How to Earn Steady Profits in Blockchain Games? Project Teams Reveal the Dual Profit Logic for Both Players and the Project

The following is a recap of an industry interview. The views are for discussion only and do not constitute investment advice.

In recent years, Web3 games have gone through countless narrative cycles. But what Web3 gamers really care about is straightforward: Is this a Web3 game with high playability? Can it sustain earning potential? How does the project make money?

In this episode of GMA Talk, we invited Leo, a project representative, to share from the project's perspective why Web3 games are difficult to build: long development cycles, uncertain cash flow, traditional capital markets' aversion to non-linear returns, and Web3's inherent financial and speculative nature.

GMA TALK: "Why are more and more people saying: Web3 games are dead?"

Guest: Leo, CBO of Gamebank

Interview time: July 2, 2026 (Thursday) 3:00 PM

Host: GMA Nann

GMA Talk Q&A

Q1: Why did you transition from traditional finance and investment to a Web3 gaming project?

Leo: I previously worked in private equity, mainly dealing with traditional industries like FMCG, real estate, hotels, cruises, and media. But over time, I increasingly realized that the truly creative entertainment industry — especially gaming — has a natural conflict with traditional capital markets. Game development cycles are long, cash flow is unstable, but once a hit emerges, the returns are extremely non-linear. This doesn't fully align with the predictable, linear growth that traditional finance pursues. I first encountered blockchain around 2013 or 2014. Initially, I had many doubts about it, including its financial nature, regulatory conflicts, and technical issues. But after a decade of development, I've become more convinced that blockchain represents part of the future financial model. Gaming itself is a collection of culture, emotion, and creativity. So I believe the combination of gaming and Web3 is not a short-term hype but a long-term trend.

Q2: What exactly is Pump Snake?

Leo: Pump Snake is first and foremost a casual competitive game that supports multi-player simultaneous battles. Think of it as a multiplayer, competitive version of Snake. We want it to be easy to pick up, yet competitive and entertaining, allowing dozens or even hundreds of players to battle in the same room.

We did a lot of research early on, such as on battle royale games. If everyone puts in one dollar and the winner takes all, some players find it fun. But others prefer that the top ten get rewards instead of a winner-takes-all system.

Eventually, we felt that Snake — with its broad audience, easy-to-learn mechanics, and competitive space — was a great fit for our first product.

Our goal isn't simply to make a "play-to-earn" game. We want players to become stakeholders during gameplay. You're not just topping up and spending; you're participating in interaction, competition, and asset distribution, thereby realizing some form of value.

Q3: Is Pump Snake positioned as a game or a financial asset issuance platform?

Leo: Our positioning is first and foremost a game. Without a gaming experience that players enjoy, all subsequent financialization and assetization are meaningless.

However, if the DAU reaches 100k or even 1 million in the future, the platform could gradually evolve into an asset issuance and IP value monetization platform. For example, if a KOL or IP wants to go on-chain, the traditional way is costly, and fans can only simply buy or sell tokens.

But through our game system, they could build a Gindex around their traffic, attracting fans and players to interact within the game. So in the short term, it's a multiplayer casual competitive game; in the long term, it could become a platform that uses gaming to facilitate asset issuance, community interaction, and value monetization. However, this premise still requires the game to work first.

Q4: Do you have real revenue now? How will monetization work?

Leo: We won't artificially separate Web2 and Web3 revenue, because at its core, this is a game. For instance, each round can be seen as a transaction, with a fixed transaction fee. We'll also have subscription services, like SVIP, offering additional features or points rewards to highly active users. In the future, there will be paid items like skins, blind boxes, and道具 (props). But these designs won't break competitive fairness — similar to how Honor of Kings can sell skins while keeping matches fair.

At the same time, we've implemented some more Web3-native mechanisms, such as "loss-to-earn." If a player loses money, they receive an equivalent amount of points, which can be used to draw blind boxes, get skins,道具, or future map fragments.

After this mechanism launched, the average number of rounds played per player per day increased from 12 to nearly 18, showing it effectively boosted engagement.

Q5: Why do you emphasize "loss-to-earn"? What problem is this mechanism trying to solve?

Leo: Because our game uses a ticket system. In each round, there will inevitably be winners and losers. Winners are naturally happy to get rewards, but if losers only lose money, their experience will be poor and they'll be less likely to stay.

So we designed the "loss-to-earn" mechanism. Whatever you lose, you get corresponding points, which can be used to draw blind boxes. These blind boxes cannot be purchased directly with money — only via points. The purpose is to give players a reason to continue participating even when they lose.

We want this economic system not to be a simple zero-sum game, but to allow players of different skill levels and spending capacities to find a sense of involvement. Skilled players can win money; less skilled players can accumulate points and items, thereby improving overall game retention.

Q6: How does Pump Snake bring Web2 users into Web3?

Leo: My idea is that in the future, perhaps 90% or even 95% of users will be traditional Web2 users. But their entry into Web3 shouldn't start with going to an exchange to buy tokens — it should start with gaming.

If a user first finds the game fun, is willing to top up and play, and then discovers they can open a wallet, monetize rewards, and interact with on-chain assets, they naturally enter the Web3 world. This process is much smoother than telling users "go buy tokens first."

