[HN Gopher] The Collapse of CryptoKitties, the First Big Blockch... ___________________________________________________________________ The Collapse of CryptoKitties, the First Big Blockchain Game Author : cycomanic Score : 203 points Date : 2022-09-15 18:27 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org) (TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org) | [deleted] | yellow_postit wrote: | CryptoKitties was a great initial introduction (for me) into the | mechanics of setting up a wallet, transferring funds, trading | nfts,etc. The wild monetary value swings definitely captured the | BeanieBaby mentality they were aiming for as well. | O__________O wrote: | Know zero about NFT market caps, but if I pull up few years on | the site below, hardly looks like a collapse: | | https://nftgo.io/collection/cryptokitties/overview | | Anyone with more knowledge able to clarify? | mumblemumble wrote: | I think that you can get your answer from the tooltip on that | market cap widget: | | > Market capitalization is calculated as the sum of each NFT | valued at the greater of its last traded price and the floor | price of the collection, respectively. | | So their market cap calculation does not attempt to capture a | current fair market value for all outstanding CryptoKitties. | For a non-fungible asset like this, just using the last sale | price like this will always give a lagging indicator. In some | sense, you could argue that it lags the fair market value by a | possibly infinite amount of time. | | Concretely, this method would assume that the Dragon | cryptokitty that the article discusses has been worth a | constant 600 ETH that hasn't fluctuated by even one iota in | over 4 years. | | I don't know how much better one could do for a market cap | calculation. It certainly wouldn't be practical to individually | appraise all 2 million cryptokitties on a regular basis. | Perhaps one could look at how prices of more frequently traded | cryptokitties have fluctuated over time and use that to | generate a scaling factor for the old ones. But even that might | have downsides. How do you account for the possibly large | percentage of cryptokitties that belong to wallets whose keys | have been lost? It doesn't make sense to count those into the | market capitalization, because they are no longer part of the | market. The method being used at least has the advantage of | being clean and objective. It's just not particularly _useful_ | , is all. | CaveTech wrote: | There's no liquidity. The market cap is pure fabrication based | on historical sales, there's no current day sales, so no way to | pull money out of that cap. | elcomet wrote: | Market cap is not really significant, if the sales are down. | Most of the market cap is from old sales. | | I could create a new coin with a huge market cap very easily: | I'm creating 1,000 billion coins, and I'm selling to a friend | one coin for $1, then never selling anything again. The market | cap is now $ 1,000 billion right? | Animats wrote: | Yes, but to realize it, you have to get (bribe) a major | exchange to list your coin. | cwkoss wrote: | It hasn't collapsed, the endgame is just a much much higher | difficulty | secretsatan wrote: | I read these articles sometimes about crypto games, but they all | never seem to describe the actual game, it's like crypto is the | primary concern, and game is secondary, and i'm getting the | distinct impression none of these games are any fun and everyone | in the space has to avoid mentioning it. | | I think that the people writing these things only have a very | slim grasp of gaming, but they know it would be a good market to | capture | Melchori wrote: | Gaming with being able to earn money is something I normally | call gambling or work. | | It's depressing to think about it. | | And yes people who made gold in wow were also not gaming but | working. It wasn't cool, fun or whatever 10 years ago | px43 wrote: | The status quo in gaming today is that people work thousands, | or 10s of thousands of hours building, collecting, exploring, | etc, and it's all owned by some emotionless gaming company | that might just decide to delete all your stuff, or just | disappear all together, without notice. Giving players | control of the things they worked hard to get just seems like | the natural progression as we assign more and more value to | the lives we live in virtual spaces. | | Vitalik famously was first inspired to build Ethereum when | Blizzard nerfed a sword he had in World of Warcraft. | root_axis wrote: | The idea makes no sense unfortunately. If the game dies so | does the meaning of the NFTs. It's even more pointless in | the context of Vitalik's WoW example because the NFT has no | relationship to the game mechanics, the creators of the | game could trivially nerf, alter, or remove previously | minted NFTs at their own discretion. | cowtools wrote: | Yeah I guess, but grinding/mining is not sybil proof. So | the only thing that cryptocurrency improves is replacing | that with buying and trading items with actual money, or | mining stuff with PoW. | | You couldn't have a blockchain equivalent of World-of- | Warcraft. You have no meaningful way to testify that you | recieve an item from killing a boss, for example. | | The only thing you can really implement with cryptocurrency | is a market game, gambling on the outcome of a game, or | crypto-tokenized items/stats. These have their own problems | as well, mostly being that their development structure is | usually not decentralized enough to warrant the use of | cryptocurrency. | lmm wrote: | > You have no meaningful way to testify that you recieve | an item from killing a boss, for example. | | Surely you could have a smart contract that implements | that (and, in the extreme case, I guess you submit the | random seed for this boss fight and a hash of the button | inputs you used or something - of course there's no way | to stop you using a bot to automate pressing the buttons | at the right time, but that applies to real WoW too). | cowtools wrote: | I have considered this already. That does not solve | anything here, for the reasons you have mentioned | yourself. | | To the extent that it is broken in world-of-warcraft, it | will be more broken here because there will be fees | associated with playing, so players will be incentivised | to make the most of their money by cheating and trying to | optimize the smallest possible "proof". | | Eventually, so many people will cheat that the actual | game is considered to be a minor nusance. It's like TF2 | idle servers. You incentivise players to not play the | game. | Kerbonut wrote: | Game boss dies, triggers a web3 call which mints the NFT. | What's the problem? | AgentME wrote: | Having a regular commercial centralized game with | decentralized NFT items is an awkward halfway point that | doesn't get you the full benefits of decentralization. | | If the game itself is decentralized too, that changes | things, but it's unclear if it's possible to make a game | like WoW like that. | cowtools wrote: | Who gets to trigger the web3 call? a centralized server? | reidjs wrote: | Gambling and gaming are quite interconnected, maybe you can | describe it as a spectrum between games and gambling. Free | single player games are the 'purest' games, you're only | betting that it's worth your time. Cheap single player games, | you're still gambling in that you're 'betting' the game is | worth your time and $5. Closer to the gambling side are | things like Poker, CS Skins, the Diablo Auction House, Eve | Online mining, etc. Probably the purest form of gambling is | slot machines, since they are purely random chance. | acdha wrote: | This is leaving out the most important part of the | incentive structure: most books are entertainment and their | value to the reader is based