尘缘一斩缘

Roblox creators raked in $1.5 billion last year, and Pixels aims to create a Web3 version of Roblox. Last year, Roblox's total revenue share for creators exceeded $1.5 billion, marking a 70% year-over-year increase. The platform boasts 150 million daily active users, with gaming time hitting 13 billion hours a month, even outpacing Netflix. When I saw those numbers, the first thing that popped into my mind was Pixels. Luke has mentioned that Pixels' goal is to enable players to earn not just in-game, but to become true content creators and economic participants. Essentially, this direction mirrors Roblox’s path, enabling players to create content, with the platform taking a cut, fueling a flywheel effect. However, it took Roblox nearly two decades to reach its current scale, going through countless near-death experiences along the way. Right now, Pixels' UGC feature is still in its early stages, with creative tools, revenue-sharing mechanisms, and content moderation infrastructure not yet fully developed. I’m not saying this path is unviable, but it’s definitely longer than anyone expects. The current price of the $PIXEL token somewhat reflects this narrative, but there's still many years to grind from 'right direction' to 'really taking off.' I'm holding onto $PIXEL , but I'm fully aware I’m in for a long story, not something that will pay off this year. $PIXEL @Pixels #pixel

The collab between Pixels and Forgotten Runiverse? I totally brushed it off before.
Last year, Pixels and Forgotten Runiverse announced a partnership where Runiverse players can swap in-game currency for $PIXEL rewards. Plus, $PIXEL can be used in Runiverse to buy items and boosts. When I first saw this news, I just scrolled past, thinking it's just two games doing the usual cross-promotion.
Recently, I had a rethink and realized I was underestimating it.
The essence of this partnership isn't just about cross-promotion; it's about giving $PIXEL a new use case. Previously, $PIXEL was only used within the Pixels game, but now Runiverse players are also using it to make purchases. If this strategy works, and Stacked integrates more games, each new integration adds another use case for $PIXEL . The demand for the token won't be tightly tied to the daily active users of just Pixels anymore.
There's a saying in construction: if a contractor only works with one client, their fate is entirely in that client's hands. But if they juggle five clients, if one client has issues, they've still got other gigs lined up. $PIXEL is currently on that path, but it's still in the early stages.
I couldn't find data on the actual consumption of PIXEL in Runiverse, so I can't say how much real demand this partnership has generated. But in terms of direction, I think this is a more crucial step than features like VIP tiers or reputation systems because it genuinely diversifies the sources of demand for $PIXEL .
$PIXEL @Pixels #pixel

Pixels made 20 million dollars in 2024, but I think that number is a bit risky. Luke mentioned in an interview that Pixels' in-game revenue reached 20 million dollars, all from VIP subscriptions, skins, and in-game currency, not from tokens. My first reaction was that this is good news, indicating the game itself has monetization capabilities without relying on token inflation. But then I thought about what this 20 million revenue source structure implies. If the bulk comes from VIP subscriptions and skins, then Pixels' business model is essentially no different from a standard free-to-play game. How crucial is the role of tokens in this monetization logic? A traditional game can also sell VIPs, skins, and in-game currency without needing blockchain. Pixels has a blockchain component, but if the majority of revenue comes from off-chain consumer behavior, the necessity of $PIXEL as the core token needs serious consideration, rather than just assuming it’s the foundation of this system. This doesn’t mean there’s an issue with the project; it just means my previous understanding of this business logic may have been too simplistic. The 20 million in revenue is real, but I haven’t figured out the transmission path between this money and the price of $PIXEL yet. $PIXEL @Pixels #pixel