So we are open to various payment channels: iOS, Google, traditional top-ups, and Web3 wallets. Users can choose whichever is more convenient or has lower fees. Web3 for us is not about forcefully educating users; it's about letting them naturally encounter a new value system while playing.

Q7: Why is the team currently relatively low-key, even semi-anonymous, on the Web3 side?

Leo: This is mainly because we want to focus on the product itself. The game is already listed on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, and the listing process involved thorough communication with these platforms.

On the Web3 side, we're in no rush to emphasize team background, token launch plans, or on-chain timelines from day one. We want to first solidify the product experience, monetization, and user retention. If the game really takes off one day, everyone will naturally learn about the team and project details. The priority now is continuous iteration to make the game better.

This doesn't mean we're abandoning Web3. On the contrary, launching a token and building an on-chain asset system are definitely our direction. But the pace must match the product, market conditions, and regulatory environment. We can't push everything out prematurely just for short-term hype.

Q8: Will you definitely launch a token in the future? Or does it depend on the project's development?

Leo: We will definitely launch a token — that's clear. But exactly when depends on many factors.

First, the broader market environment needs to gradually recover from the downturn. Second, the regulatory environment, especially clearer definitions in the US for models like Polymarket and Kalshi. Third, our own product and user scale need to continue improving.

I don't think it's most important right now to spend a lot of effort on a very complex token issuance plan, because infrastructure, development costs, and regulatory conditions are still evolving. For us, this is actually a good window: build a great product, grow the user base, and get the monetization model working. When the market and regulations are more mature, we can fully implement the token and on-chain mechanisms.

Q9: How do you avoid the token economy falling into a death spiral?

Leo: Our top priority is the player experience and the long-term operation of the game. If a mechanism can profit the project team or some speculators in the short term but harms the game's long-term development, we will never do it.

Many projects in the past attracted a lot of attention and players initially, but because their economic mechanisms didn't align the long-term interests of the project, players, and ecosystem, they ultimately failed. We don't want to repeat that mistake.

So if we haven't fully thought through a mechanism, we'd rather not release it yet. We'll focus on product and gameplay first, and then gradually add the on-chain components and incentive mechanisms. Games inherently have many uncertainties — market, regulation, user behavior — so we don't want to fix the entire economic model on day one.

Q10: Do advertising revenue, subscriptions, and blind box mechanisms affect player fairness?

Leo: We will strive to ensure fairness between free and paying users at the competitive level. For example, SVIP may offer cool avatars, extra features, or points rewards, but it won't make you directly stronger in the game.

Advertising is similar. Unlike many free games that force ads on players, we give them a choice after each round. You can watch or skip. If ad revenue is generated, we'll return a high percentage to users; if revenue is low, we'll give some in-game道具 instead.

The blind box mechanism uses points for draws, and the probability is the same for players in different ticket rooms. High-ticket players may lose more per round and thus earn more points; low-ticket players may need to play more rounds to earn the same points, but the draw probability itself is identical.

Q11: How will AI impact your game design?

Leo: AI will certainly have a major impact on games. Initially, we'll use AI tools to monitor abnormal behavior, prevent bots, and detect cheating — similar to what traditional gaming companies do for anti-cheat.

But I think the more interesting future is that we don't have to treat AI solely as something to guard against. If the game becomes popular enough, players will naturally think: "I can only play a few rounds a day, can I have a bot play for me?" This demand is bound to emerge.

So we're also considering whether to integrate AI mechanisms directly into the game — for example, letting players have an AI snake, or binding AI behavior to NFTs, or even opening an SDK for players to program their own AI.

This could be a very interesting direction. Web2, Web3, and AI will become increasingly intertwined in the future, and Web3 might even become the infrastructure for AI payments and asset transfer.

Q12: What are Pump Snake's current metrics? What's the next plan?

Leo: Three months after launch, total registered users are close to 15k to 20k. Excluding duplicates, real users are around 10k. Daily DAU is roughly 1,000 to 2,000. For a startup project with almost no marketing spend, I think this is a great result, and with continuous updates, many metrics are improving.

In July, we will have a major commercial update, including skins, blind boxes, and an NFT system. We'll also do more promotion in Southeast Asia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the broader Asia-Pacific region. Previously, at offline events, just telling people "this is the most fun Snake game in the world" made many willing to download and try. Once the commercial content is more complete, I believe it will help with retention and word-of-mouth.

Q13: If someone says "Web3 games are dead," how would you respond?

Leo: I don't think Web3 games are dead. On the contrary, I believe the ultimate value monetization model for future games will definitely be in Web3, or Web3 combined with AI.

The problem now is that we are in a transitional period between two eras. There have been many failed Web3 game projects, along with immature mechanisms and excessive speculation. But that doesn't mean the direction is wrong; it just means the products, users, regulations, and infrastructure are not yet fully mature.

I believe that in the future, more Web2 games will actively embrace blockchain technology, and more Web3 games will truly succeed. However, the next generation of Web3 games must not rely solely on token launches and short-term hype. They need genuine gameplay, retention, paying users, and the use of blockchain to solve asset, value distribution, and community participation issues.