Recently, watching the “pools” in blockchain games really feels like chronic blood loss: in the early stage, it draws people in with high output, but the output itself relies on constantly increasing issuance. Once inflation kicks in, the coins you keep in your backpack become worth less and less, and everyone gets even more急 to sell—so the pool’s liquidity gets drained at a rapid pace. To put it simply, it’s not that players are disloyal; it’s that the economic model forces you to be a short-term trader.

When I look at these kinds of projects now, besides calculating the output, I care more about “where the output comes from”: is someone truly consuming assets (like item recycling, or burning coins for upgrades), or is it purely just new players being used to absorb the demand? I’ve also seen setups where the fees and the authorizations are a complete mess—contracts that, at every turn, ask you for unlimited allowances. With inflation plus security risks hitting at the same time, your mindset completely breaks down.

That last round of the NFT royalty controversy was basically the same—again, it’s “creators need income” versus “the secondary market needs liquidity.” In blockchain games, it’s actually even more ruthless: if you push the selling pressure onto players, liquidity will vote with its feet… Anyway, I’d rather play two fewer rounds now than be fuel again. Do you think there are any mechanisms that can make up for this hole?