I've always viewed RORS as a bullish signal, but today I realized I misunderstood it.
The RORS indicator from Pixels—I used to think that for every token reward issued, the amount recoverable in-game consumption, if the ratio is greater than one, indicates net consumption, meaning token supply is contracting, which provides price support.
This understanding is not wrong. But today I figured out that RORS measures the health of token flow within the game, not the market price support of the token.
These are two different things.
When in-game RORS is greater than one, it means players are spending more than they earn, which indicates a positive cycle in the game economy. However, the tokens being consumed are directed towards various functions and items in the game, rather than being directly purchased from the secondary market. If new players come in and use fiat to buy in-game currency for direct consumption, this consumption process might not even touch the on-chain circulation of $PIXEL .
So, a high RORS does not equate to strong buy-side pressure for $PIXEL ; it merely indicates a healthy game economy. Whether this health can translate to token price support depends on whether there's a real connection between in-game consumption and on-chain tokens.
This is a question I hadn't considered before, and even now that I understand it better, I still haven't found an answer.
$PIXEL @Pixels #pixel

Chapter 3 has been live for over five months now, and I just realized I've never really played it seriously. Chapter 3 launched on October 31st last year, and it's been over five months since then. I've been analyzing the various mechanisms of $PIXEL : the reputation system, VIP tiers, staking pools, and treasury governance. But to be honest, I haven't really sat down and completed the main quest of Chapter 3. This realization has been bothering me lately. Analyzing a product's economic mechanisms that I haven't actually used is like someone on a construction site studying the cost structure of building materials without ever having built a wall themselves. This kind of analysis isn't without value, but it has a blind spot: whether the game is fun or not can't be found through data analysis. Whether Pixels can retain players ultimately depends on whether they feel like coming back the next day after sitting there for two hours. This feeling can't be read from the whitepaper, nor inferred from daily active user data. I've decided to find time this week to play seriously, not for mining, but to see if the game itself is engaging enough to make people want to stick around. If it can retain players, then the mechanisms I'll analyze later will have a solid foundation. If it can't, then no matter how much I say, it's all empty talk. $PIXEL @Pixels #pixel

Pixels did something I never thought anyone would dare to do. I've been pondering a question lately: In Web3 gaming, how many projects are genuinely leveraging on-chain data rather than just relying on announcements to maintain hype? I've seen the playbook of most projects — they drop an announcement saying 'over a million users,' but without any on-chain addresses or verifiable real-time data, you're left to either believe it or not. What impressed me about Pixels is that their user data is verifiable on the Ronin chain; you can see wallet activity in real-time on DappRadar, not just what the project claims. This design might seem minor, but I think it sends a significant signal. Willingness to put data on-chain for external verification shows confidence in their numbers, or at the very least, a desire not to survive through fabricated metrics. On the flip side, projects that only rely on Twitter announcements to declare user counts leave you in the dark about where those numbers come from. I'm not saying Pixels is completely transparent; treasury governance and RORS real-time data are still black boxes. But at least the daily active user count is something external parties can verify. In a market flooded with fake data, this already puts them ahead of most projects. I'm not shilling, just think this detail is worth noting. $PIXEL @Pixels #pixel

I always thought Pixels was competing with other blockchain games, but I later realized I was wrong. When I entered the $PIXEL market, my reference point was similar GameFi projects—Axie, The Sandbox, Gala—those old faces that have dropped over 90%. My logic at the time was: Pixels' mechanics are better than these, so it should outperform its peers. But recently, I realized that I had chosen the wrong reference point altogether. After Stacked released their SDK, Pixels is not really competing with other blockchain game players; it's competing with the plugin ecosystems of game engines like Unity and Unreal, or to put it more directly, it's fighting for the backend tool budgets of game studios. A small to medium game studio that originally needed to build their own player behavior analytics, reward distribution, and anti-cheat systems now has Stacked saying, 'Integrate our SDK, and we’ll handle all that for you, plus we’ll connect you to an ecosystem with a million existing users.' This market is much larger than GameFi, and the competitors are entirely different. The mistake I made was using the wrong yardstick to measure this. By GameFi standards, $PIXEL is a game token that has dropped 99% from its peak; by infrastructure tool standards, it's a protocol token with real income, external output capability, and expanding use cases. The valuation logic derived from these two yardsticks is completely different. I'm still not sure which yardstick is correct. But I know if the second one is right, the current price is absurd. $PIXEL @Pixels #pixel

