participate can influence voting, creating even more diverse gameplay for the game.
For example, Axie is a breeding consumption type; you can use a father and a mother to produce a son, and then this son can continue to be sold. As everyone knows, once you have a father and a mother, you can keep breeding sons, which essentially creates an infinite issuance model, leading towards a death spiral. After experiencing such a period, people felt that blockchain games had settled down and could become a viable medium for gaming. However, later on, everyone discovered that no matter how they played, it was still a death spiral, and at that point, people stopped buying in.
Everyone knows that the market now consists mostly of smart people; retail investors have already lost everything. On October 11, there were significant liquidations, but the number of people liquidated was not as high. The people in this space understand what the economic model looks like, know the underlying logic, and are aware of whose money they should be making. In such a circle, how can there be players? Retail investors have already been wiped out by this market. Coupled with the decline in the heat of both the secondary and primary markets, capital cannot flow into this space, and the overall environment is poor. People are also unwilling to play; they will pursue something more exciting. Since I have already decided to play, and I have decided to gamble, why not just go play the slot machines for that immediate thrill?
So, how can project teams change this, how can they change the mindset of retail investors—how can I make users feel that my game is really good and they want to play? There are actually many ways to achieve this.
Host Eva:
There is a viewpoint in the industry that Web3 games are transitioning from being purely driven by earning tokens (Play-to-Earn) to "owning assets + long-term value" (Play-and-Own). In your projects, do you have a design similar to P2O (Play-and-Own)? If so, how does this design help enhance economic stability?
Nieve:
I think I can share from three aspects regarding this question. Our game’s white paper is still undergoing minor adjustments, so the data may differ from what we will release later. We are conceptualizing in the direction of play and own, rather than the traditional play to earn. As mentioned earlier, game projects often face a death spiral or the concept of mining until resources are exhausted. We do not want our ecosystem to be like that; we hope that users and the community platform can form a positive cycle. I believe this is a very important concept in Web3 marketing.
We want players to not just earn tokens but to own assets with real long-term value. Our game currently does not have NFTs, but it features a dual-token structure with GFT and IDOL. Both IDOL and GFT will be integrated into the game for the consumption of game items and the core of the economy.
GFT is a pending token designed for the entire game product; it mainly focuses on deflation and staking design, which avoids the issues of continuous token issuance and increasing inflation mentioned earlier. IDOL will serve as our ecosystem token, which can be exchanged in the game for IDC and then used for upgrading and consuming game items.
GFT will also appear in several other games we plan to launch later, so there is no need to worry about its value decreasing or becoming worthless. Our entire structure is designed to maintain its value sustainably.
Secondly, we have a POP, which is proof of play, that features a fixed reward pool. This means we do not increase token issuance just because more people are playing. Instead, the rewards are fixed and the distribution is limited. I believe this is very important for our entire economic model because many GameFi projects, as I mentioned earlier, die due to infinite token issuance and increasing rewards. This can lead to uncertainty about when this Ponzi scheme will explode.
Thirdly, we will have POS, which is a familiar staking mechanism that allows the value of tokens to be preserved. Players can stake GFT and IDOL to earn stable returns. At the same time, this approach helps reduce market circulation pressure. The POS design encourages assets to be held longer rather than sold immediately as in the play-to-earn era, promoting players and users to stay longer within the game and its ecosystem. Even if you just want to observe the game, you can simply stake and receive certain returns. To summarize our newly launched incubated project in one sentence, I believe our economic cycle leans towards naturally stabilizing asset scarcity, providing richer returns for early holders, and ensuring long-term sustainability.
Roxanne:
Sorry, our game has not fully delved into the play-to-own transition yet. However, we have envisioned a gameplay model that is somewhat similar to this. So if you are interested in this aspect, you can look forward to our project. But today, I won’t go into detail about this.
Speaking of play-to-own, if the entire industry is indeed developing in this direction, I believe there are two core elements behind it. First is the nature of NFTs; NFTs essentially provide players with true ownership of digital assets. They are not just decorative items within the game but can prove a player's presence and even serve as long-term productive assets, giving players a greater sense of security. Compared to the pure play-to-earn model, I think play-to-own emphasizes interactivity and player engagement more, not just short-term gains, but a concept of mutual growth. It allows players not only to play games but also to manage their digital assets, increasing their attachment and investment in the entire ecosystem, thereby enhancing loyalty to the game.
