Having asked this in another crypto game thread I wonder if these guys will be sending out 1099 equivalents or will players have to track that themselves. Gains will be reported to the IRS so I imagine they would be required to provide the player a form reporting their activity.
Since I answered "No" to "did I cash out or make money on crypto this last year", I didn't see the actual forms or questions regarding the reporting. I can only imagine this will get more complicated as this becomes more prolific.
According to my cpa, I answered yes to holding but no to actually profiting from crypto so nothing further was required.
I think any government will have to play this one pretty carefully. If they go all in with gains and losses and what is taxable and what is considered a business loss, their could be cases where companies or individuals basically write their own loss balance at the end of every tax year to offset the earnings taxes rather easily.
"...people who are pitching these hustles not because they have to but because they believe you’re stupid."
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Amazing, the creator of one of the first good RPG games has now gone into virtual land speculation.
He's been there for 20 years. I liked his original ideas on it, though. One idea he had ages ago was to have virtual stages and coliseums on the game world. Players would rent out the virtual venues and put on performances or run events. They could charge admission and attendees could review the events. The developer gets a cut of the door fee. I don't know what his goals are now, but back then he seemed genuinely interested in promoting quality player-created content.
His thinking was that it would encourage people to create better and better content to get more people to come and to be able to charge higher prices.
Roblox is basically that kind of model. It is something that Crey, Core Games, and several others have recently tried to emulate.
The big thing now is sadly this NFT thing. Cryptokitties and The Sandbox are some early pioneers into this. Now, "play2earn" NFT games are popping up every day, and most seem based on the ridiculous promise of stacks of fast cash if you just throw them a little coin.
It seems like it should be illegal. It's definitely unethical.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
If we players can't acknowledge and accept that we're largely at fault for this, then we can't have an honest discussion about developers taking advantage of that.
Well, sure. The lure alone simply set the stage. The eager taking of that bait by a significant percentage of players was required to lower the curtain. We collectively play our role near flawlessly, happily jumping into their bucket of catch.
We're going to have to blow through several scams before they start to die off. We need collective/community knowledge and experience for this kind of garbage to finally dissipate.
There will always be scams....A fool and his money are easily parted.
I played Shroud, super boring. I played Ultima back in the day and that was fun up to a point. I don't see how these two will make a fun, lasting game, regardless of the NFT portion.
Also, using modern games like "Mincecraft and Roblox"...........
What happens when you allow players to own assets in the game as NFTs and there is a dispute between you and the game developer? If the game developer for instance allows a house to be sold as NFT but later moves your house thirty feet from the road or something that interferes with the value of your NFT. Who prevails?
What happens when you allow players to own assets in the game as NFTs and there is a dispute between you and the game developer? If the game developer for instance allows a house to be sold as NFT but later moves your house thirty feet from the road or something that interferes with the value of your NFT. Who prevails?
Whatever makes the developer most money, here they get to make a new NFT of the house thirty feet from the road.
What happens when you allow players to own assets in the game as NFTs and there is a dispute between you and the game developer? If the game developer for instance allows a house to be sold as NFT but later moves your house thirty feet from the road or something that interferes with the value of your NFT. Who prevails?
Generally the in game assets will be where the changes happen.
For example if you buy a plot of land in space 1X1 and let's say it's the center of the map, and then the developers introduce more of the map later on making your plot no longer the center of the world, there's nothing you can do about it.
And yeah it could devalue the asset. There's nothing you could do about it, and in many ways there's nothing you should be able to do about it.
Exponential growth of an asset is unsustainable. Prices "should" fluctuate, and conceivably players could expect to take a loss, though nobody ever would want to. So items either sell for an asking price or they don't sell.
So even if the land was devalued, it more likely would just never sell instead of someone taking a loss on it, and the developers wouldn't realistically care. The item itself hasn't changed.
If the game is good and fun, in the end it doesn't matter, because whatever money you get back from assets when you're done is supposed to be just an added bonus.
What happens when you allow players to own assets in the game as NFTs and there is a dispute between you and the game developer? If the game developer for instance allows a house to be sold as NFT but later moves your house thirty feet from the road or something that interferes with the value of your NFT. Who prevails?
Generally the in game assets will be where the changes happen.
For example if you buy a plot of land in space 1X1 and let's say it's the center of the map, and then the developers introduce more of the map later on making your plot no longer the center of the world, there's nothing you can do about it.
