gold68888
Open Trade
High-Frequency Trader
1.6 Years
44 Following
11 Followers
14 Liked
0 Shared
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
See translation
Cắt sớm thôi tối nó lại bay
$CHIP Stop fidgeting, it's really annoying
Is there a chance we crash tonight, folks?$BSB
I've been holding this position for 2 days, and the funding fees are exhausting
Is anyone else still holding their short? Please raise your hand ✋$SPK
Is there a chance we crash tonight, folks?$BSB
I've been holding this position for 2 days, and the funding fees are exhausting
Is anyone else still holding their short? Please raise your hand ✋$SPK
See translation
Tối nhé
$CHIP Dev oi bay lên 0.5-1u nào…
See translation
Cứ gồng thôi cùng lắm lên 10 hay 20u thôi
$CHIP another day of holding short huhu save bro
See translation
Cũng hay nhờ
When I first started, I thought this was tough. But once you learn the tricks, you can smash it all. It's easier than trading alpha $OPG
{alpha}(560x5feccd17c393caf1001d18164236a37e731fcb9d)
{alpha}(560x5feccd17c393caf1001d18164236a37e731fcb9d)
See translation
Cố lên căng lắm lên 20 hay 30u thôi
$CHIP just gotta hold until tonight, fam.
About 0.02
Today $RAVE has already dropped about 10x, so at minimum there could be a relief bounce from around $2 back to $6. If the rebound is stronger, it could even reach $8–$10 within the next 4 hours.
#pixel $PIXEL There is an interesting phenomenon in psychology when you start paying someone to do something they used to do for fun.
Researchers call it the overjustification effect. When the action receives a large enough external reward, people gradually stop viewing it as something they choose to do. They see it as work. And when the reward decreases or disappears, their motivation drops below the original level, not back to the initial level.
I’m not bringing this up to say that Stacked is wrong for paying players real money. On the contrary, the idea of redirecting ad spend directly into the hands of players is one of the most accurate things in the entire Web3 gaming space.
But here’s a question I haven’t seen anyone ask: when Stacked becomes popular enough and players start to view Pixels as a real source of income, what happens to their commitment to the game when rewards fluctuate?
Players who enjoy the game will stay even if rewards decrease. Players who play for money will leave when there’s a better-paying opportunity. The line between these two types is not a fixed trait of the players. It is a result of how the reward is designed and framed.
Stacked has an AI game economist to optimize reward timing and targeting. But that AI is optimizing for retention and engagement, not necessarily to keep players viewing the game as something they love instead of a job they do.
These are two goals that can align but are not always identical. And the gap between them is what determines whether Stacked is building a sustainable ecosystem or just a more complex retention mechanism.
Perhaps this is a question that the documentation about Stacked does not raise, and that is why I find it worth asking.
#pixel $PIXEL
Researchers call it the overjustification effect. When the action receives a large enough external reward, people gradually stop viewing it as something they choose to do. They see it as work. And when the reward decreases or disappears, their motivation drops below the original level, not back to the initial level.
I’m not bringing this up to say that Stacked is wrong for paying players real money. On the contrary, the idea of redirecting ad spend directly into the hands of players is one of the most accurate things in the entire Web3 gaming space.
But here’s a question I haven’t seen anyone ask: when Stacked becomes popular enough and players start to view Pixels as a real source of income, what happens to their commitment to the game when rewards fluctuate?
Players who enjoy the game will stay even if rewards decrease. Players who play for money will leave when there’s a better-paying opportunity. The line between these two types is not a fixed trait of the players. It is a result of how the reward is designed and framed.
Stacked has an AI game economist to optimize reward timing and targeting. But that AI is optimizing for retention and engagement, not necessarily to keep players viewing the game as something they love instead of a job they do.
These are two goals that can align but are not always identical. And the gap between them is what determines whether Stacked is building a sustainable ecosystem or just a more complex retention mechanism.
Perhaps this is a question that the documentation about Stacked does not raise, and that is why I find it worth asking.
#pixel $PIXEL
Login to explore more contents