Secondly, each player's behavior and interests vary; what people focus on is not the same. Users who like Web3 may not necessarily enjoy games that require a lot of technical skills. Many might focus more on the earning aspect, as mentioned earlier, so there are many who are unwilling to spend a lot of time researching how to play the game to meet their psychological needs. Therefore, in our design philosophy at Angland, we keep the nature of the game at a level where anyone can achieve results with just a little effort, meaning anyone can play. Even those transitioning from Web2 to Web3, these new players do not need high-level skills to enter the game, so the barrier to entry is very low.
We emphasize a very fair value system; regardless of gaming experience, everyone can earn fair opportunities in production. Everyone's opportunities are very consistent, and the rules are also very transparent. Although we have not fully engaged in the play-to-earn function, we have related ideas and designs that feel connected to play-to-earn practices, which I can share.
First is a fair game mechanism. As I mentioned earlier, regardless of players' experience, as long as you play, you will receive reasonable rewards, so there is no technical competition among players. Second is the assetized digital space; players can not only participate in the game itself but also manage their fishing grounds and other NFT assets, which they can sell in the marketplace. These assets are not only useful in the game but may also generate long-term value within the ecosystem. This is also a way for us to cultivate players. Third is the design for economic stability. We closely integrate game balance with token design. The main way to earn tokens is through gameplay, making gaming behavior the primary means of acquiring tokens. This way, the in-game economic activities related to token circulation match the act of playing the game, avoiding risks like inflation and allowing everyone to play in a healthier, more relaxed, and chill manner over the long term.
Host Eva:
The two of you just mentioned that your games have not officially launched yet, but we also want to ask about how many Web3 games have lost players early on due to high inflation, such as excessive release of utility tokens. How do you design token issuance, distribution, and release rhythm (tokenomics) to balance incentives and inflation risks?
Roxanne:
Because our game is quite laid-back, we have also seen many existing issues. We are not considering airdrops or external distributions at all. The only way for our players to earn tokens is through their own efforts by playing the game itself. Therefore, we hope to establish a balance between token balance and game balance; we do not want everyone to exit all at once. We have learned from the failures of many other games and have incorporated our philosophy into the game, maintaining a balance through our game operations.
So currently, to control this, we have integrated it into our game. Many games experience rapid token inflation and player loss, and we really do not want this to happen in our game. If we issue too many tokens at the start, everyone will have overly high expectations. They might find the game interesting, but then they may expect more airdrops, and their focus will shift to those airdrops, losing the motivation to actually play the game. However, we have designed many thoughtful elements into the game, so we genuinely hope everyone can participate gradually through gameplay.
Thus, we have adopted a very different design; our philosophy is that token balance equals game balance.
Nieve:
The core issue in the entire GameFi industry has been clearly articulated by predecessors. Our approach is also designed point-to-point, incorporating anti-inflation measures, a fixed reward pool, and transparent destruction as three layers of protection.
The first layer is that our GFT will never evaporate. Currently, we have set it at one billion, and it will not increase on the blockchain. This level of transparency and openness at least allows players to feel assured that their assets will not depreciate due to our continuous decentralized minting. The second point is that we will dynamically destroy tokens within 48 hours, which is a key design for us. All destruction will go to a publicly accessible black hole address on-chain, which everyone can check, and it is irreversible. The destruction ratio will be dynamically adjusted based on market circulation. If there is a lot of circulation in the market, the destruction ratio will increase. If circulation is low, consumption will decrease. Our POP and POS reward pools are fixed and will not increase with the number of players, whether there are 1,000 players or 10,000 players; our initial model has already been set. Therefore, it will not be like many projects that set their roadmap and then keep changing it.
Many play-to-earn games collapse not because the number of players decreases, but because once players flood in, the development team tries to increase rewards to attract more traffic and secure funding. However, in reality, after burning through the funding, they do not achieve actual returns. The result is that the more you play, the faster the inflation, and the less valuable the tokens become. Early players, of course, leave faster, and we have directly blocked this path. The rewards from POP and POS are pre-set pools and are not infinitely mined.
In the end, what is consumed in the game is not our actual tokens, but exchange coins. Our current idea is to use the IDOL and GFT tokens on the chain for exchanges. They become IDC and JSC, which are the in-game currencies and consumption coins. These are exchanges, not a concept of printing money. The game will have natural consumption, so it will not inflate the more you play.
In summary, we do not rely on issuing more tokens for players to earn. In fact, we rely on three points: deflation, consumption, and exchange, making assets increasingly scarce. This way, the price of our tokens will not suddenly crash or drop sharply. We also hope that through this method, players will be more willing to stay.
