Recently, I saw the revival of the "play-to-earn" model in blockchain games, and I started to have some doubts. To put it simply, the pool has only two legs: production (issuing tokens/items) and consumption (upgrading/drawing cards/fees). Once the production is designed to release a fixed amount daily, and the consumption can't keep up, the result is inflation tearing itself apart: the more players there are, the faster the supply is released, and the lower the token price, the less willing people are to reinvest their assets. The pool shifts from "profit" to a "selling pressure training camp."

When I analyze interaction paths, I fear seeing scenarios like: entering the game first to receive incentives, exiting with a one-click sell, with almost no friction or costs in between... then don't be surprised if the lifecycle is short.

A colleague asked me a couple of days ago whether a meme-backed blockchain game could break through. I could only say that attention spans are too short; when celebrities shout a few words, people rush in, but most of the time, the last person to join ends up footing the bill.
Anyway, now I look at blockchain games first to see if there's "destruction/sunk cost" involved—if not, just treat it as an experience product, not as financial management.