Hype? To jump on a bandwagon?
The history of IT is littered with 'next big thing' bandwagons that really weren't that big at all.
Not sure why blockchain would be an inherent requirement for any of these benefits, compared to (for example) developers maintaining their own ownership ledgers using traditional databases?That's a fair point.
So blockchain/NFTs/crypto allow actual immutable ownership of in-game items by users. Furthermore, they'll be able to transfer these items between games. Via approaches such as play to earn, users share in the economic upside - alongside the game developers. Developers benefit at the expense of the gaming console monopolies.
Not sure why blockchain would be an inherent requirement for any of these benefits, compared to (for example) developers maintaining their own ownership ledgers using traditional databases?
Why would they need to establish immutable ownership? Users have relationships with all kinds of service providers, phone companies, tv companies, netflix type companies all the time and manage ongoing relationships with those companies without using blockchain and immutability. What problem does the immutability of the blockchain solve?How would the user establish immutable ownership on that basis?
Because the asset is then in the possession of the user and not the platform. If they've paid for it, they should have ownership of it. They can then use the item in other games. I'm not a gamer but by all accounts there's also a secondary market for these type of game items - where items can be faked.Why would they need to establish immutable ownership? Users have relationships with all kinds of service providers, phone companies, tv companies, netflix type companies all the time and manage ongoing relationships with those companies without using blockchain and immutability. What problem does the immutability of the blockchain solve?
IT systems built all kinds of interfaces across all kinds of industries long before blockchain came along. There's nothing to stop industries agreeing interface standards about allowing assets to be transferred across games if there is demand for it. Again, it's hard to see what is the essential requirement for blockchain here.Because the asset is then in the possession of the user and not the platform. If they've paid for it, they should have ownership of it. They can then use the item in other games. I'm not a gamer but by all accounts there's also a secondary market for these type of game items - where items can be faked.
If users are being rewarded via this new business model via tokens, they'll want to be in a position to take ownership of those tokens and store them, exchange them, trade them, etc - without being locked in to a walled garden platform/environment. If a play to earn tokenomics model is being pursued, then they're likely to have less spend on marketing and more buy in from users.
It's early doors - lets see how it develops.IT systems built all kinds of interfaces across all kinds of industries long before blockchain came along. There's nothing to stop industries agreeing interface standards about allowing assets to be transferred across games if there is demand for it. Again, it's hard to see what is the essential requirement for blockchain here.
Not sure why blockchain would be an inherent requirement for any of these benefits, compared to (for example) developers maintaining their own ownership ledgers using traditional databases?
IT systems built all kinds of interfaces across all kinds of industries long before blockchain came along. There's nothing to stop industries agreeing interface standards about allowing assets to be transferred across games if there is demand for it. Again, it's hard to see what is the essential requirement for blockchain here.
Isn't this what banks have done since the dawn of time, or dawn of banks? Almost every investment fund allows you to 'watch their investments grow or fall, as all investments can fall and rise.I'm not aware of any bank that allows users to gain interest, compound it daily and watch their investments grow. If your very risk averse you can even do it with stable coins
That is a big advantage of crypto - they can pay whatever interest they like, just like Madoff.Very true and there is nothing to stop crypto from building decentralised platforms to act as banks where users can get interest on their investments
That is a big advantage of crypto - they can pay whatever interest they like, just like Madoff.
That is a big advantage of crypto - they can pay whatever interest they like, just like Madoff.
I was heaping praise on crypto (for a change). I said they could pay whatever interest they liked just like Madoff, I didn't say they were crooks like Madoff. Gee, I just can't win!As regards the Madoff claim, if the Duke has evidence of fraud, then he should contact the SEC. Whilst there is a very real risk of these types of businesses going south, they don't necessarily have to be run in a manner that would put them into that position.
It's nice to see you holding crypto-related businesses to a higher bar than conventional banking though Duke. It's a shame we didn't have similar warnings from you back in 2008.
By associating it with Madoff? - sure you were. As I said, if you have evidence of fraud, go to the regulator. These businesses can be run without any need for anyone to resort to fraud. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't a very real risk until such time as certain parameters are set by the regulator and/or workable insurance products emerge (all three mentioned claim to have insurance in place to negate the risk - but most believe that it isn't fit for purpose).I was heaping praise on crypto (for a change). I said they could pay whatever interest they liked just like Madoff, I didn't say they were crooks like Madoff.