on things other than money. | That means they're not interchangeable and people make | decisions based on things like the author or publisher's | reputation as opposed to the current exchange rate. | glitchc wrote: | This is an absurd argument! By that logic buying a book is | akin to gambling: You don't know how good it is until you | start reading. | | Books have nothing in common with gambling except for the | books about gambling. | hinkley wrote: | People with absurd notions very often conflate the | colloquial definition and the precise definition of words | and then try to draw conclusions out of the confusion. | Like anti-science people who talk about theories and | theories. | reidjs wrote: | I sort of mixed up risk and gamble in that analogy. I | stand by the part that many games fall on a spectrum | between "game" and "gamble". counter strike, wow, eve | online are games with a gambling element: loot boxes, | skins, etc. Poker is a gamble with a game element, e.g, | bluffing. Slot machines aren't games at all. | | I think cryptokitties is somewhere between Poker and Slot | machines. | firebaze wrote: | I suppose I'm overlooking something, since I cannot | follow this line of reasoning. | | When I buy a book, I usually don't know its contents | beforehand (the exceptions are I had copied it somehow in | my earlier years, and now I want to buy it to come clean, | or it is a classic I just never bought yet). | | Most of the time, I rely on a friends reference, or a | review online, or maybe I just buy by chance. And in | either of these cases, there is a less than 50% chance I | perceive the book as good. Which, to me, is a gamble. So | I suppose there is an edge I don't get? | admax88qqq wrote: | Not all "risks" are "gambling" | Karellen wrote: | That... actually makes sense to me. You're gambling the | cost of the book that the amount of enjoyment you get out | of it is worth the time it took to read it. | | If you enjoy the book, your payout is those feeling of | enjoyment. If you lose, the price is the cost of the book | and the time you wasted reading it - but you have the | paltry consolation prize of a now-second-hand book that | you can sell at a loss to a used book shop. | | And you can affect your odds of winning or losing, by | going with a genre or author that you already have an | affinity to (or not!) | UberFly wrote: | You are obviously not a gamer or understand the appeal. | coding123 wrote: | I also had fun making gold in Skyrim, which was offline. I | don't recall it being work, but whatever. | bombcar wrote: | It can be a puzzle with a built in score and fun, but | rarely are these direct-to-cash games fun. | | D3 got much better when the real money auction house | closed. | px43 wrote: | In my opinion, nothing has ever come close to the rich | economic system that emerged naturally in Diablo 2. Maybe | it just hit me at a good time in my life, towards the end | of high school. | | I spent probably half my time playing that game just | doing arbitrage trading. For example a sorceress or | necromancer would always give you 4-5 Perfect Skulls for | a Stone of Jordan (SOJ) ring, and you could pretty easily | buy an SOJ from a barbarian or amazon for 3-4 Perfect | Skulls. Through nothing but these trades I was able to go | from a couple SOJ (the most valuable 1x1 item in the | game) to about 40 or 50 over the course of a few months. | bombcar wrote: | There was a stable economy time where there weren't | continual "buff patches" dumping more and more items, and | it was a good time. | supernewton wrote: | I mean, the real improvement to D3 was they massively | upped the drop rate of rare items, which "coincidentally" | happened when they stopped taking a cut off people | selling their rare items for real money. | bombcar wrote: | Yeah. The money always causes a conflict with the fun. | Only the pure cosmetic games seem to avoid that when the | money flows. | csa wrote: | Very much agreed, but... | | My favorite AH score was a max stat level 3 chest piece | that I sold for $25. | | That piece was good for 5 or maybe 10 minutes of gameplay | at the start of the game. | | I knew it was a premium piece for that level and type. I | knew they didn't stay on AH long. That said, I didn't | want to compete with all of the lower price point folks, | so i set the price to something absurd just to see what | happened. | | I have no idea why they bought it. | | I had much better late game stuff for sale for much | cheaper that never sold. It was a strange market -- I'm | glad it is gone. | bombcar wrote: | People would search by "best I can equip" and you caught | a whale. | jbverschoor wrote: | Offline is key here | TomGullen wrote: | Gamer sentiment is generally very anti micro transactions, all | the crypto games I've seen so far are micro transactions front | and centre on steroids | hgsgm wrote: | naet wrote: | Check https://www.cryptokitties.co/guide/ways-to-play | | The reason it seems like they didn't describe the "actual game" | is that there is no actual "gameplay". You just pay to collect | cats. | | You can trade the cat tokens them with other people, try to | sell them on the marketplace, pay to generate semi randomized | new cat tokens via "breeding", and... just have them under your | wallet / name. There is no action, no RPG, no platforming, no | game board... basically nothing besides collecting and swapping | tokens. They actually do show the entire "gameplay loop" in | this image from the article: https://spectrum.ieee.org/media- | library/a-flow-chart-with-ar... | | They encourage you to collect more with timed events, where you | "win" a bonus for having collected a certain type of cat token, | but that's about it. | | If you're of a certain generation, you might remember a craze | of kids collecting and trading Pokemon cards, and never really | playing the game. It's basically like that except there is no | underlying game to play, all you have are the tradable cards. | im3w1l wrote: | I remember the craze around collecting the cards without | really playing the game. And then, separately, playing the | game without collecting the cards, with the "Pokemon Trading | Card Game" for game boy. | alanfalcon wrote: | CryptoKitties is a lot of fun, for what it is. It's super deep | and while it's more of a sandbox than a typical game, I became | obsessed with it when it came out, though not for monetary | reasons (if it has one huge drawback as a game, it's always | been how much it costs IMO). | | Became so obsessed that I ended up hired by Dapper Labs and | working on the CryptoKitties team, later helped design and | launch NBA Top Shot on Flow. Now that we have (the markedly | cheaper and easier) Flow and lots and lots of lessons learned | from building NFT products, I'm excited for us to bring the | next generation of CryptoKitties to life. | | If you want to check out a fun crypto game that just recently | launched from another developer, I urge you to check out | dimensionxnft.com with an open mind. | davidcbc wrote: | Color me surprised that the person claiming to have enjoyed a | crypto game is trying to shill a different crypto game | Chabsff wrote: | You cannot have a conversation about "crypto games" without | addressing how crypto makes the game better. For the sake of | this conversation, it doesn't particularly matter how fun | CryptoKitties is. What matters is how does the blockchain | integration make the game better than it would otherwise have | been. | | From my point of view so far, even the best crypto game out | there would have been better if it wasn't for the crypto | aspect of it. | | If this ecosystem is to provide value beyond the potential | for making money, then what is it? It's hard to be excited | about something that only has downsides. | alanfalcon wrote: | So I've been thinking about this and