Host Eva:
From the perspective of token economics and return potential, what is the essential difference between investing in a game token (or GameFi token) and only investing in game NFTs (such as character or equipment NFTs)? Which type of investor do you think is more suitable for game tokens, and which is more suitable for game NFTs?
Nieve:
I think this is a question that many newcomers to GameFi would like to ask. To simplify, investing in tokens is equivalent to investing in the entire ecosystem. I believe tokens are more like stocks of the entire platform; their value comes from player activity, the health of the entire game economic model, the scale of the ecosystem, the token burn and consumption designed by the project team, and most importantly, market demand.
So who is suitable? First, investors who want to invest in the GameFi ecosystem. Second, those who are very familiar with the operations of the crypto space; they might be mining-type players. Third, those who enjoy capturing market fluctuations. I think the beginning of this bull market can be defined as the start of the meme market. These individuals really enjoy capturing market fluctuations, and I believe the most important thing is that we want to hold onto those who are optimistic about the long-term development of our project platform. If you are purchasing NFTs, it means you are investing in this NFT, which is more like a functional asset within the game. The value of NFTs will also be influenced by factors such as the length of the item’s stats, the popularity of the game, whether players need it, and whether the item is rare. In terms of the situation in Taipei, our most popular games might be Lineage and MapleStory. The items in these games are also influenced by liquidity; for example, how many good items drop in a dungeon? How many of these good items are circulating in the market? These factors clearly affect prices, and players who are currently playing are already familiar with this.
The liquidity of NFTs is usually lower than that of tokens, but their utility is more defined. Essentially, you are fully invested in the game ecosystem. I think it is suitable for deep players who want to enhance their gaming experience. Just like when VR first came out, many original PC players were very excited. They might not have the technical skills yet, but I believe that VR has developed a very large market for enhancing gaming experiences. I think that although there are essential differences with blockchain, the ultimate goal is to hope that this group of gamers can use these tools within the game to enhance their gaming experience, quality of life, or discover different ways to play.
In summary, tokens are more suitable for investors in the crypto space or players with an investment orientation. NFTs are more suitable for those who already love games and are interested in the integration of new technologies with gaming. I believe these two aspects can coexist and complement each other. I also hope that in the future, we can incorporate more NFT technology into our game, but currently, we do not have that.
Yuki:
We just discussed investing in tokens versus investing in game NFTs. Personally, I think investing in tokens is similar to investing in stocks or funds. When you invest in their tokens, it is equivalent to observing the development of the entire company's ecosystem. For example, if this ecosystem develops and secures new funding or institutions, then the token will rise, leaning more towards financial attributes. It is similar to investing in a company, where the project growth, narrative rhythm, and market sentiment are largely intertwined. However, while it has strong liquidity, its volatility can also be significant. It rises quickly but can also drop sharply. The game tokens we see now can be said to have peaked at TGE.
For tokens, liquidity, capital depth, and trading volume are important. You also need to look at the trends after TGE. Tokens are more suitable for investors who like to observe trends and sectors, as well as those who understand accumulation cycles. NFTs, on the other hand, are more suitable for those who are optimistic about the game and want to participate more deeply in the in-game investments. Some people do not pay attention to token trends because studying candlestick charts and trading charts is a very deep subject. If they do not understand it, they will want to buy something simple and understandable, which is game NFTs.
Game NFTs are like items in the game, such as characters, equipment, land, or tickets. When you buy an NFT, you can enter their game to play, generate returns, and consume. If you no longer want to play, you can also trade in the secondary market.
The liquidity of NFTs is not as high as that of tokens. However, their uniqueness is strong, and their gameplay value is very intuitive. I believe they are more suitable for those who enjoy playing games or for players who are long-term participants in the ecosystem. The value of tokens comes from outside the game; that is my personal understanding.
Host Eva:
When observing the community, comment sections, and user feedback, have you noticed any shifts in players' focus regarding Web3 games? What content generates the most discussion? What content are people starting to disregard?
Yuki:
Actually, I have seen a lot of community feedback recently, and the changes are quite significant. In the past, when people entered Web3 games, the first question might have been whether they could earn money or how long it would take to break even. But it is clear that players now are very cautious. As mentioned earlier, retail investors have mostly been washed out in the recent wave, and those remaining are smart individuals.
The hottest discussion points now might be: first, whether the game can be played continuously, focusing on long-term sustainability and retention. People do not want to be short-lived project testers anymore; they do not want to lose money. Second, whether the rewards can be stable, as players now understand that so-called high returns cannot last forever. Third, whether the assets are genuinely useful. Fourth, whether the game is fun.
