Wird ServerFi die Lebensader von GameFi sein?

Original｜Odaily Planet Daily ( @OdailyChina )

Autor: Wenser ( @wenser2010 )

On August 12, a paper said to be published by a Yale University professor proposed the concept of ServerFi, saying that it emphasizes privatization through asset synthesis and a model that focuses on providing continuous rewards to high-retention players, and research results show that ServerFi is particularly effective in maintaining player engagement and ensuring the long-term viability of the gaming ecosystem, providing a promising direction for the future development of blockchain games. Although it was later verified by Jack, the founder of 0xUClub , that this article was most likely a skinned content published in the name of Yale University, users who have more or less expectations in the GameFi field still questioned this: Will ServerFi be the life-saving straw for subsequent GameFi games?

Odaily Planet Daily will briefly sort out different viewpoints in this article and provide analytical answers to this question.

Market view: mixed reviews, overall optimistic

After the emergence of the ServerFi concept, there was a lot of discussion in the market. For details of the concept, please refer to the article Yale University: ServerFi, a new symbiotic relationship between games and players .

In general, the opinions of Chinese KOLs and practitioners are mostly positive. Even the Web3 MMORPG game MetaCene directly changed the suffix of the X platform account to ServerFi and posted a message saying: We are very happy to launch the worlds first ServerFi product and bluntly said Let the server belong to you (referring to the players). The following are some representative opinions:

Aiko, an investor at Folius Ventures and a member of the Myshell team , said , “ In my opinion, ServerFi features include:

– Trade and taxation between different servers

– Different server cultures: highly competitive and peaceful

– New production and consumption curves

– Solve the resource depletion and death spiral caused by over-exploitation in a single environment

– Provide honor and income to server managers (distributors, agents, etc.)

If an economic system is unsustainable, it’s because it’s not complex or diverse enough. Just like a rainforest. When it has a wide range of environments (or maps) and a variety of species, it naturally tends toward equilibrium.”

Crypto researcher and Chinese KOL Haotian schrieb , ServerFis new operating framework includes three features: 1) Focus on long-term participation and value creation; 2) Reduce Ponzi structural risks and reduce speculative behavior; 3) Driven by the decentralized community spirit of web3.

Crypto KOL Dr. Jinglee sagte on this topic, As an academic article, there are some doubts about the theory of entropy increase used in the article and the process of demonstrating it in the form of simulation experiments, including the definition of how players contribute to the server. There are also some unclear points.

CryptoV, partner of AC Capital and founder of Open-Rug, sagte , “This model is essentially the same as play to earn. It just changes the assumption that ‘playing the game will make money’ to ‘the game itself can make money’. In essence, it is a dividend-sharing scheme (for players to share profits).”

Leslie, co-founder of Eureka Guild and researcher in the GameFi field, believes that ServerFi does propose some useful logic, but it should not be a concept that is fomo. To be successful, Web3 games must meet the conditions of playability, gameability, and economic adaptation. How to accumulate core players and balance new and old players is an issue that a game needs to focus on.

It can be seen that for the implementation of ServerFi, people can only discuss it from the perspectives of server ownership and benefit distribution between game projects and players, but it is difficult to discuss in depth topics such as economic model, game life cycle and specific resource exchange. The original text of ServerFi is also more inclined to mathematical fitting and deduction rather than actual project comparison.

Player contribution value data in 2 economic models

ServerFi: Establishing an “Imagined Community of Interests”

In detail, the core proposition of ServerFi lies in the following three aspects:

3 core propositions: number of gamers, server value, and contribution return ratio

First of all, the number of gamers is the premise for the establishment of ServerFi. Because if the number of gamers cannot meet a certain level, the conditions of ServerFi still do not hold: there are not enough players, there are no relatively old players and new players, and there is no in-game asset creation link. And this is precisely a major difficulty of games in the current GameFi field – insufficient playability and a relatively small number of gamers.