working on this for | years, so I have a different perspective. Is everything | fully better for having blockchain integration? Clearly no. | Are the benefits worth the trade-offs? I'd argue yes, on | the whole. | | 1. The global worldwide market place. While this introduces | commerce/real money, which come with very real downsides, | it also makes the game high stakes (meaning most people | play to the best of their ability). WoW and other games | showed how much a vibrant marketplace can add to a game | experience for some players, and having everything trading | for essentially real money doesn't change that underlying | level of engagement. | | 2. Permissionless development. While there are many | examples of attempts at building on top of CryptoKitties | fizzling out, there are also success stories, especially | around "WCK"--a fungible token created by an unaffiliated | third party developer that essentially created a worldwide | "Give a Kitty, Take a Kitty" pool that let you send away | any cat you didn't want and get back one that you | preferred. And because it's on the blockchain and uses | blockchain standards, it can also be used as liquidity and | barter, both of which add to the experience. I don't | believe I've ever seen something like this built on top of | a non-blockchain game... certainly it wouldn't be quite as | easy as this was to build! Some examples of other third | party creations include an auto-breeding platform, a Kitty | racing game, a Kitty battling game, Kitty cosmetics (your | cat NFT can own its own hat NFT!), and a trustless Kitty | bounty smart contract. | | 3. Almost unparalleled transparency. This has all kinds of | fun side effects from allowing the community to fully | "check the work" of the developer to what amounts to an | open-to-everyone API. And what's more, this is a | standardized API so that someone who builds tools for | CryptoKitties would be able to also use those tools for | Cheeze Wizards. Again, there are amazing third party tools | built on the backs of APIs of online games all the time, | but it's actually cool how much you get "for free" by being | on the blockchain. The verified fairness is pretty cool | IMO. | | 4. Immortal assets. I poured a lot into City of Heroes back | in the day, and then one day the devs shut down the server, | and took all my heroes with it. This is a very common | refrain. As long as there are nodes out there running | Ethereum, anyone can breed their Kitty NFTs. That's not | nothing. (There's a lot of nuance here about art assets, IP | rights, user interface, etc., and it's messy and still very | much being figured out, but that's how the world works--you | build it, then you improve it!) | | 5. Value capture. Yes, this almost always has evolved into | speculation and nonsense valuations and irrational | behavior. But still: when you buy a Kitty, you have the | right to sell that Kitty. When you breed a new Kitty, you | have the right to sell that Kitty. This is enabled by | blockchain almost for free! Note this is distinct and | different from point 1. WoW has a marketplace, but when you | earn a legendary BoP sword, you cannot then capture that | value by selling it if that's what you want to do. This | point is as often riddled with downsides as it brings | upsides, but the unique and novel truth of it makes it | better than a non-blockchain game for some people. | | Again, this comes from years of being in the space, playing | with these toys, building these systems, being a part of | these communities. For some of us, this has been incredibly | exciting, and fun, because we chose to explore and figure | out for ourselves what upsides this new frontier might hold | for us. | ohgodplsno wrote: | 1/ Making people play to the best of their ability. | | People have always been insanely competitive, without | bringing in a token in the middle. All you're doing is | making it impossible to play (or not lose money) if | you're not trying your hardest, all the time. | | 2/ You're really going to pretend you've never seen | communities make their own services on top of a game? The | only real difference is that it is fully automated in | this case, but service markets have existed forever. Path | of Exile has a whole discord with tens of thousands of | users just to exchange things. | | 3/ Only if Cheese Wizards is a carbon copy of | CryptoKitties, just changing names. Otherwise, data | structures are different behaviours are different, and | your work just has to be redone. Like in the current | world. But it's true, at least it's open. | | 4/ You gotta really fucking love your game if you're | willing to keep minting (and therefore paying) for NFTs | that are worthless and unusable anywhere else | | 5/ This is an absolute cancer that has made every single | game that added real money trading objectively worse. It | makes every interaction with your game make you take into | account the potential money loss. Like making your | kitties spin? Too bad sucker, that's not the optimal | money making strat, enjoy feeling ever so slightly bad | every time. | | The only useful point is the openness of the API. | Everything else are things we already do in games (good | and bad), but worse. Anyone in this industry not seeing | this has either zero experience with games, or | destructive tendencies just to make a bit of cash on | misery. | Chabsff wrote: | Thank you for the verbose answer, though I disagree with | most points. | | 1) "having everything trading for essentially real money | doesn't change that underlying level of engagement." It | has been long established that this is absolutely the | case. A classic example of this would be Diablo 3's RMAH | effectively destroying the game by having the entire | economy be driven by real-world profit-seeking grind | | 2) I consider this to be very misleading. All of these | intra-game features are not made available by the | blockchain itself, but by the details of the various | Smart Contracts involved. In that sense, the set of | instructions available to would-be developers to interact | with a game is going to be limited by the operations (and | the various rules governing them) that are present in the | smart contracts. If a game features permission-less | development like this, it's because its developers have | decided to make the requisite operations available and | documented. This is no different than a regular | documented public API. | | 3) I see nothing preventing this from being done without | the blockchain. | | 4) This is the one potentially interesting wrinkle, but I | find it to have marginal interest at best. Assets are | inherently immortal unless explicit steps are taken by | developers to prevent them to be. What is actually at | play here is Immortal Entity Ownership, aka Immortal | Scarcity. That's very interesting from a revenue-making | potential, but not really much more than that. | | 5) That does not make the game itself better though. | px43 wrote: | #2 is the most important one to me, so I'll address that | specifically. | | _MOST_ games I 've seen don't provide a public API for | players to interact with, and even when players do | reverse engineer them, they get accused of cheating, | hacking, whatever, and often get their accounts banned. | | In the world of blockchain gaming, it's trivial to build | tools and meta-games around anything, and there's | basically nothing that the original developers can do to | stop it. I can host a small bit of static HTML that gives | users the ability to battle cryptokitties with each | other, and capture each other's kitties. Then at the end | of the day, the winner can go back to the main | cryptokitties site, and breed their new kitties like | normal. I don't need to ask anyone's permission, and all | I need is a stable place to land some HTML, and maybe | deploy