And yeah it could devalue the asset. There's nothing you could do about it, and in many ways there's nothing you should be able to do about it.
Exponential growth of an asset is unsustainable. Prices "should" fluctuate, and conceivably players could expect to take a loss, though nobody ever would want to. So items either sell for an asking price or they don't sell.
So even if the land was devalued, it more likely would just never sell instead of someone taking a loss on it, and the developers wouldn't realistically care. The item itself hasn't changed.
If the game is good and fun, in the end it doesn't matter, because whatever money you get back from assets when you're done is supposed to be just an added bonus.
I understood none of this before I posted yet still I got it right: "Whatever makes the developer most money" just look at what we have seen so far, that is their golden rule.
What happens when you allow players to own assets in the game as NFTs and there is a dispute between you and the game developer? If the game developer for instance allows a house to be sold as NFT but later moves your house thirty feet from the road or something that interferes with the value of your NFT. Who prevails?
Generally the in game assets will be where the changes happen.
For example if you buy a plot of land in space 1X1 and let's say it's the center of the map, and then the developers introduce more of the map later on making your plot no longer the center of the world, there's nothing you can do about it.
And yeah it could devalue the asset. There's nothing you could do about it, and in many ways there's nothing you should be able to do about it.
Exponential growth of an asset is unsustainable. Prices "should" fluctuate, and conceivably players could expect to take a loss, though nobody ever would want to. So items either sell for an asking price or they don't sell.
So even if the land was devalued, it more likely would just never sell instead of someone taking a loss on it, and the developers wouldn't realistically care. The item itself hasn't changed.
If the game is good and fun, in the end it doesn't matter, because whatever money you get back from assets when you're done is supposed to be just an added bonus.
Therein lies a really good reason to dislike NFTs in games. The concept was the same for microtransactions in general, but NFTs allow it to be taken to the next level.
This is ripe for abuse, fraud, and laundering. It's a really poor idea for this industry. Blockchain and NFTs can serve their purposes, but video games should not be one of them.
If the game is good and fun, in the end it doesn't matter, because whatever money you get back from assets when you're done is supposed to be just an added bonus.
Such a nice, warm and fuzzy idea that this is what the NFT P2E hype is all about: you play your game because it's enjoyable and after you stop enjoying it, why you can then cash out your NFTs... bonus!
The problem with tha fantasy scenario is that not only does it go against all of the marketing happening for these games where profit - enough to support your third world family even - is front and center and emphasized as the main marketing hustle, but the term itself, Play to Earn, makes it crystal clear what they're trying to sell.
"Just an added bonus" is not the marketing for these games I'm seeing.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
If we players can't acknowledge and accept that we're largely at fault for this, then we can't have an honest discussion about developers taking advantage of that.
Well, sure. The lure alone simply set the stage. The eager taking of that bait by a significant percentage of players was required to lower the curtain. We collectively play our role near flawlessly, happily jumping into their bucket of catch.
I agree and the bulk of the issue is on those culpable for slimy practices. I'm not trying to "victim blame" so to speak, but I do think it's important to acknowledge that in different ways we also prop up the horrible practices the industry has adopted.
As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Players may have effectively ended out victims but the majority began as co-conspirators albeit without intent or even realization.
Not everyone, of course. Many players spoke against it, predicting dire outcomes ahead. But these warnings weren't well received, and where we are now is ample proof they were largely not followed.
We lay in a bed half of our own making and lack the collective will to get out of it despite how uncomfortable it increasingly becomes.
If the game is good and fun, in the end it doesn't matter, because whatever money you get back from assets when you're done is supposed to be just an added bonus.
Such a nice, warm and fuzzy idea that this is what the NFT P2E hype is all about: you play your game because it's enjoyable and after you stop enjoying it, why you can then cash out your NFTs... bonus!
The problem with tha fantasy scenario is that not only does it go against all of the marketing happening for these games where profit - enough to support your third world family even - is front and center and emphasized as the main marketing hustle, but the term itself, Play to Earn, makes it crystal clear what they're trying to sell.
"Just an added bonus" is not the marketing for these games I'm seeing.
Well, the potential to earn from gaming is the differentiation of these games, so it makes sense explaining that potential would be prominent.