As for what content people are starting to disregard, it is what I mentioned earlier: high returns, infinite mining mechanisms, and some projects relying on hype and empty promises. There are also those that overly package themselves, claiming to be the next Axie; we have seen many such projects in recent years, and these slogans are very common. But now, players have become immune to this.
Scarlett:
I believe players' focus on Web3 is indeed changing. Because if we talk about those who are still in the blockchain gaming circle and are playing games, even if they are just in it for the rewards or to make money, their focus must also be on whether the game is boring, whether it is fun, whether they can engage with it, and how well the game is doing overall. Since I have to face it every day, if it can bring me a bit of joy during my boring money-making process, and if the graphics are good enough, the gameplay is simple enough, and the operation and overall interface are refreshing, then I think I would enjoy playing it more. If I consider myself a player just in it for the rewards, I would still care about whether the game is fun.
The second point is about the assets. This includes several aspects. First, how much utility does the NFT have, and what is its retention rate? Because most projects might first issue NFTs and then issue tokens. Therefore, many people will also pay attention to the price of these NFTs. The price of NFTs actually represents whether the project team has a certain level of control over the assets and whether they can maintain the asset price at a certain level. Because if the NFT drops significantly, what is the point of earning tokens on your platform? So I will also care about whether the asset has additional empowerment and its price.
The third point is whether the entry barrier for the game is high. For example, some games have expensive tickets (NFTs), or the games are particularly large.
These are the three points I would pay more attention to. Personally, I would look at the token economic model. How much of the entire token economic model is allocated to the community, what the distribution will look like, and I would also consider the background of the entire team. I would look at previous projects they launched, whether the core figures or key players have a risk of running away, and what role they play in the community, as well as how far previous projects have gone.
Host Eva:
Are there any games or token economic mechanisms that you feel are "not just concepts, but truly effective"? Why? Is it because the gameplay itself is strong? Is the economic mechanism stable? Or is the player community atmosphere good?
Scarlett:
In the past, when I played games, I might have pursued AAA titles more. The essence of pursuing AAA projects is that they have money and a lot of funding. I thought that being involved with such projects would lead to long-term success. Now my thinking is completely the opposite. Just today, I posted a tweet an hour ago: "I said I want to add one more thing; my current choice of blockchain games is not AAA masterpieces, but TG mini-games. Why? Because TG is lightweight enough, Unity can handle it, and the Telegram process is also very well established. There are many ready-made studios and players in Southeast Asia, and the volume is good enough to provide investors with a clear account of the small investment in the game. So, if they raise funds and issue tokens, won't they have more money?"
This is what I wrote before the AMA today. Now when I look at games, I also focus on TG-related games.
Yuki:
I have a similar viewpoint because I have recently been playing mini-games on Douyin, where there are many mini-program games. I play for five or six hours at a time.
I also look at web-based games because I believe that the early success of 4399 was due to its convenience. I think all games should return to convenience; the gaming experience on Steam is excellent, but it takes a long time to download.
What can bring long-term participation and value to players is still reliant on the gameplay of the game itself, which should be deep, strategic, and allow for growth. For example, character development, battle strategies, and explorative worlds, like in Genshin Impact, can encourage players to log in daily, not just for rewards. The second point is that the economic design should align closely with the gameplay. The acquisition and use of your tokens and assets should be meaningful, rather than simply issuing rewards to inflate numbers. For instance, upgrading, competing, and crafting equipment should require tokens, rather than relying on studios that aim to sustain themselves through mining by playing games.
The third point is that community participation can enhance gameplay. The community is a crucial aspect of Web3, as many projects thrive because of their communities. Players are not just there to earn money; they also want to communicate and share experiences through the game, which can help drive the development of the ecosystem. In simple terms, it should be fun, useful, and have a good atmosphere—this is my personal judgment of a mechanism.
Host Eva:
Alright, for the last question of our AMA today, looking ahead to the next one to two years, what innovations do you think are most likely to emerge in the design of Web3 game token economies? (This could include new token models, cross-chain mechanisms, dynamic economies, DAO-driven initiatives, etc.) What are your expectations for the integration/expansion of the GameFi industry within the mainstream gaming industry (Web2)?
Roxanne:
I believe that in the next one to two years, the token economy of Web3 games will develop in a significant direction. People will simplify those seemingly complex and cumbersome elements, putting forward what players truly care about, such as emotional value and fun.
In Web3, games play two roles: one is the entry point, and the other is the interface. What is the entry point? I think it means making it very simple and entertaining for ordinary players to first engage with Web3, without needing to understand what a wallet is or which chain is better. As mentioned earlier, it should feel like playing a small, easy-to-handle game. This will make it more straightforward, more beginner-friendly, and gradually more accessible to the general public—this is one point.
