the paradox of an in-game utility token is that it's accretive but it's also "congestive"

more people playing the game increases token price which makes the game more expensive to play which makes it less likely others play it

Stoke Fire

Building /stokefire a mobile strategy game onchain. Run and own poolfish.xyz a calculator for LP providers. Built Potion solo and sold for $300k.

@nbragg has managed this well in /stokefire by manually adjusting the $fire cost to stoke the fire relative to the market price.

(Though I’d still love to see it become a programatic adjustment relative to ETH rewards being paid out)

Horticulturalist. Environmental hand wringer. Open source enthusiast.

smart move but the equity holders and game players are still ultimately at tension, no?

Players get rewarded in ETH, the higher their score the higher the % of ETH rewards pool.

Rewards pool comes from a 2% tax on all $Fire swaps. So token volatility increases the ETH rewards pool. You can’t play for longer than 3 days without burning some $Fire so some utility is baked in. It’s quite clever.

So I agree there is a default tension of players wanting to hodl and speculate vs using a token for its intended utility. But I think /stokefire shows that with the right incentive structure you can harness both for value accrual to the token and increasing your player base.

@nbragg is very clever, been meaning to dig deeper into these tokenomics

to be clear initial cast was not specifically referring to any one token or game