However, when I was looking into play to earn it wasn't so much prominent as overwhelmingly dominant, with explanations of byzantine complexity of the development of contrived worth surrounded by obscure systems of exchange that often had service fees attached of real currency, which also seemed to apply to purchasing and cashing out the associated virtual currencies, and on and on...
After that, I lost all interest in whatever potential gaming benefit from all of this may somehow trickle down to players in some way eventually.
I'd rather there not be any of it, and hope it comes to be overwhelmingly rejected by players such that it will no longer be seen as viable and abandoned, within the sphere of gaming at least.
If the game is good and fun, in the end it doesn't matter, because whatever money you get back from assets when you're done is supposed to be just an added bonus.
Such a nice, warm and fuzzy idea that this is what the NFT P2E hype is all about: you play your game because it's enjoyable and after you stop enjoying it, why you can then cash out your NFTs... bonus!
The problem with tha fantasy scenario is that not only does it go against all of the marketing happening for these games where profit - enough to support your third world family even - is front and center and emphasized as the main marketing hustle, but the term itself, Play to Earn, makes it crystal clear what they're trying to sell.
"Just an added bonus" is not the marketing for these games I'm seeing.
Which is why I feel they are so different in their focus, making money first over any sort of actual gameplay it makes sense to label them as MMONFTs unlike other games / genres.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If the game is good and fun, in the end it doesn't matter, because whatever money you get back from assets when you're done is supposed to be just an added bonus.
Such a nice, warm and fuzzy idea that this is what the NFT P2E hype is all about: you play your game because it's enjoyable and after you stop enjoying it, why you can then cash out your NFTs... bonus!
The problem with tha fantasy scenario is that not only does it go against all of the marketing happening for these games where profit - enough to support your third world family even - is front and center and emphasized as the main marketing hustle, but the term itself, Play to Earn, makes it crystal clear what they're trying to sell.
"Just an added bonus" is not the marketing for these games I'm seeing.
Which is why I feel they are so different in their focus, making money first over any sort of actual gameplay it makes sense to label them as MMONFTs unlike other games / genres.
if they really, really, really want to maximize their profits, why should they even be interested in building a game to go with their money-making scheme? Games take money to make, and skill, and players are pretty persnickety when it comes to what they like. Given that, it makes more sense to simply cut the players out of the picture in order to focus on those profits. Let these NFT guys go pester some other group of rabid fanatics, like sports fans. NFTBall!
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If the game is good and fun, in the end it doesn't matter, because whatever money you get back from assets when you're done is supposed to be just an added bonus.
Such a nice, warm and fuzzy idea that this is what the NFT P2E hype is all about: you play your game because it's enjoyable and after you stop enjoying it, why you can then cash out your NFTs... bonus!
The problem with tha fantasy scenario is that not only does it go against all of the marketing happening for these games where profit - enough to support your third world family even - is front and center and emphasized as the main marketing hustle, but the term itself, Play to Earn, makes it crystal clear what they're trying to sell.
"Just an added bonus" is not the marketing for these games I'm seeing.
Which is why I feel they are so different in their focus, making money first over any sort of actual gameplay it makes sense to label them as MMONFTs unlike other games / genres.
if they really, really, really want to maximize their profits, why should they even be interested in building a game to go with their money-making scheme? Games take money to make, and skill, and players are pretty persnickety when it comes to what they like. Given that, it makes more sense to simply cut the players out of the picture in order to focus on those profits. Let these NFT guys go pester some other group of rabid fanatics, like sports fans. NFTBall!
Well the game building front is just to throw off government gambling and commodities regulators.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If the game is good and fun, in the end it doesn't matter, because whatever money you get back from assets when you're done is supposed to be just an added bonus.
Such a nice, warm and fuzzy idea that this is what the NFT P2E hype is all about: you play your game because it's enjoyable and after you stop enjoying it, why you can then cash out your NFTs... bonus!
The problem with tha fantasy scenario is that not only does it go against all of the marketing happening for these games where profit - enough to support your third world family even - is front and center and emphasized as the main marketing hustle, but the term itself, Play to Earn, makes it crystal clear what they're trying to sell.
"Just an added bonus" is not the marketing for these games I'm seeing.
