The most practical question when it comes to gaming is often not “Can I earn money?” but “Once the rewards shrink, will I still want to open the game?” Rewards can prompt someone to try a game for the first time, but they don’t necessarily keep players around. What usually brings people back is whether the gameplay is fun, whether playing with friends is enjoyable, and whether logging in every day starts to feel like punching a time clock. I don’t have any app-related information I can verify, so I don’t want to force an explanation of token prices as a measure of how well a game is being run.
Over the latest rolling 24-hour period, $IMX -8.18%; $GALA -4.79%; $AXS -5.82%. All three are down, but price performance doesn’t tell us whether the number of users has risen or fallen, nor does it prove that a game’s incentive system has a problem. To write “the token fell” as “players have left,” we’d need evidence in between, such as user activity, retention, and in-game spending.
What I care more about is what remains of the game once the rewards fade: Are the levels worth replaying? Is there natural cooperation or competition between players? Can the assets players earn actually be put to use in the experience? Assets being tradable doesn’t automatically make the gameplay better. If players have to calculate the value of every move first, playing starts to feel a little like clocking in for work.
Ultimately, to judge whether incentives are helping a product, we need to see whether players stick around—not just how many rewards are handed out. Without retention, activity, or spending data, for now all we can do is pose the question: Do players come back because the game is fun, or because the rewards haven’t stopped yet? Market movements can draw attention to how a token is performing, but they can’t answer that question for the game.
Over the latest rolling 24-hour period, $IMX -8.18%; $GALA -4.79%; $AXS -5.82%. All three are down, but price performance doesn’t tell us whether the number of users has risen or fallen, nor does it prove that a game’s incentive system has a problem. To write “the token fell” as “players have left,” we’d need evidence in between, such as user activity, retention, and in-game spending.
What I care more about is what remains of the game once the rewards fade: Are the levels worth replaying? Is there natural cooperation or competition between players? Can the assets players earn actually be put to use in the experience? Assets being tradable doesn’t automatically make the gameplay better. If players have to calculate the value of every move first, playing starts to feel a little like clocking in for work.
Ultimately, to judge whether incentives are helping a product, we need to see whether players stick around—not just how many rewards are handed out. Without retention, activity, or spending data, for now all we can do is pose the question: Do players come back because the game is fun, or because the rewards haven’t stopped yet? Market movements can draw attention to how a token is performing, but they can’t answer that question for the game.