some contracts depending on the level of | integrations I want to build. I don't need to apply for | an API key, or start up an email conversation with anyone | at Dapper Labs. I can just build it, and anyone with a | web3 capable browser can play along. | | This is the magic of "permissionless" systems, and it's | the standard across the blockchain gaming ecosystem. | TylerE wrote: | These reads to me as: Haven for asian bot farms. | Chabsff wrote: | Sure, but my point is that the lack of blockchain | technology is not what's preventing most games from | featuring this, it's only the developer's willingness to | do so. | [deleted] | Kiro wrote: | HyperDragons. Someone made a game where you bred dragons | that could eat CryptoKitties to absorb their attributes. | The composability and interoperability of the blockchain | means anyone can extend your game and build mechanics with | your assets, without your permission. It's truly an open | API. | anotherman554 wrote: | Unless the intellectual property _assets_ (art and | character designs) have been licensed putting them on a | blockchain does not make them legal to use. | pdntspa wrote: | And what here does the blockchain offer that a database | table doesn't? Other than the ability to monetize. | Kiro wrote: | The fact that I can build upon CryptoKitties with no | obstacle. If CryptoKitties was on a private database I | would need to get access to their API and also trust them | with the ownership/management of the assets. Now I can | just build it on the blockchain and have people destroy | CryptoKitties in my smart contract to get benefits in my | game. No API functionality or permission from | CryptoKitties needed. | lottin wrote: | So how does this open API works? Every time you use it | you have to pay a third party? | xboxnolifes wrote: | What do you mean? All of the data is on the chain. It's a | global "third-party" that everyone is a part of. | lmm wrote: | You submit the action you want to do, anywhere in the | ethereum network, and if it's valid (e.g. if you're | running an operation that destroys a kitty then you'd | better include a digital signature showing that you own | that kitty) then it will be accepted and published. You | have to pay a "gas fee" which in theory a) should be | pretty small and b) is what pays for the running of that | ethereum network. In practice under the current | implementation those fees got to be big enough that they | kind of killed cryptokitties, but this might be fixable. | landryraccoon wrote: | Couldn't that have been done equally well with a | centralized ledger? Lots of games have "high stakes pvp", | such as eve online. They don't have a blockchain, and yet | you can still steal stuff permanently from other players | if that's how you want to play the game. | Kiro wrote: | Let's say I want to build a game where you can destroy | your EVE Online spaceships to get bonuses in my game. How | would that work? That's what happened with CryptoKitties | and HyperDragons. | | Just to clarify: someone who owns a CryptoKitty decides | to send it to the HyperDragons smart contract that | handles the absorption. It's not about stealing anything. | You use your assets in CryptoKitties to boost your dragon | in HyperDragons. | Chabsff wrote: | This is not inherently made possible by the blockchain | itself though. | | The mechanisms to transfer a Kitty to the HyperDragons | lie within the CryptoKitty Smart Contract. This is not | particularly different than a regular API, where the | available operations have been chosen, specified, and | made available to the public at large by the developers. | | The only real difference with a public-facing documented | traditional API is that said API will outlive the | original product. But that doesn't make CryptoKitties a | better game, since Cripto Kitties won't be a thing | anymore when that comes into play. | [deleted] | bcrosby95 wrote: | I view crypto as a good way to create an ecosystem rather | than just a single game. But to create an ecosystem | requires multiple games, by multiple companies. At the | center of it all, you probably need a selfless company with | tons of money to bootstrap the core IP, that simultaneously | cares very much about its IP but also doesn't care too much | so they let indies and amateurs experiment with it. | | I can see the "end game" and it looks nice. But I don't | know how to get there. I don't know if its even possible to | get there given the hurdles involved - some of the required | attributes from the involved actors feels contradictory. | midislack wrote: | OK but WHAT IS THE GAME? What do you DO with CryptoKitties? | JeremyNT wrote: | Disclaimer: I haven't played it, but I read this article. | | It looks like a pet breeding game. You "own" cartoon cats - | visual representations of distinctive bundles of | characteristics contained in a NFT. You generate more NFTs | by "breeding" two existing cats (executing the smart | contract), which results in random combinations of their | characteristics in offspring. | | What to do with them? Speculate on their value, same as any | NFT. | | As a "game" this sounds incredibly unsophisticated compared | to normal video games - something that might have passed | during the flash era of gaming, or maybe today on itch.io | as a weekend project. The only "hook" outside of this is | the speculation / potential to earn (and I imagine if | you're in on the scam, earning is a lot of fun). | alanfalcon wrote: | Breeding is a complex and nuanced game mechanic, which when | coupled with the worldwide marketplace unlocks a dizzying | rabbit hole. Once you understand the mechanics, you realize | just why a Gen 1 Tendertears would be a grail collectible | to own. | | I called it more of a sandbox than a game, but there are | also Fancy Chases, events where a specific limited-time | breeding goal is introduced and it's a race to be among the | first to achieve this goal and breed a Fancy Kitty. | | Not saying it's for everyone, but it's definitely something | that thousands of people found and find pretty darn fun | (again: if expensive). | opyate wrote: | Sounds like gacha, where folks feverishly "collect" | pointless pieces of little plastic. All these things | (hoarding, compulsive buying, gambling) go hand-in-hand | [0], and ends up emptying pockets and possibly | devastating lives. | | 0: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181956/ | ohgodplsno wrote: | CK's breeding mechanics are about as complex as Pokemon | Gen1's breeding mechanics, and simpler than Gen3. | Congratulations on passing the GameBoy bar. Additionally, | all of the talk about openness is now out the window | since the breeding code is closed source. | | Congratulations on also doing limited time events, | welcome to the year 2000 of online gaming! | alanfalcon wrote: | Just because it's tradition to not let "someone being | wrong on the internet" stand: | https://www.cryptokitties.co/blog/post/learn-how-our- | last-my... | DonHopkins wrote: | Maybe it's just fun to spend money you don't need, or | stole, or swindled, or need to launder. | secretsatan wrote: | I knew someone who described slot machines like that | | He ended up declaring bankruptcy | reidjs wrote: | You can trade them, or breed them with other cryptokitties. