LogFAQs > #961390120

Maybe it's because I've had some years in business school, maybe it's just because I'm not a complete moron, but I don't understand how there's actual cryptoheads on twitter and shit that get excited about this. They seem to think that if you just connect a blockchain to something then the assets HAVE to rise in value. Like blockchain is a money printer that will magically alleviate all poverty in the world.

Historically the only games that have success with digital economies (eg TF2, CSGO) are games with no termination date that receive unending upkeep from the developers. If you try to put such an economy, whether it's blockchain or traditional, in a game that's not clearly intended to be live for literally more than a decade, then it will quickly devolve into speculation of when people will move on or when the next game is released, which would cause a permanent market crash as everyone tries to get rid of their assets before there's literally nobody left that even wants to buy one at any price.

Blockchain changes nothing about the fundamentals of a digital economy as already explored in these titles; the only difference is you may be able to buy and sell them outside of the game client more easily, but once again, such solutions have already been invented by the communities of the aforementioned games.

So what's with all these NFT announcements if the conclusion that it will go nowhere can be arrived at so easily? Well it's because investors aren't always that smart. Blockchain and cryptography are somewhat complicated technologies that inevitably get distilled into "digital magic" explanations by tech communicators. So you have a technology that could be easily implemented in just about ANYTHING (regardless of actual effectiveness), that investors and the public think prints money. So why not tell investors you're experimenting with this digital magic?