In the past, I have repeatedly thought about a question:
Why is the gaming industry always placing players in a passive position?
You are considered a user only when the project wants you to come;
You are considered active only when the tasks want you to do them;
Incentives want you to stay, and only then are you considered valuable.
Players have no initiative.
There is no such thing as 'value sovereignty'.
But over the past two years, I've seen the evolution of YGG, and I am increasingly certain that what it really wants to do is not to make players 'obedient', but to give players for the first time:
Value sovereignty.
It's not about being used, but having the right to decide how one's value is used.
In this article, I will continue to dissect YGG's structure from the deepest logic of 'sovereignty'.
First, the status of players in chain games in the past was essentially 'replaceable labor'
You do tasks, I give rewards,
You participate, I give qualifications,
You brush data, I give activity.
This is not participating in the ecosystem, this is 'passive performance'.
Players' value is highly dependent on project decisions,
Lacks autonomy and cannot sediment long-term.
So as long as incentives decline, processes become difficult, and rewards are cut, player value evaporates instantly.
This is not the players' fault,
This is the industry's fault for not giving players sovereignty.
Second, the reputation system of YGG is essentially 'proof of player value sovereignty'
Reputation is not a label,
Reputation is not a title,
Reputation is not a qualification.
The true meaning of reputation is:
The source of your value is no longer determined by the project,
But is determined by your actions, contributions, history, and growth.
Reputation is not given to you by others,
Is generated by yourself.
This is 'sovereignty'.
In the past, players' value belonged to the project party;
Now the value of players belongs to the players themselves.
Third, YGG Play gives players the right to choose, not the right to obey
The logic of traditional task platforms is:
You come to do the tasks I designed
You complete the data I want
You follow the incentive method I define
Players have no choice but to passively participate.
But the structure of YGG Play is:
You choose the player you want to become
You choose the growth path you want to take
You choose the difficulty of the tasks you are willing to undertake
You choose your ecosystem role
You choose your history direction
You choose your way of accumulating reputation
Choice is the first step of sovereignty.
Fourth, SubDAO gives players 'regional sovereignty', not 'regional labels'
YGG does not treat players from different regions as 'regional user pools',
But allows them to have regional sovereignty:
Local players decide the rhythm of local activities
Local culture influences the way players grow
Local communities decide the emergence of talent
The local collaborative atmosphere shapes the players' roles
This is a very rare structure —
It's not that the center sets the rules, but that the region forms its own rules.
This is the distribution of sovereignty in civilization.
Fifth, the core of player sovereignty is:
Your value no longer depends on whether a certain project is 'alive'
This point is what I believe is the most revolutionary part of the YGG system.
The conditions for the existence of player value in the past were:
Project is alive → player has value
Project cools down → value goes to zero
Most players in the industry are trapped in this meaningless cycle.
But in YGG:
The value you accumulate in a certain task
Will become your reputation across games
The history you build in a certain project
Will enter your long-term growth curve
The role you take on in a certain community
Will enhance your status in the entire ecosystem
Value is no longer tied to projects.
Value is tied to the players themselves.
This is 'sovereign value'.
Sixth, player sovereignty means:
Players can 'refuse' unreasonable ecological designs for the first time
In the past, players had no negotiating power.
What the project says is what it is.
Whether you do or not does not affect the project itself.
But in YGG's ecosystem, the status of players has changed.
Because once players' reputation, ability, and contribution become verifiable and scarce:
Players no longer need to cater to projects.
Projects need to cater to players.
Projects need real users
Projects need reliable reputation nodes
Projects need collaborative players
Projects need cross-ecosystem experience
Projects need on-chain history
Players have for the first time 'negotiating power'.
This is the essence of sovereignty.
Seventh, player sovereignty also means:
Players can actively choose the 'value migration path'
You are no longer passively waiting for a game to become popular.
You no longer lose value because of project decline.
You no longer rely on luck to determine your meaning of existence.
You can:
Choose the ecosystem you want to enter
Choose the projects you want to participate in
Choose the character you want to build
Choose the SubDAO that suits you
Choose the task path that is better for your long-term development
This degree of freedom has never appeared in the past chain game ecosystem.
Eighth, I am now very clear:
The real watershed of future Web3 games is not the chain, not the distribution capability, but —
Whether this ecosystem allows players to have 'value sovereignty'.
If player value is defined by the project,
Then players are forever just consumables.
If player value is defined by the players themselves,
Then the entire industry will truly have a future.
And what YGG is doing is taking 'player value' from being an accessory of the project,
Become the player's own sovereign asset.
In summary —
The real revolution of YGG is not the guilds, not the task platforms, not the player organizations, but:
Let players have the power to 'who am I, what am I worth, I decide'.
This is the true beginning of chain game civilization.