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | There's a free mobile game called Clusterduck which is | basically the same idea but without the crypto nonsense. | | https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pikpok.wt | d... | | https://apps.apple.com/us/app/clusterduck/id1531250914 | | You basically don't do anything except watch what weird | mutations come out from the breeding. In Clusterduck, you | can only have up to 30 ducks, so once you hit the limit, | you have to throw a duck into the pit to sacrifice it. | Sometimes when sacrificing a duck, a large monster spawns | from the pit, and if you tap it enough times, it'll spawn a | duck with a "cursed" trait of some sort. | digitaLandscape wrote: | You breed them. It reminded me of horse breeding games my | girlfriend used to play. Kind of fun. Not worth the ongoing | cost though. | midislack wrote: | For me it's the Mary Kate and Ashley horse breeding game | on the Game Boy Color. | hgsgm wrote: | xani_ wrote: | They are like porn games, the gameplay is not the focus, | fucking is. | | Except it's you getting fucked in crypto. | john_alan wrote: | Mods? | [deleted] | jbverschoor wrote: | ycta202249823 wrote: | There are some porn games that are considered very fun and | even influential on the larger games industry, particularly | coming out of Japan such as Rance[0], a grand strategy series | that's run for over 30 years. | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_(series) | mrtksn wrote: | I remember when CryptoKitties clogged the ETH blockchain and it | has become unfeasible to do most of the transactions. | | Anyway, the game is very simple and it actually makes much more | sense than the recent NFT fud. Essentially you combine | characters to create new characters that have some of the | traits of the parent characters. It's a breeding game. | | I kind of see how it can be valuable to own an NFT character | with certain traits that can be used to create other NFT | characters. Unlike the recent NFT stuff, it makes sense within | its universe. The NFT market on the other hand is just a hot | patato game where you speculate that there exist a greater fool | in a rigged marketplace. | Glyptodon wrote: | In a vacuum I'd have assumed that attempting to make transaction | fees undercut things like credit card processing fees would have | been a key design goal of post-bitcoin block chains, so it's | surprising to me (as someone not terribly invested in keeping up | with crypto) to realize that transactions fees can be so high | (though in some ways I suppose it's kind of like combining title | registration with supermarket checkout more than it is just a | transaction). | | But besides side chains are there other approaches to allowing | newer crypto currencies to be highly liquid and handle large | volumes of transactions at low cost? This issue seems like it's a | recurring problem for crypto. | mkaic wrote: | > What Went Wrong? | | It's in the title of the article. It's a "Blockchain Game". | That's what went wrong. It was a flawed concept from its | inception. Blockchains are pretty cool from a math/cryptography | standpoint, but they really do not provide added value in _most_ | areas people try to apply them to. | | CryptoKitties is a digital trading card game. You get cards, you | can "breed" cards together to make new cards, you trade/buy/sell | cards. That's it. Nowhere at any point in this "game" is a | blockchain necessary. Nowhere at any point does a blockchain add | any value whatsoever. In fact, due to transaction fees, I'd argue | the blockchain actively detracts from the game. | | The idea of an artist signing their work in a cryptographically | unique way is not new or revolutionary, and it _certainly_ doesn | 't need a blockchain. There's a reason the general sentiment the | art community has towards NFTs is overwhelmingly negative: it's | because they literally _actively harm us_. | saurik wrote: | In the real world, people play trading card games all the time | and a big part of the ecosystem is trading the trading cards. | Only, it is really annoying to have to ship around and maintain | physical cards, and I want my card collection in the cloud. | Some people would thereby prefer to play an online version of, | say, Magic: The Gathering, or whatever the Pokemon one is | called, etc. | | The problem now is... how do you do the trading part? You could | go to the trouble of yourself building a marketplace for the | cards and then integrating all of the payment methods required, | and then dealing with all of the trust and fraud issues that | result from people sending money via banks or PayPal that they | later chargeback or refund, all while dealing with whatever | crazy tax implications come up from running a market. | | But you don't want to do any of that: you want to code a game, | and it isn't like Wizards of the Coast is trying to take money | off of the aftermarket! They just make money by selling the | initial randomized official card packs. Because you went | digital now you are doing a ton of extra work and are wasting a | ton of time dealing with payment processing issues when none of | that is related to your actual business model or product | design. | | And, at the end of the day, doing that giant marketplace is a | _hard job_ that other companies specialize in. If I told you | eBay provided some kind of digital asset API that let you | simply assign tracking numbers to products but then eBay kept | track of the ownership as it changed and all your game had to | do is ask "what cards does this user still own?" when it | opens, I imagine a ton of developers would jump on that | bandwagon. | | Only, eBay doesn't provide that API, and likely would avoid | doing so out of concern you would shut down the game on a whim | and cause them issues; and, even if they did, now your entire | game backend would then be built around a single marketplace | that might randomly pull your game for some reason and shut | down your entire company in a way where you are SCREWED as your | end-to-end ownership pipeline is modeled inside of eBay's | database rather than being something you control and can | migrate. | | If only there were some off-the-shelf technology for tracking | digital assets that you could trivially add as a dependency to | your project, letting you write a few lines of code to define | your asset and which had APIs for querying ownership... one | which was an open ecosystem controlled by a shared protocol | instead of a single company, thereby allowing not just one | market but any number of competing markets with different ideas | on auctions or escrow to exist. Wouldn't that be amazing?! | | Well: that's Ethereum; like, that's precisely what Ethereum is | doing. If you think collectible trading card games aren't a | dumb idea--and even if you hate them and think the premise is | bad for gaming, I am going to remind you that these things are | SUPER POPULAR and so your opinion doesn't in some sense matter | here as you are just ignoring reality--then Ethereum is a | GLORIOUS idea that makes it absolutely trivial for game | developers to build them and for users to participate. | yesimahuman wrote: | I think the argument that Ethereum/etc provide useful off- | the-shelf APIs/services for implementing something like this | might be the one point in their favor | reidjs wrote: | More accurately it can be described as a digital trading card | game built on Ethereum. | [deleted] | teraflop wrote: | One thing I don't see addressed in this article is that as far as | I know, it's basically impossible to trust the reported price or | volume of NFT transactions, because there's no way to distinguish | fake wash trades from real ones. | | So it's hard to draw any conclusions about whether the data | reflects an actual peak in user activity, or just a peak in | scams. | yieldcrv wrote: | Correct, not possible if you dont want someone to know | | But of you've ever traded NFTs its hard to really _begin_ with | the assumption that trading volume is fake because bots and | market makers buy from you so fast. _You_ know that wasn 't a | fake or wash trade, while there is a pervasive audience of | onlookers that are trying to prove a negative. | | You know that funds in bankruptcy court have successfully sold | $30,000,000 worth of the NFTs on their books as ordered, | without issue or further