2025-12-25 16:22:55

If you want to build a game metaverse ecosystem, why not let the major developers issue their own tokens directly? Think about those long-established games that have been operating for over a decade, which have already accumulated a huge player base. Especially projects that once had private server operations, which inherently demonstrate community activity. Allowing the development team to lead the tokenomics design not only ensures the professionalism of the project but also leverages the game's lifecycle to support the token's value. This approach is easier to gain user recognition than pure blockchain games.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LayerZeroEnjoyer

· 4h ago

Exactly right, old games issuing tokens are definitely more reliable than new chain games that have nothing at all.

View OriginalReply0

PaperHandsCriminal

· 4h ago

Haha, this logic sounds nice, but in reality, big companies are not short of money to issue tokens. The real issue is legal risk... --- Another "why not do it directly," sounds so simple. Major developers have long been scared off by regulators and dare not move. --- What does the activity level of private servers indicate? It's because players are either afraid of being cut off or are simply nostalgic. Can issuing tokens sustain this wave of people's enthusiasm? --- In the end, it still can't escape the fate of token zeroing. Changing the issuance method can't break this curse. --- Developers issuing tokens themselves is actually riskier. Once the lifecycle is over, the token is finished too. How can it still support value? --- A typical armchair strategy. The game has been in its second half for over ten years. Now you just remember to issue tokens?

View OriginalReply0

MergeConflict

· 4h ago

Basically, it's about leveraging the popularity of the game to harvest profits, sounds good in theory but what about in practice?

View OriginalReply0

MissingSats

· 4h ago

It makes some sense, but do traditional big companies really do this? It still depends on profit motivation.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeLady

· 5h ago

honestly this is just tokenomics with extra steps... devs minting their own coins is exactly how we got rugged in 2017-2018 lmao. the "established player base" narrative always sounds good until liquidity dries up on day 47

Reply0

GasGrillMaster

· 5h ago

Thinking about it, the idea of an established game issuing its own currency... sounds reliable but also has pitfalls. You're right, it's like if Blizzard actually launched a coin, their player base would instantly surpass 99% of blockchain games. But the question is, why would big companies bother to do this themselves when there are so many ways to make money?

View OriginalReply0

ChainComedian

· 5h ago

This logic looks good, but you overlooked one thing... Big companies issuing their own tokens have to take responsibility themselves. This idea is a bit naive. Large developers have had a money-making system in place for a long time, and there's no need to bother with on-chain tokens. Thinking too simply, an active community does not equal stable token prices, and private server players can't be turned into retail investors. If big companies really dared to do this, they would have done it already, and there's no reason to discuss it now. To put it simply, it's still a matter of different risk tolerance. Big companies prefer to earn passively rather than take on Token risks.

View OriginalReply0