Which is why I feel they are so different in their focus, making money first over any sort of actual gameplay it makes sense to label them as MMONFTs unlike other games / genres.
if they really, really, really want to maximize their profits, why should they even be interested in building a game to go with their money-making scheme? Games take money to make, and skill, and players are pretty persnickety when it comes to what they like. Given that, it makes more sense to simply cut the players out of the picture in order to focus on those profits. Let these NFT guys go pester some other group of rabid fanatics, like sports fans. NFTBall!
Well the game building front is just to throw off government gambling and commodities regulators.
I'm not entirely sure about all that. There are plenty of direct gambling style games that mimic casino games and state lotteries already. They aren't really trying to hide that at all.
In the best cases, they skirt any regulation because they are "no loss" systems. The slice of the pie that you're trying to win is the interest based on the staked amount of currency in the pool.
There are some games that are putting this in effect too. I don't disagree with players wanting to participate in no loss tournaments, but because the market has been exceptionally volatile lately, there are concrete cases where you can't guarantee there's no losses involved. The best way to do it is with stable coins, but the problem with stable coins is that they don't earn much of a return when staked. Maybe 4 - 8% max.
By comparison some no loss tournaments were based on staked returns of 25% up to some returns of nearly 75%. Obviously the larger the staked amount and longer the amount was staked the more players would win. However, due to the way the market is, it's kind of a crapshoot on which is better, staking for a short amount of time or a longer one.
I do believe that no-loss tournaments are one of the few ways that could change gaming. not necessarily for the worst.
Game will be ready in 3 years "or so", but of course starts out with what really worked well in SotA, land sales.
Chris Spears is even involved, apparently has lots of spare time despite his "CEO" role in SotA.
This article really should have "SPONSORED" plastered all over it, along with a recap of the shenanigans the last RG lead MMORPG had, including stiffing it's investors without a word.
Sleeping with the enemy? Gamers be the "cat" in this scene.
Please tell me they will have a sub reddit or other public forum....
Unlike mmorpg.com, MassivelyOP showed some intregrity.
"We note here for the record that we were offered a chance to interview Garriott about this new game, but we were told we could not ask about the many outstanding issues and irregularities revolving around Shroud of the Avatar, which are obviously critical when it comes to the credibility of any new Garriott project, so we declined to participate."
That place has become an echo chamber of the same 20 people posting. It's more of a private blog than an actual gaming website. Got banned for some reason and every time I post my message gets removed. If you can't take opposing views its time to get out of the journalism field.
Beanstalk crypto (an ether based stablecoin) had its reserve sucked dry by a flash attack. Basically someone with enough money bought in enough voting shares to transfer their reserves away. Laugh all you want because it's ridiculously funny, but also sad and pathetic.
Quoting the article, "The lightning hostile takeover raises fresh questions about the unregulated nature of digital currencies and the lack of protections for investors."
Which is exactly why the crypto and NFT schemes being offered in these new schemes are problematic. We're talking about real world cash flow with zero regulation or consumer protection. What protections will people have against unsavory practices by rich developers with a history of ethics issues?
People tend to forget why government regulations were ever created in the first place.
The reality many people refuse to face: regulatory oversight by a governmental body is a superior situation for consumers (and investors) than no oversight or regulation whatsoever. Obviously, ignorant regulations are going to cause problems. But the answer is *not* "no regulatory oversight." That's not a workable solution in any way.
Beanstalk crypto (an ether based stablecoin) had its reserve sucked dry by a flash attack. Basically someone with enough money bought in enough voting shares to transfer their reserves away. Laugh all you want because it's ridiculously funny, but also sad and pathetic.
Quoting the article, "The lightning hostile takeover raises fresh questions about the unregulated nature of digital currencies and the lack of protections for investors."
Which is exactly why the crypto and NFT schemes being offered in these new schemes are problematic. We're talking about real world cash flow with zero regulation or consumer protection. What protections will people have against unsavory practices by rich developers with a history of ethics issues?
People tend to forget why government regulations were ever created in the first place.
The reality many people refuse to face: regulatory oversight by a governmental body is a superior situation for consumers (and investors) than no oversight or regulation whatsoever. Obviously, ignorant regulations are going to cause problems. But the answer is *not* "no regulatory oversight." That's not a workable solution in any way.
To be very clear here, this has nothing to do with oversight or regulation, it has to do with the protocol itself.
For starters how many of you actually know about Beanstalk?
