After six years in the blockchain gaming industry, I've seen too many "first-month DAU peak, third-quarter exit" blockchain games. Pixels 2024 is also a part of that wave—earning 20 million USD annually, web3 DAU at its peak, but what happened? Token inflation, selling pressure crashing the bottom, rewards handed out to a group of locusts who only know how to withdraw. This is not the first landmine, and certainly not the last. I laughed when I opened that page of the white paper—"Mis-targeted Rewards". In simple terms, it's just the same old "work for tokens, convert tokens to fiat, run away with fiat" assembly line from three years ago, smacked in the face by the data they fed themselves. I’m not sure if this is called a pivot or a confession. #pixel
The most ruthless aspect of RORS is that it's a ratio: spend 1 unit on rewards, how much comes back to the ecosystem. Currently about 0.8, the target is to break through 1.0. Translated into plain language: for every 10 units of rewards issued, there’s a net loss of 2 units. The threshold is set above 1.0 for the entire economic model to be coherent. That said, I don’t trust those peers who write their game white papers with ARPDAU of fifteen dollars and K factor of 1.8—the more neat the numbers, the more it looks like a statistical illusion from PS. At least RORS provides a unit scale that can be audited, even if it just means I get fooled a couple of times less. $PIXEL
vPIXEL is an ERC-20c implemented spend-only token, 1:1 backed. At first, I thought it was another locking scheme, but it wasn't until I personally went through the token process that I understood—players can withdraw vPIXEL without fees, but can only spend it within the ecosystem; to withdraw PIXEL, the Farmer Fee cuts 20-50% straight off. It’s essentially a blunt barrier set for withdrawals.
What I'm concerned about is the global pool of 28 million PIXEL/month in Phase 2. Dynamic allocation sounds nice, but the staking weight essentially means whoever has the larger TVL gets the rewards. The fixed quota of 27 million for three games in Phase 1, once Phase 2 opens, the small pool will be instantly drained by the whales. Ultimately, the story of decentralized issuance will likely grow into centralized settlement.
@Pixels
Don't listen to anyone making guarantees. I only dare to keep a 10% position, treating it as a field experiment in data-driven token economics. Not losing to the point of crying is considered a win.
The most ruthless aspect of RORS is that it's a ratio: spend 1 unit on rewards, how much comes back to the ecosystem. Currently about 0.8, the target is to break through 1.0. Translated into plain language: for every 10 units of rewards issued, there’s a net loss of 2 units. The threshold is set above 1.0 for the entire economic model to be coherent. That said, I don’t trust those peers who write their game white papers with ARPDAU of fifteen dollars and K factor of 1.8—the more neat the numbers, the more it looks like a statistical illusion from PS. At least RORS provides a unit scale that can be audited, even if it just means I get fooled a couple of times less. $PIXEL
vPIXEL is an ERC-20c implemented spend-only token, 1:1 backed. At first, I thought it was another locking scheme, but it wasn't until I personally went through the token process that I understood—players can withdraw vPIXEL without fees, but can only spend it within the ecosystem; to withdraw PIXEL, the Farmer Fee cuts 20-50% straight off. It’s essentially a blunt barrier set for withdrawals.
What I'm concerned about is the global pool of 28 million PIXEL/month in Phase 2. Dynamic allocation sounds nice, but the staking weight essentially means whoever has the larger TVL gets the rewards. The fixed quota of 27 million for three games in Phase 1, once Phase 2 opens, the small pool will be instantly drained by the whales. Ultimately, the story of decentralized issuance will likely grow into centralized settlement.
@Pixels
Don't listen to anyone making guarantees. I only dare to keep a 10% position, treating it as a field experiment in data-driven token economics. Not losing to the point of crying is considered a win.