controversy about where the proceeds | came from | | You know that DAOs have liquidated $30,000,000 worth of NFTs on | their books as determined by the community, without issue | | How much convincing does anyone need to move off of "its all | wash trading and money laundering" to "yeah thats possible | there is also lots of liquidity", it doesn't really make sense | to make the former perception their whole identity | simonw wrote: | "because bots and market makers buy from you so fast" | | Does that still hold true today, or was that the case six | months ago before the NFT market crashed? | teraflop wrote: | Right, I'm not saying there's _no_ real trading, just that it | 's impossible to say how much. Which makes the graphs and | anecdotes quoted in the article a bit meaningless, IMO. | simsla wrote: | Isn't that always the case? My friend was talking about a rare | Magic The Gathering card being worth a silly amount of money... | Except the card had only been sold once or twice at that price. | | Unless you have enough comparable items (e.g. paintings by the | Dutch masters) it's really difficult to determine the value of | something that's rarely sold. | _fat_santa wrote: | > Except the card had only been sold once or twice at that | price. | | You see this practice in art and collector car sales. It's | rumored that if you see a painting go for an insane amount of | money, often these sales are between "friendly" parties for | the sole purpose of driving up the value of that art. | cphoover wrote: | see Beeple's 60M NFT sale as a great example | nly wrote: | The same can happen at low prices so that the owners can | claim the paintings have lost value and can offset some | other capital gains. | klodolph wrote: | Funny you should mention MtG, since the first big crypto | exchange collapse was MtGox. | | I always thought it was "Mt. Gox", like a mountain of sorts. | Turns out it's Magic: The Gathering Online Exchange. | | Edit: MtG seems like it has some kind of evergreen | popularity, and various format changes, changes in the list | of banned cards, reprints, and changes in the metagame will | mean that prices of individual cards can vary wildly over | time. So if something was sold for a ridiculous price a | couple times, it's possible that something changed | (Targmogoyf used to be very expensive, for example). | | Wizards seems pretty good at catering to a variety of | players, both collectors and non-collectors. | conscion wrote: | This is only half true. From Wikipedia [1], the name did | originally stand for Magic The Gathering Online eXchange, | but the domain was only used for that purpose for a couple | months in 2007. | | When it launched as a Bitcoin exchange in 2010, the unused | domain was "Mt. Gox" from the beginning. | | [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox#Founding_(2006 | %E2%80... | wyldfire wrote: | It did pivot away from its ancestry and at that point it | was indeed referred to as "Mount Gox". | mikepurvis wrote: | Indeed, and that's even the branding used in the | Wikipedia article on it: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox | DonHopkins wrote: | Not to be confused with the Berkeley Unix software company | called "Mt Xinu". (The operating system's name is a | recursive acronym, while the company's name is a backwards | spelling.) | | "We know UNIX TM backwards and forwards." -Mt Xinu | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MtXinu | | Famous for the great posters they handed out at Usenix: | | "4.2 > V" BSD -vs- System V, X-Wing / Death Star Poster | | https://www.ericconrad.com/2008/12/ | | I love all the old telephone equipment in the explosion! | milesvp wrote: | The old magic the gathering game blog had a lot of good | game design topics. One of the articles talked about the 3 | or 4 player archtypes they tried to design for. Worth the | potential rabbit hole. | | https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making- | magic/t... | spearingthehead wrote: | It does happen a lot in physical collectible markets. It is | what happened with WATA Games and the lawsuit against their | employees for market manipulation through auctions. Or the | Nike scandal with a VP's son using her CC and employee | discount buying massive amounts of hyped sneakers and | reselling them, which just made everyone more aware. | ryukoposting wrote: | Trading cards and NFTs have a lot in common. | | - Scarcity, artificial or otherwise. | | - Subjective value. Neither an NFT or a trading card provides | substantial, measurable utility to its owner. But, we can | agree they have "value" of some kind. | | - Lack of oversight. Governments doesn't have entire offices | monitoring irregular sale prices for Obelisk the Tormentor or | Mickey Mantle. | | - Low transaction volume. If you're the only market-maker, | you can set your own price. | | These attributes lead me to believe that NFTs and trading | cards would both very effective tools for someone trying to | launder money. | | You can take away any one of those attributes, and the asset | would become much more difficult to use for money laundering. | For NFTs, oversight seems inevitable in the next couple of | years. One can only hope. | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | "value" is kind of a made-up thing, so I'd argue that by | selling something for the first time you're setting its | value, not determining it | maxbond wrote: | It's important to note that price, the last traded price, | and value are all distinct concepts. The last traded price | is the only one of these we can measure ahead of time, so | we often use it as a metanym for these other concepts. But | we don't know the price of something until we make a | binding offer on it and it is accepted; that doesn't | necessarily mean the next transaction won't be very | different, we just have heuristics about how the next price | ought to look. But it's the process of negotiating a deal | or bidding on an auction that defines the price, not the | historical prices. If you go to a grocery store and see | that milk costs $5.25, and you remember last week it costs | $5.00, you don't say the price is wrong; you understand | that this is the offer the store has made you, and that the | price has gone up since your last visit. | | When the oil futures went negative, it wasn't the case that | the value of oil was negative - this was about the | structure of the market and the sorts of positions people | were caught in when the pandemic hit. We continued to | consume oil throughout the pandemic, and so I'd say we | continued to value it. | | Another example would be, if a rancher has a lot of cow | poop, they might pay a farmer to take it away. You could | say that the cow poop has a negative price on it. But the | farmer is going to make use of it as fertilizer; from the | farmer's perspective, this is a commodity that has value. | | It's true though that there are a million theories of value | and it's impossible to say what something's value is | definitively, you can only make a decision about what is | value is to you. | | But when wash trading is and to impact the perceived value, | it does so fraudulently; it supplies information to traders | - "there is a lot of interest in this security, and the | (last traded) price is rising" - which is a lie. Some | people will argue this too is a normal and healthy part of | markets, but I don't think they've given enough thought to | what sort of equilibrium that game will settle into. | notahacker wrote: | There's a big difference between an illiquid market where | wealthy collectors are so keen to hang onto things they only | change hands at crazy possibly-not-to-be-repeated prices and | a fake market where the illusion of deep-pocketed collectors | is created by the auctioneer and owner colluding to _pretend_ | an item