Lately, I've been looking at the pools in blockchain games, and it feels like they’re opening the floodgates: producing a lot, everyone’s happy to come in and mine, but the inflation can’t be contained, and when the token price softens, the pool depth quickly thins out. To put it simply, if the part of the game that “earns” mainly relies on new issuance rather than genuine consumption/recycling, in the end, it’s just mutual handovers, with the slowest buyers footing the bill.

Sometimes project teams even use various “accelerated production” as incentives; short-term data looks good, but in the long run, it’s just overdrawing future demand. Anyway, when I look at blockchain games now, I don’t focus much on pie-in-the-sky promises, but rather on whether there are exit points for recycling, whether consumption is a real necessity, and whether the pools can withstand when big players withdraw.

By the way, recently, the back-and-forth between Layer 2 solutions over TPS, fees, and subsidies also has that flavor: subsidies can attract people, but whether they stay depends ultimately on the economic closed loop. Honestly, ecosystems that rely too much on throwing money around will have to pay it back sooner or later. That’s all for now.