The second point I mentioned is that games in Web3 serve as an interface. Why is the interface role important? Because the interface can transform those underlying concepts that seem daunting into formats that our game users are already accustomed to, such as buttons, tasks, achievements, and levels—these are all concepts familiar to gamers, which actually embody the logic of Web3.
However, I believe the breakthrough for the entire industry in the future will not be about making technology simpler, but rather about why players should want to play your game. Can you provide emotional value? Can you make players feel that playing this game is valuable and meaningful? Because, to be honest, even if you make the wallet and process very simple, it does not mean players will want to stay. People do not stay because the process is simple; they stay because they like it and develop feelings for it.
For example, they might appreciate the game's values, the characters, various designs, or enjoy collecting small items within the game. Additionally, they might appreciate the community atmosphere, feeling a strong connection with others who share similar interests. These are all driven by emotions.
Therefore, I believe the most meaningful innovations in the future will focus on making the value of Web3 more natural. The economic system should be more realistic, meaningful, and participatory, rather than cold and financialized, where everyone only focuses on how to make money. So, I think there is also a part that can be said to be a fusion with Web2.
Nieve:
This question can be systematically shared in four points. GameFi and token economies have been evolving, constantly seeking ways to attract more players. I am someone who loves playing games. I was deeply immersed in various online games during my middle school years, including CSGO and The Legend of Sword and Fairy, so I consider myself a player who has been gaming from a young age. I strongly agree that what we play is indeed an emotional value.
From my perspective, the first point is that dynamic tokenomics will replace fixed parameters. Just like our project, the future game economy will no longer have fixed consumption, fixed expenditure, or fixed rewards. It should resemble a financial market that automatically adjusts; for example, as the number of players increases, the proportion of rewards decreases, while the proportion of market inflation consumption increases, and during events, mining pools will automatically increase output. Such a design will make the ecosystem healthier and help avoid explosive inflation.
The second point is that player identities will become cross-game assets. I have always thought that a great experience would be that in the future, when we switch games, we do not have to start as beginners again. The assets I acquire in one game, whether they are levels or item contributions, can be carried over to the next game.
I am not sure how old the audience is, but it is common to find a phenomenon where a phenomenal game appears, and after joining a guild and forming connections with a group of people, as the game gradually declines or the centralized token economy of that game fails, it will shut down, and that game will be gone. Although I may have gained significant economic value, I might no longer be in contact with those players. However, in some special cases, a game might truly be engaging enough to keep playing, which I think is quite good. We look forward to game assets being able to carry over to the next game continuously, which can also provide a more long-term operation and development for the project team.
The third point is that DAO has been discussed less in the past two years. However, I believe that players have already grasped this concept from the beginning. I don't know if everyone has played World of Warcraft, but early World of Warcraft player forums had many votes and responses, and the official team would respond after seeing them. I think this should be more transparently presented on the blockchain, which would greatly aid in the autonomous development of the entire project or player-driven ecosystems.
Finally, I believe that Web2 games have a significant opportunity to adopt Web3 technologies on a large scale. This means that there is a trend towards asset ownership. Web2 games will not completely transform into the GameFi, Play to Earn, or various concepts we are familiar with now. However, I believe they will gradually start to introduce concepts such as what asset ownership truly means, verifiable scarcity, free trading among players, transparent economic models, and cross-game usable assets. These are all ways to significantly enhance players' gaming experiences.
I believe Web3 will not completely replace Web2; rather, it will provide Web2 with better tools or ideas, allowing both operators and players to continue to thrive in the game over the long term.
Host Eva:
Thank you very much to the four guests for the wonderful sharing tonight. From the player's perspective to the project team's perspective, from token economics to long-term value, and to the judgment of the future forms of Web3 games in the next 1-2 years, I believe everyone can feel that Web3 games are not simply "GameFi," but are evolving towards a more authentic, sustainable, and user-value-centric direction.
We also see a clear trend: whether it is P2O, token model innovation, or community content ecosystems, the projects that can truly go far are those teams willing to return to the "essence of gaming" and dare to design long-term economic mechanisms.
Related articles: This week's review and next week's outlook | SoftBank plans to invest up to $3 billion in OpenAI's data center; Li Lin's $1 billion Ethereum DAT plan is shelved; Grab partners with StraitsX to promote stablecoin settlements.
Original article: 《CT Chinese · Coin Circle Open Mic | Web3 Games and Token Economics: New Possibilities from Gameplay to Economics》
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