changed hands at a massive amount of money. | samatman wrote: | The amount of wash trading in the fine art world is | certainly not zero. | notahacker wrote: | True, but I don't thing wash trading is integral to | convincing people that fine art is something people | want... | DuskStar wrote: | There's perhaps a difference between an original DaVinci | and whatever the latest paint splatter on canvas modern | art is, though. | vkou wrote: | I'm pretty sure it's integral to convincing people that | ~99% of the >$1,000,000 fine art is something people want | enough to pay the 'going' price for. | arcticbull wrote: | Or selling NFTs to yourself to launder money. | renewiltord wrote: | How does that particular thing work? You run the exchange, | then have dirty untraceable money traded on the exchange to | dirty participant and you take the exchange fees? You'd have | to KYC both participants, right? | officialchicken wrote: | Not everyone, the "participants" in the chain (typically | 8-10 addresses) can arbitrarily inflate pricing by only | paying fees which are trivially covered by the final trade. | Once inflated, that final address can use a "mixer" to exit | (for example) and essentially if KYC is performed in the | conversion to fiat, it's after the mix and relatively | untraceable. | stouset wrote: | Buy a "rare" NFT with clean money. Sell it a few months | later for some multiple of the original price, the "buyer" | is still you but using dirty money. | | NB: I work in fintech but have no particular experience on | the fraud / KYC / AML side of things. This is just how I | imagine it would work at a high level. | renewiltord wrote: | But if you do that, I think you'd be first on the list of | people investigated for the dirty money. It has to be | cleaned in some way by obscuring it. | | The approach described here seems more plausible | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32857382 | polygamous_bat wrote: | Imagine you have $X million from a hack on wallet A, and | you want to launder it. First, you run it through tornado | cash (RIP) a few times and move them to wallets B1 to | B1000. Then, you mint an "exciting NFT collection" on your | public, KYC'd wallet C, list them on a "decentralized | exchange", and have wallets B1 to B1000 buy those NFTs. | Even better, seeing how fast your NFTs are selling out, a | few suckers join in on the stampede and get mixed in | alongside B1-B1000. Well, now on wallet C you have $(X - | gas fees - minting fees) etc., that is totally legal and | clean. You cash out on Coinbase, give the taxman his due, | and you are good to go! | renewiltord wrote: | The Tornado Cash tumbler allows you to create sort-of- | Sybils so it looks organic. The no-KYC Dex allows you to | push from a no-KYC account to a KYC'd account. The KYC'd | account lets you withdraw fiat. | | I see. Okay, each of the pieces are necessary. Thanks for | the explanation. | yieldcrv wrote: | Only need to do Tornado cash once, and you can still do | that, it still works | | Nobody cares that you sold your nft to a virgin address | funded solely by the tornado cash relay | jaywalk wrote: | > Well, now on wallet C you have $(X - gas fees - minting | fees) etc., that is totally legal and clean. | | It's not "legal" at all, because it's still proceeds of | crime. Although it may "appear" legal and be very | difficult to trace back to the source, it's still not | actually legal. | ForHackernews wrote: | Yes, that's how money laundering works. | zeroclip wrote: | > there's no way to distinguish fake wash trades from real ones | | Ah, like that $532M Punk wash trade that was clearly visible | on-chain?[1] I guess we'll never know if it was real or fake. | | [1] https://decrypt.co/84756/no-someone-didnt-really- | pay-532-mil... | rnk wrote: | Please explain your comment for the rest is us. Was that a | sarcastic "it really happened because it made it to the | chain" or a "we'll never know whether value was exchanged | from one person to another because the owner of both wallets | could be the same person" - or both, neither or? | zeroclip wrote: | Commenter said "there's no way to distinguish fake wash | trades from real ones" and I showed a case where a wash | trade was, to anybody looking at it, very obviously fake. | | I agree with the other part of the comment. Blockchains do | not track "persons" but "wallets" and so metrics like | "number of users" will not be accurate. But it is not | accurate to imply that it is impossible to recognize wash | trades. In many cases they are very obvious, and even can | be automatically flagged. In other cases - like with CEX | mixers - only the authorities can detect the fraud. | pas wrote: | OP probably meant fake wash trades and real non-wash | trade ones, not fake and nonfake wash trades | andrewmutz wrote: | How can we tell that the buyer and the seller are two | different people in real life? | fab1an wrote: | I feel that NFT pricing exuberance (or lack thereof) is | distracting both critics and even fans from the core innovation | here - 1. the capacity to signify a digital original and 2. to | decentrally organize ownership (though it's more like possession) | of these items. | | The ultimate question for crypto as a whole is whether the mass | market wants digital possession that transcends a single | centrally managed database. Personally am convinced we'll get | there, but the onboarding mustn't happen through speculation, but | specific unique utility, mostly interoperability/composability. | yazaddaruvala wrote: | I'd like to read the op ed about the first painting that ever | sold for substantial money, and its eventual theft or | destruction. | | Setting the scene: Before there were Banks, Mayors, Kings, or | Mob bosses. Some random town or village. The wealthiest farming | family has bought/fought (an exchange of a different type of | resource) for most of the land in the town. That family has | started to employ people on their land to build more wealth. | This family doesn't know what to do with their wealth. They own | all of the gold and jewels the traveling sales people bring by. | They have built a castle and store treasures in their vault. | They hire a militia to keep the peace. They have more money | coming in than they know what to do with. Even the people in | the town are happy. They now have a big wall paid for by this | family. The family's militia is no fun, but it really has kept | the peace. Trade is going well, and the towns folk haven't had | gone a winter hungry in years. | | Scene 1: One day a traveling artist brings canvas with chalk | based drawing. A young adult from the wealthy family, called X, | have seen similar, but this one is big. Its bigger than ever | and connects with them emotionally. They want it. Sadly its | already been sold. The artist offers to get a second made and | bring it next month. However, X has connected with it | emotionally. They connect with it so much they don't just want | it, they want no one else to have it. They offer the artist | more money than the artist's lifetime earnings to never again | make chalk on canvas again. The canvas is hung up. | | Scene 2: Everyone else in the town laughs/grumbles, "they spent | 10 lifetimes of our earnings on a big canvas of chalk?". "No so | that the artist would never make another". "... but the artist | doesn't even live here. Couldn't they just make another?" | | Scene 3: 3 years later, the canvas is a big deal in town. To | some, laughable. To others, luring. Many more artists brought | over canvas of chalk and many wealthyish families bought them | for more reasonable amounts, but the wealthy family didn't just | have any old canvas of chalk, theirs was a "..." no other could | be made. The others are bought and sold, but their canvas is | priceless. | | Scene 4 - Alt A: Its the middle of the