There is one thing that I have never thought through clearly, and I want to say it today.
The Pixels white paper has a design: 80% of the $PIXEL spent by players in the game goes to the community treasury, and 20% flows back to the ecological reward pool. The logic behind this design is to keep the value generated from consumption within the ecosystem, rather than allowing it to flow out and drive prices down.
It sounds reasonable. But I am stuck on a specific question: who exactly has the final say over the money in the community treasury?
The white paper states that the treasury will eventually be handed over to the DAO, governed by $PIXEL holders. However, I haven't found out how far this has progressed. If the treasury is still controlled by the project party, then after 80% of the consumption flows in, players are essentially recharging a centralized account. This does not mean that the project party will necessarily do something wrong; it means that the control over this money determines whether the pathway from "consumption → back to the ecology" is genuinely viable.
I want to know the current status of Pixels' community treasury, whether there is an on-chain verifiable address and balance. If there is, this is one of the few designs in GameFi that can be externally verified; if not, then this 80% is just a line in the white paper.
$PIXEL @Pixels #pixel

Recently, a detail has been turning in my mind, which is that in the Pixels reputation system's scoring items, there is a line that says "Link Twitter and Discord accounts".
The first time I saw this, I thought it was quite normal; verifying social accounts is a standard operation to prevent bots. Later, I thought a step further: linking social accounts for reputation points essentially imports the "weight" of off-chain identities into on-chain assets. Having many Twitter followers and high activity not only represents personal branding but also affects your resource acquisition weight in games.
This logic also exists on construction sites; those who work in engineering know that sometimes the main contractor's scoring for subcontractors includes a line for "social image"—whether you have a reputation in the industry and whether there is negative news about you. Two contractors doing equally good work, one has industry reputation while the other is obscure, will receive projects of different quality.
The problem with Pixels doing this is that off-chain social assets can be purchased. Buying followers, buying activity—this industrial chain was already quite mature in the Web2 era and is now directly transferred into the Web3 game's reputation system. Those who truly play games quietly and do not operate social media have a lower reputation ceiling than those who spend money to buy followers.
This is a question I currently do not have an answer to: Is there a way for Pixels to identify purchased social weight? If it can be identified, this design is very solid; if not, then a very specific loophole appears in the reputation system's moat.
$PIXEL @Pixels #pixel

I recently realized why Pixels wants to focus on mobile. Previously, I thought it was to expand the user base, but later I found out that this understanding was wrong.
The current player structure of Pixels is like a funnel: at the top are millions of registered users, in the middle are the truly active ones, and at the bottom are those continuously consuming $PIXEL . The further down the funnel you go, the fewer people there are, but it is precisely the bottom layer that has the greatest impact on token prices. The mobile solution is not about bringing in more people, but about preventing those already in the funnel from leaking out too easily.
There is a saying on construction sites called "retaining workers is difficult"; it's unrealistic to expect workers to come to the site every day, but if you give them a mobile scheduling tool, allowing them to see whether there's work today or if they need to come tomorrow, the stickiness changes. The logic behind Pixels' mobile platform is probably this—it’s not about acquiring new users, but reducing the friction of existing players leaving.
Chapter 4 is said to revolve around redoing the onboarding process for the mobile experience. If this can be accomplished, the retention rate of the funnel will improve, and more people at the bottom will consume $PIXEL , which is the line I care about. Of course, the words "it is said" indicate my uncertainty; whether this can be implemented on time is a question mark.
$PIXEL @Pixels #pixel

$PIXEL Look at this coin, I’m thinking of shorting it a bit for the tweet task, planning to hedge after finishing. Goodness, it seems like it’s going to crash directly, and after completing the task, I don’t even know when the rewards will be sent or how much it will drop. Might as well just short it directly.