The system itself is built around a CREDIT BASED stablecoin. Essentially nothing actually backed the value of their stable coin apart from the personal savings and credit of the users in the system. In fact it was *NEVER* a true stablecoin, and never actually utilized proper collateral either through fiat or even actual crypto.
The protocol to begin with was a major issue for several reasons, most notably, and probably one of the major issues of the hack itself was that their recent "audit" actually came out with numerous vulnerabilities that were found and publicly posted.
"Over the course of the audit, we were able to pinpoint a significant vulnerability in plot transfers as well as several potentially exploitable attack vectors.
Additionally, we identified certain discrepancies between the whitepaper and the codebase around weather conditions as well as incentive times for BIPs.
The codebase contains code that has been imported from several other projects including Alpha Homora, DyDx and the 0x protocol all of which was validated for any discrepancies and properly documented in case any changes were needed to standardize the code.
Overall, the codebase has been developed to a high standard although it is relatively lackluster in in-line documentation which we urge the Beanstalk team to enhance.
In addition to the security vulnerabilities identified within the report, we have performed an extensive gas optimization analysis of the codebase to attempt to rigorously optimize several aspects of the code all of which have been listed in the respective Code Style chapter."
The protocol also hinged on governance, which is how this hack came about. Governance is handled many different ways, and knowing how governance works is a big indicator on whether the protocol is secure. If you can't even pass your first audit, and you stake your entire protocol on majority governance, yeah, you're subject to these kinds of governance hijacking attacks.
Lastly BLOCKCHAIN GAMES run governance differently. Some do have governance tokens, like Axie, which everyone ends up needing if they intend to breed axies (AXS tokens are needed) other games allow for governance when you own land. Governance essentially just allows you to have a say in what happens with the direction of the game, or where funds are spent, like shareholders, but sometimes a little more autonomous.
Not all crypto has governance built in, or with protocols like that. It's important to realize the ineptitude of Beanstalk in this situation.
Comments
I think any government will have to play this one pretty carefully. If they go all in with gains and losses and what is taxable and what is considered a business loss, their could be cases where companies or individuals basically write their own loss balance at the end of every tax year to offset the earnings taxes rather easily.
http://https//web3isgoinggreat.com/
And I definitely recommend Kira if you want to see amusing and informative vids on the crypto-space, especially where it intersects with gaming.
https://massivelyop.com/2022/04/14/vague-patch-notes-stop-giving-rich-people-money-to-make-failed-mmos/
"...people who are pitching these hustles not because they have to but because they believe you’re stupid."
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
His thinking was that it would encourage people to create better and better content to get more people to come and to be able to charge higher prices.
Roblox is basically that kind of model. It is something that Crey, Core Games, and several others have recently tried to emulate.
The big thing now is sadly this NFT thing. Cryptokitties and The Sandbox are some early pioneers into this. Now, "play2earn" NFT games are popping up every day, and most seem based on the ridiculous promise of stacks of fast cash if you just throw them a little coin.
It seems like it should be illegal. It's definitely unethical.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
There will always be scams....A fool and his money are easily parted.
Also, using modern games like "Mincecraft and Roblox"...........
For example if you buy a plot of land in space 1X1 and let's say it's the center of the map, and then the developers introduce more of the map later on making your plot no longer the center of the world, there's nothing you can do about it.
And yeah it could devalue the asset. There's nothing you could do about it, and in many ways there's nothing you should be able to do about it.
Exponential growth of an asset is unsustainable. Prices "should" fluctuate, and conceivably players could expect to take a loss, though nobody ever would want to. So items either sell for an asking price or they don't sell.
So even if the land was devalued, it more likely would just never sell instead of someone taking a loss on it, and the developers wouldn't realistically care. The item itself hasn't changed.
If the game is good and fun, in the end it doesn't matter, because whatever money you get back from assets when you're done is supposed to be just an added bonus.
This is ripe for abuse, fraud, and laundering. It's a really poor idea for this industry. Blockchain and NFTs can serve their purposes, but video games should not be one of them.
The problem with tha fantasy scenario is that not only does it go against all of the marketing happening for these games where profit - enough to support your third world family even - is front and center and emphasized as the main marketing hustle, but the term itself, Play to Earn, makes it crystal clear what they're trying to sell.