night. A band of | thieves, orphans barely in their teens, an adultish figure | keeps them in order and has directed them into the castle. The | jewels and gold are in the vault, its very guarded but the | children don't turn right towards the basement. Everyone that | has tried for the vault has been hung in the town square. They | move quietly to the great room. Their orders are clear. They | pull down the canvas, open the frame, roll up the canvas, and | are out. (in the morning) The town bells ring. The streets are | a mess of militia. The thieves are already miles away and | meeting their fence. | | Scene 4 - Alt B: There has been a multi year famine in town. | The town is upset, angry with the family. The solution is to go | to war! They do battle with the neighboring city. They just | happen to win. The cost was many lives but now they have enough | reserves to get through many winters. This doesn't solve the | actual root cause and the fields still don't make food. The | resources continue to deplete and the canvas of chalk was sold | at a massive loss to some close enough but far away town's | wealthy family. Mostly as a reminder / teaching tool for their | children not to "waste" money like X. "It drives a town to | famine". | | Both versions of this story have happened through human | history. They just predate documentation. Meanwhile, Art today | can still be worth a lot of money. | simonw wrote: | Most regular people really, really need a working "I forgot my | password" feature. | manholio wrote: | > 1. the capacity to signify a digital original and 2. to | decentrally organize ownership (though it's more like | possession) of these items. | | There is nothing novel in this. You could do it in Bitcoin too | by agreeing that a certain transaction structure that includes | a digital hash is a valid way to signify an original with that | hash, and a spend from that address represents an ownership | change. | | It's simply a convention, and people don't do it because it's | mostly a useless diversion from established ways to record and | trade IP. | | The true NFT innovation is the marketing gimmick that such a | convention has any real world relevance and somehow magically | makes the IP non-fungible. This enabled massive speculation on | essentially worthless (and fully fungible) IP, expressed in a | clunky and impractical distributed database. | sithadmin wrote: | The major distraction is that a 'digital original' is a | fiction. I can ignore your blockchain and make any digital IP | fungible. | smoldesu wrote: | Yep. Just to tack on - even if you minted a "master copy" of | your digital asset on the Blockchain, it still doesn't | represent anything meaningful: | | - It doesn't guarantee that you are the first or exclusive | owner of this digital asset | | - It doesn't correlate to physical ownership | | - It doesn't hold any water in a legal sense, if you want | your ownership of an NFT to be ratified then you need to use | the same centralized avenues as everyone else | nonameiguess wrote: | The core failure seems a lot more fundamental than that to me. | The only things you can "digitally" possess are digital items. | But people don't care about owning blockchain entries. They | want to own paintings and houses. Property rights are a legal | matter, however. The only way ownership of a blockchain entry | can entail ownership of a physical good is if the law says so. | And, at least for now, law is centralized. Only the state can | make it and only the state can enforce it. If the entity that | arbitrates and decides property claims is centralized, whether | or not their ledger is also centralized makes no difference. | alasdair_ wrote: | >whether the mass market wants digital possession that | transcends a single centrally managed database | | Even if the market wants this, it's certainly not what is being | offered. If OpenSea delists your NFT in their single centrally | managed database, it may as well no longer exist. | WFHRenaissance wrote: | This is a problem that's actively being worked on (SudoSwap | as an AMM for NFTs, Scatter.art as a competitor, et cetera). | sharkjacobs wrote: | "digital original" is on its face absurd | | An analog original could be valuable or at least meaningful | because it's impossible to create an identical copy of anything | in which exists in the material world. | | But there is no way to distinguish between two copies of | digital data. | stephc_int13 wrote: | My intuition about CryptoKitties and many other NFTs is that | market manipulation has been ridiculously easy and profitable, | everything is somewhat more scrutinized nowadays, but I think | that the scams and schemes are far from over. | | Impersonating both sides of a transaction does not seem too | difficult, and not very costly, as long as the fees are kept | small. | dopidopHN wrote: | I agree with the part where they describe existing on chain games | as too simplistic. The handful I saw indeed sucks. | | No skills really needed beside being able to click and pay the | initial fee. | Zaskoda wrote: | Calling CryptoKitties a "game" is a bit generous. | themagician wrote: | "Gaming" often refers to gambling. There is a whole world of | gaming separate from video games--online slots, poker, etc.. | Intentional or not, most crypto games are much closer to | traditional gaming than video games. | xtracto wrote: | Wait until you learn about "game theory"! | bze12 wrote: | I'm always surprised that projects like cryptokitties are | referred to as games. I guess saying "game" makes it sound more | legitimate, but there's almost nothing to do with your | characters besides sell them. | cookiengineer wrote: | Everything is a game once you look for an equilibrium. | H8crilA wrote: | Newsflash: watching paint dry is a game (until the solvents | reach an equilibrium with the air). | minimaxir wrote: | It was the gateway to getting gamers interested in crypto/web3, | which resulted in the absurd "play2earn" concept which has been | the subject of justified mockery. | faangiq wrote: | CryptoKitties is the only interesting blockchain use case besides | BTC. It's over for ETHcels. | bze12 wrote: | There's an amusing mobile game similar to CryptoKitties about | breeding mutant ducks | https://apps.apple.com/us/app/clusterduck/id1531250914 , but it's | single player | | (self plug) I'm also working on an NFT parody game | https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1609874752 - it's a simulated | trading & collecting market for emojis. | | I'm always confused why people call cryptokitties a game, there's | barely anything to play with. Maybe using blockchain makes it a | lot harder to implement actual game features, or maybe it just | corrupts your incentives lol. | yieldcrv wrote: | Yes, all nft collections suffer from supply dilution if the | creator wants to keep making money. | | The "NFT" aspect distracts most from the obvious: | | The physical collections market is hugely profitable, supply is | hugely manipulated and unknown, and we just had no transparency | into any of this until it went onchain | | None of the consumer activity in the NFT _collections_ market is | really unique, we just get to see issuer revenue numbers in real | time and supply | | All the market is saying is "wow I should really be selling stuff | to collectors" | Kiro wrote: | CryptoKitties was amazing and a pioneer before NFTs were even a | thing. You shouldn't conflate them with the current wave of play- | to-earn scams. | spywaregorilla wrote: | > Today, CryptoKitties is lucky to break 100 sales a day, and the | total value is often less than $10,000. | | This seems shockingly high to me | j0hnyl wrote: | "Bluechip" NFTs like CryptoKitties become commodities that | people trade day in and day out. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-15 23:00 UTC)