Just saying, they are not that much transparent. Their proposal is childish, just like all other proposals.
Basically, they want to sell 2 panda pictures for 28k... :)
Looking it with a business mind, no way, it can succeed. They say, they don't want to use AI art, but instead of paying for digital artists, or how the hell they call them - who by the way, 100% use AI, at least partly, but generally talking usually bigger % of the work done by AI.
Same with programming, coding. AI does most of the work nowadays, not developers itself!
No financial plan from the beginning, and now, when they are short with money, they don't even try to rationalize their spendings, adapt to current market.
Not to mention, if the game ever would come alive, the team would have totally empty pockets. So asap game will reach any playable level, they will start to sell some craps again.
It means, it will use the very same model, what other blockchain games use.
Create sellable nfts, tokens
Collect money from people by promising the Heaven
No liability, no dates
Without having a real product, already created an inflatory economy
They spend all the money for who knows what
If, when game is playable, asap more sells, more spendings
No token buybacks
As it is on Hive, double inflation. L1 and L2 both.
I don't say, it can't succeed, but not with the old models, what are provenly not sustainable! And obviously, they don't even try to adapt to nowadays environment.
Some projects already trying new models, bigger part of any income goes back to game's economy - mostly by buybacks. Or they make game funds, so they stake %age of income in a relatively safe asset (like stablecoins - not hbd), so game fund will generate outside of game income. Or they don't create own token, but use L1 token for economy, rewards (or bigger L2 tokens).
My point, what looked like working 4-5 years ago, today provenly not working, but this game - how all other on Hive -, still try to push the old, 'almost 100% sure it will fail' models... big red flag!
Thanks for your comment. I understand your skepticism, and I also think that many of your criticisms are valid in the context of Web3 games.
Personally, I don't think the request is perfect, and in my post I wrote that I don't like backpay.
However, I don't consider all of this to be:
even though I understand and like the irony :)
I have decided to support the proposal:
I agree with you that many Web3 games have failed following the “NFT+token - hype - crash” pattern, but at the same time, Holozing has also shown that it wants to be different:
In conclusion, I agree that the economic model is still immature and that the risk is high.
I have chosen to support this proposal because I hope that Holozing will be a game that focuses primarily on the playful aspect and because I appreciate the infrastructure work, but obviously this is a personal choice.
Thank you for sharing your point of view. Personally, I think that criticism and different points of view are always very useful and important.
no paid marketing
no crazy token-based promises
no economic hype campaign
no bots
For me, it just means, they can't afford marketing, hype campaign, and even miss the hype part. Bots are everywhere, so we will see that part. So the main model is still the very same like the failing majority.
You know, blockchain games are all about earning first! It became natural. Even if it would change for gaming first, need a complete restructuring!
You just can't charge more than $100 per person, if it's about gaming, not the money. And if it's about money, don't be surprised everybody focus on that.
So any game need a sustainable economy, what none of these inflatiory web3 games tokenization could create, mostly because of greed.
I reached that level, when I am personally convinced, none of them didn't really believe, they can succeed, they just wanted quick money.
But how you said, different opinions won't hurt anybody.