"Just an added bonus" is not the marketing for these games I'm seeing.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Players may have effectively ended out victims but the majority began as co-conspirators albeit without intent or even realization.
Not everyone, of course. Many players spoke against it, predicting dire outcomes ahead. But these warnings weren't well received, and where we are now is ample proof they were largely not followed.
We lay in a bed half of our own making and lack the collective will to get out of it despite how uncomfortable it increasingly becomes.
Well, the potential to earn from gaming is the differentiation of these games, so it makes sense explaining that potential would be prominent.
However, when I was looking into play to earn it wasn't so much prominent as overwhelmingly dominant, with explanations of byzantine complexity of the development of contrived worth surrounded by obscure systems of exchange that often had service fees attached of real currency, which also seemed to apply to purchasing and cashing out the associated virtual currencies, and on and on...
After that, I lost all interest in whatever potential gaming benefit from all of this may somehow trickle down to players in some way eventually.
I'd rather there not be any of it, and hope it comes to be overwhelmingly rejected by players such that it will no longer be seen as viable and abandoned, within the sphere of gaming at least.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
In the best cases, they skirt any regulation because they are "no loss" systems. The slice of the pie that you're trying to win is the interest based on the staked amount of currency in the pool.
There are some games that are putting this in effect too. I don't disagree with players wanting to participate in no loss tournaments, but because the market has been exceptionally volatile lately, there are concrete cases where you can't guarantee there's no losses involved. The best way to do it is with stable coins, but the problem with stable coins is that they don't earn much of a return when staked. Maybe 4 - 8% max.
By comparison some no loss tournaments were based on staked returns of 25% up to some returns of nearly 75%. Obviously the larger the staked amount and longer the amount was staked the more players would win. However, due to the way the market is, it's kind of a crapshoot on which is better, staking for a short amount of time or a longer one.
I do believe that no-loss tournaments are one of the few ways that could change gaming. not necessarily for the worst.
That place has become an echo chamber of the same 20 people posting. It's more of a private blog than an actual gaming website. Got banned for some reason and every time I post my message gets removed. If you can't take opposing views its time to get out of the journalism field.
The reality many people refuse to face: regulatory oversight by a governmental body is a superior situation for consumers (and investors) than no oversight or regulation whatsoever. Obviously, ignorant regulations are going to cause problems. But the answer is *not* "no regulatory oversight." That's not a workable solution in any way.
For starters how many of you actually know about Beanstalk?
The system itself is built around a CREDIT BASED stablecoin. Essentially nothing actually backed the value of their stable coin apart from the personal savings and credit of the users in the system. In fact it was *NEVER* a true stablecoin, and never actually utilized proper collateral either through fiat or even actual crypto.
The protocol to begin with was a major issue for several reasons, most notably, and probably one of the major issues of the hack itself was that their recent "audit" actually came out with numerous vulnerabilities that were found and publicly posted.
"Over the course of the audit, we were able to pinpoint a significant vulnerability in plot transfers as well as several potentially exploitable attack vectors.
Additionally, we identified certain discrepancies between the whitepaper and the codebase around weather conditions as well as incentive times for BIPs.
The codebase contains code that has been imported from several other projects including Alpha Homora, DyDx and the 0x protocol all of which was validated for any discrepancies and properly documented in case any changes were needed to standardize the code.
Overall, the codebase has been developed to a high standard although it is relatively lackluster in in-line documentation which we urge the Beanstalk team to enhance.
In addition to the security vulnerabilities identified within the report, we have performed an extensive gas optimization analysis of the codebase to attempt to rigorously optimize several aspects of the code all of which have been listed in the respective Code Style chapter."
The protocol also hinged on governance, which is how this hack came about. Governance is handled many different ways, and knowing how governance works is a big indicator on whether the protocol is secure. If you can't even pass your first audit, and you stake your entire protocol on majority governance, yeah, you're subject to these kinds of governance hijacking attacks.
Lastly BLOCKCHAIN GAMES run governance differently. Some do have governance tokens, like Axie, which everyone ends up needing if they intend to breed axies (AXS tokens are needed) other games allow for governance when you own land. Governance essentially just allows you to have a say in what happens with the direction of the game, or where funds are spent, like shareholders, but sometimes a little more autonomous.
Not all crypto has governance built in, or with protocols like that. It's important to realize the ineptitude of Beanstalk in this situation.