Venture capital criticizes BigTime: Token economy is fundamentally about mining, promoting, and selling, playing a copycat gold rush game

Chain game BigTime recently succeeded in manipulating coin prices, attracting much attention in the bear market. However, criticism persists regarding its return to the game's economic design and essence, as it is believed to still be rooted in the profit-seeking nature of the coin circle. Aiko, a game researcher at venture capital firm Folius Ventures, who has years of experience studying Web3 games, harshly criticized it. Here is a summary of the original content:

Looking at the economic model is essentially a translation, where all the terms "loot box opening," "release," "transactions," "output," and "drops" are translated into: where does the money come from, where does it go, who is making money, and where the final value is captured.

After reviewing the current economic model of BigTime, the following insights were gained:

Advertisement - Continue scrolling for more content

BigTime Token Lacks Utility, Only Mined and Sold for Profit

- $TIME token only has a faucet designed for it, but there is no actual sink for it in the game. Essentially, it is all about buying NFTs with cash to earn TIME, then selling them in the secondary market to break even. $TIME lacks a strong consumption scenario and is only mined and sold as a speculative asset.

Note: A "faucet" refers to the source of token liquidity, while a "sink" refers to the design that utilizes the token.

- The token lacks a sink for actual use, and there is no cash flow back for repurchase. With a very small circulation supply, the market cap is around $30 million, as opposed to the $200 million valuation speculated in the primary market. Besides those who speculate on MEXC, everyone else is just on the path to break even.

Possible Weak Cash Flow Sources and Neglect of Consumer Layer in BigTime

- So where is the value capture? It all lies in OpenLoot. Note: BigTime trading market, the first party sells fiat-equivalent soft currency and blind boxes, and charges a 5% fee on all future NFT transactions, generating all the cash flow.

- Cash flow is indeed crucial for the team, but the long-term value capture of the token should not be neglected.

This design bears a lot of similarities to what we wrote about last year in In-app Taxation, where any production process involves tier and function differentiations + random numbers, maximizing mathematical expectations. Any supply-demand mismatch caused by randomness is to promote transactions and taxation. However, in our design, we not only increase transaction frequency but also design token sinks everywhere to capture long-term value for the token. Unfortunately, this aspect is not emphasized in BigTime.

- In-app Taxation is indeed likely to replace the original single/dual currency+NFT model and is more suitable for complex/multi-layered game ecosystems. However, it also makes me realize how boring a game with only In-app Taxation can be...

- Lastly, the consumer layer is also unfortunately not given much attention in BigTime. Everything in the game is still purely driven by ROI investment logic, even the skin color levels are related to buffs. Attaching appearance to statistics is a big taboo. If one wants to create a market driven by appearance/show-off, they must abandon this statistical aspect while focusing on artistic design.

BigTime is a Failed MMO Game

- Setting aside the token aspect, as the first Web3 native MMO game, BigTime has already failed halfway. From the current design perspective, it fails to meet the basic requirements of social-driven interaction and the imagination of an open economy. It's just another game similar to grinding dungeons and gold farming like "Legend."

But whose fault is it?

Is it due to limited industrial capacity and founders who lack game knowledge but insist on making a game?

Is it because the game was allegedly sold as a shell to a third-party team to operate?

Is it the restless pursuit of profit and the difficulty of breaking out of the circle?

Should we still look forward to a Web3 version of EVE Online? Should we continue to expect a Web3 MMO made with dreamy numbers? What will it look like by then? Additionally, server issues and asset bugs should not be the mistakes at this stage of the game.

The Marketing Strategy of BigTime

- Regarding the launch of this token, there have been various analyses in the market, with mixed reviews.

However, what Web3 game teams need to see is that over the past two years, the BigTime team has been conducting NFT sales, including ground promotions and door-to-door sales, doing their best to manage the holder community. Perhaps all of these were laying the groundwork for the current events.

This operation is only useful for projects with high visibility, long survival time, and strong product momentum, the so-called 3A & large asset issuance games. It has low replicability, and BigTime has indeed played its cards well, following the path that suits them.

However, it is a reminder to all game teams that they should return to and focus on the community users and, more importantly, break out of the existing user base for growth.

Honest Words from a Web3 Game Researcher

I have been analyzing Web3 games for two years, and looking at the BigTime case now from multiple angles such as first/second-tier players, gold farmers, game players, game designers, and game teams, it is indeed interesting. I have gained a lot from exchanging ideas with industry friends, which I won't delve into here due to space constraints.

So, I really dislike those investors who see Web3 games as similar to the era of the NES console, always just looking at the surface. The interesting part of Web3 games lies in the multifaceted ecosystem, where all sorts of characters show their prowess. In the end, some people truly make a fortune, leaving behind myths of wealth creation for academia to study, as well as a plethora of complex social relationships and value evaporation that others may not understand.