Feeha_FEEHA

@Pixels #pixel $PIXEL
I used to think that when Pixels changed its plan something was wrong. Honestly that was my thought whenever a project changed its token design after it was launched. It felt like they were fixing a mistake that nobody wanted to talk about. But the more I looked at Pixels new direction the more I realized it was actually a thing.
Sometimes it is better to change your plan of sticking to it. It is smart to notice when something is not working and fix it before it becomes a problem.
Pixels stopped giving out many rewards and started controlling how many pixel tokens were available. The problem was that if players got tokens quickly and did not have a reason to keep them they would sell them. This made the token economy look active. It would slowly lose value.
What I found interesting was that Pixels wanted to give out rewards that were less than what players could use so the tokens would not lose value. They were trying to give out value than what players would naturally use so the number of tokens being released would not be more than the demand.
* This change had another effect.
Pixels introduced pixel mechanics. This is important because pixel is not just another token. It is like a key that gives access, utility and progression value inside the ecosystem.
When rewards are something players can use of just selling their behavior changes. Players start thinking like they're part of the game not just trying to make money.
The main lesson is that game economies fail when all the incentives are about making money. If users just play to get rewards and then leave the game may look popular for a while. The number of active users may go up wallets may increase and there may be a lot of hype on social media.. None of that means the game is really healthy.
Pixels seems to be changing the incentives so they're about the game itself. They are adding things like staking, ecosystem perks and utility sinks that keep value in the game longer. The staking side is especially interesting. When players lock up their pixel tokens to get ecosystem benefits it creates pressure to think about the future. This means holders are choosing to wait for benefits instead of getting their money right away.
In practice staking reduces the number of tokens available now which can help the price in the future. Even if only a small number of players participate it can make a difference. The price of a token is often decided by the players who are actively buying and selling not by the number of tokens.
If a large number of tokens stop being sold the market can change quickly. Then there is the issue of emission discipline. Many Game models fail because they promise rewards without any limits even if there is no demand. Pixels revised model is more about targeting rewards and sustainability of just giving out rewards. This may not sound as exciting. It is actually more important.
Mature systems may not be as exciting. They are stable. If rewards are adjusted based on how healthy the game's the economy can survive even when players are not as excited. However there is still a risk. If rewards are reduced much casual players may not think the game is worth playing. If the utility becomes too complex only advanced players may benefit. If staking rewards are too strong the token may become more important than the game itself.
I do not think Pixels is immune to any of these risks. It is still early. Balancing the economy in a live game is very difficult. My personal view is that Pixels revised vision is important because it admits a truth that many Web3 games try to avoid: players can see when the economics of a game are fake and they will sell their tokens if they do not believe in the game.
The next generation of crypto games will not be the ones, with the rewards. They will be the ones that're able to redesign their incentives before players lose faith and sell their tokens.