Secondly, the value of the server is the core of ServerFis operation. When the stratification system of game players is gradually established and the in-game economic system is gradually improved, because of the trading and circulation of assets such as internal currencies and props, this server has the corresponding quantifiable value – usually it can be linked to the legal currency system. In other words, the core of ServerFis operation lies in a Server that generates value through accumulation. This is also the reason why many people are still spending a lot of money on the construction and playing of legendary private servers – big R players like the feeling of 999 with one knife, and private server manufacturers provide them with corresponding service scenarios and service experiences; if the value of this server cannot be accumulated or monetized, then ServerFi will not be able to operate.

Finally, the contribution-return ratio is an adjustable parameter of ServerFi. If the numerical parameters that can be adjusted in traditional GameFi games such as Axie Infinity and STEPN are the production speed of props and the output rate of tokens, then ServerFi can be said to have achieved the fuzzification and dimensionalization of parameters: game players obtaining in-game assets and synthesizing them is only the first step in making contributions, and the amount and speed of rewards depends more on the running and operation of the game server and transactions between servers. In the past, the levels of GameFi games were limited to the dimensions of player PVP and player system PVE. The game project party exercised the role authority of God from a Gods perspective, but now, players, servers, and project parties need to form a community of interests to stimulate the enthusiasm of different role subjects for the investment, maintenance, and expansion of the core medium of server.

ServerFi: A proposed alternative to the Ponzi scheme

Based on the above core propositions, we can continue to deduce that the next step for ServerFi type GameFi games is to use the clear to support the side or use the clear to suppress the side:

1. The emotional value and entertainment value of the game cannot be solved by the ServerFi model and must be provided by GameFis own products. These can be prop collection, card lottery, social ranking, real feedback. It doesnt matter if there are less of them, but they cannot be absent, otherwise no one will join the game.

2. The ownership of the server, the conditions for synthesizing in-game assets, and the clarification between the two are issues that need to be considered in stages at the beginning of the design of the ServerFi model. This involves the distribution of interests between project parties, big R players, small R players, and free players, as well as the economic model design of in-game assets and out-of-game servers.

3. Introduce a forfeiture mechanism or punishment mechanism similar to the multi-signature agreement to ensure that the adjustment of the contribution return ratio can be in a dynamic balance or a state of unanimous agreement among all parties. This is exactly what GameFi games lack or are powerless to do today. After all, the bulk of the cost is on the project side. In order to achieve quick harvest and short-term profit, no matter how successful it is, it is difficult for the project side to resist the temptation and prolong the return cycle; on the contrary, it is also difficult for players to achieve long-termism after investing time, energy, funds and other costs.

Therefore, the actual implementation of ServerFi is unlikely to be accomplished overnight.

Summary: Expanding the scope of servers may change the rules of the game

Countless GameFi project parties and players have highly praised Fantasy Westward Journey because it has found a wobbly but stable tightrope walk between a specific historical background and different gaming groups, thereby achieving dual adaptation of gameplay and economy, but similar cases are unlikely to become a model.

Compared with this, ServerFi is a new perspective, especially after expanding different server types. Although the following diagram has little to do with the GameFi gaming industry, there are also parts that can be used as reference, that is, if the existing concept of game server is generalized, different servers can also be regarded as player gangs, thereby achieving liquidity exchange in a larger range, and then continuously upgrading the construction of GameFi games.

After all, isn’t the entire Earth also a giant “server”, in other words?

Different Server Classifications in the Computing Industry

This article is sourced from the internet: Will ServerFi be GameFi’s lifeline?

Related: Review of the performance of 10 TON investment institutions: financing scale, investment cost, and investment return rat

Original author: Nancy, PANews After years of ups and downs and twists and turns, TON has now ranked among the top ten cryptocurrencies by market value. The rapid growth in user base, capital scale, and token prices has made it one of the crypto projects with the strongest development momentum in this bull market. TONs transformation from a thousand-mile horse is inseparable from the wisdom of Bo Le. According to CoinCarp data, TON has completed seven rounds of financing so far, but only publicly disclosed two rounds of investment of US$16 million, and no more information was released for the remaining five rounds. Among them, from the perspective of investment institutions, participating institutions include Runa Capital, RTP Global, DWF Labs, Mask Network, Mexc Ventures, Animoca Brands, Mirana Ventures and Pantera…