In traditional video games, players often need to buy “skins,” characters, or virtual items to play. In many blockchain games, owning certain NFTs (game-assets) is required to earn. But not everyone can afford expensive NFTs. YGG offers a way around that: instead of buying, prospective players known as “scholars” rent NFTs from the guild. This means people who don’t have upfront money can still play, earn, and participate in blockchain games. The guild buys NFT assets, then loans them out. When scholars play and earn in-game rewards, those rewards are split: scholars get the majority, while the guild (and often a “scholarship manager”) receives a share.
This model lowers the barrier to entry. In markets where many potential players don’t have much savings emerging economies, developing countries, or younger players without investment capital this can be a powerful opportunity. For someone who can’t afford to buy an expensive NFT, but has time and willingness to play, being a scholar opens doors. That’s why YGG originally emerged in communities where early blockchain games (like the one that inspired its model) attracted many players who lacked capital but had time and aspiration.
For investors or asset holders, the rental model turns idle NFTs into income producing assets. Rather than selling NFTs (and losing future upside), they can rent them out through YGG and receive a share of ongoing earnings similar to leasing a property. This “yield from leasing rather than speculation” can appeal to those who want steady returns over risky flips.
Further, by pooling assets under a community governed structure (a DAO with sub DAOs per game or region), YGG creates economies of scale: the guild can own large, diversified NFT portfolios and manage rental operations at scale something an individual investor might struggle to coordinate alone.
Because of this structure, YGG and similar guilds can onboard many players without requiring them to invest capital and supply a steady flow of demand for NFTs, potentially stabilizing or even increasing the value of NFT assets.
But while the model offers meaningful real world use cases and benefits, it also faces serious challenges when it comes to long term sustainability.
A major strength is accessibility. By eliminating upfront cost barriers, YGG democratizes access to play to earn gaming for people in lower income regions or with limited capital. That can open up opportunities for income or side earnings in places where traditional employment is scarce or low paying. For many, scholarship driven GameFi becomes a pathway not only to entertainment but to supplementary income.
The investor/yield perspective also makes sense: NFTs don’t have to be sold to generate return. Instead of liquidity only when selling, assets can generate ongoing passive income as long as the games remain active and popular. Also, with YGG often operating across multiple games (not relying on a single title), there is some diversification reducing risk compared to investing in one game alone.
However, there are significant risks and weaknesses. First, the model heavily depends on the underlying games staying popular, active, and financially viable. If a game loses players, shuts down, or changes its reward structure, income for scholars and thus returns for NFT owners can drop dramatically. This fragility of GameFi popularity poses a sustainability risk. Indeed, critics argue that many play to earn games suffer from “boom and bust” cycles: early hype draws many players, but over time, user retention may drop or rewards may diminish.
Second, the economics of scholarship/rental depend on splits and continual demand for rented NFTs. If too many renters (scholars) chase few assets, returns may dilute. If management (scholarship managers) or operational overhead grows distribution, training, coordination overhead may outweigh profits.
Third, there is risk tied to the broader crypto and NFT markets: if NFT valuations crash, or if blockchain gaming loses popularity, the value of the collateralized NFTs can tumble, possibly undermining investor confidence. Because many game assets have value because of speculative demand not inherent scarcity falling market sentiment can affect the entire model.
Fourth, there is uncertainty about regulation and long term viability of “gaming + earning” as work. In many places, income from games may face tax or legal scrutiny; if games become less regulated, or if guild operations draw attention, compliance could become a concern.
Fifth, the model may incentivize “farming over fun.” If scholars primarily play to earn rather than for enjoyment, gameplay quality, community, and long term engagement may suffer. Games built around repetitive earning rather than immersive fun might struggle to maintain active user bases. Indeed, some analysts argue that once financial incentives lessen, many players leave undermining the value of NFTs and game economies.
Finally, for guilds themselves, sustaining a portfolio of NFTs, managing rentals, and ensuring fair profit splits while coping with game volatility and community expectations is operationally challenging. As the space matures, competition among guilds may increase, and only those with strong management, diversified assets, transparent operations, and alignment with quality games may survive.
In sum, the NFT rental / scholarship model embodied by YGG offers a compelling vision: bridging capital-poor but eager players with asset-holding investors; lowering barriers; enabling access; turning idle assets into yield. In many emerging markets or underserved communities, this model can deliver real value: income, opportunity, access to digital economies. For investors, it opens a pathway to “earn from ownership without selling.”
Yet the viability of this vision depends heavily on underlying games, market cycles, and sustained demand. The model’s success is fragile in the face of crypto downturns, fluctuating interest in GameFi, regulatory shifts, or changes in game economics.
Looking ahead, for the rental scholarship model to shape a robust, sustainable GameFi economy, a few conditions seem necessary: continued innovation and high quality games (not just “earn to play”), diversified asset portfolios, transparent guild governance, fair reward sharing, and perhaps a shift from purely financial incentive to real community, fun, and engagement. If that balance is struck, models like YGG’s could indeed make blockchain gaming a viable economic and social ecosystem beyond speculation, beyond hype offering real opportunity to many people who otherwise couldn’t access it.
