A Hole in One

When you're saying assets are decentralized, are we talking characters/items within a game or what types of assets?

Yes, there are token assets (like currencies) that are tradeable, but there are also game assets (Similar to Magic the Gathering) that are owned. These can be used to earn (by playing) traded (buy & sell on market) or rented to other players for a passive income.

Effectively, if the gaming owners/devs decided to shut down the game, these assets are held on the blockchain, and therefore another interface that leverages the same could be developed very quickly. Like a fork. Or, a rival interface could use the same assets for their game.

---

This was a little hard to visualize for them, so I gave a more real-world example that better resonated.

---

Have you been following the PGA and LIV drama in golf?

Are you saying LIV took the NFTs from PGA? Or the Players rather took their assets to LIV?

Both in a way. However, what LIV offered was a higher return incentive and some jumped ship, seeing that they had more opportunity to earn more there, than with the PGA. The person who finished in last position at the first LIV event, took away their biggest ever earnings and tripled their earnings over the last 2 years with that one well-over par loss.

Ah, okay.

But there is more to it. The players are opting-in to LIV, but there is actually nothing stopping them from playing in the PGA, as their "assets" (the player and skills etc) are still usable on both "platforms". However, the PGA has banned those who went to the rival league from playing, even though the newcomer league is happy to have their converts play in the PGA.

---

From here, we went into a bit of deeper conversation about forking, the HIVE shift from Steem, communities, centralized versus decentralized platforms like YouTube and Hive and other factors - but what was apparent was, having it visualized in a more relatable example for him, was highly valuable.

---

I am not a golf fan by any measure, but I have been interested in this golf "fork" between PGA and LIV and noticed that while the US PGA Tour has strongly ridiculed and banned players, the US Open, which has one of the largest total prize pools of 25 million, is letting the "LIV rebels" play - which puts them all in together on the one platform again to go head to head.

This is a pretty powerful stroke, because what it does is leverages the hype between the two rival leagues platforms, to create a "playoff" scenario between them on a third independent field. While lots of golf purists might disagree, what is actually happening here is a process of "acceptance" of the LIV player move by a very large and established peer, which will put pressure on the PGA to follow suit, or risk being minimized, as players will start to opt for the larger purse events, the more attractive incentive.

If the PGA aren't careful, what will happen is that while in the initial stages there might be a lower quality of player in LIV, if they can also play in events like the US Open, that quality balance starts to shift and, a move of the players (NFTs) shifts to the higher incentive, where the money might be better and, the competition lower - at least to begin with. In time, there will be a balancing of skill in the new league, but if the PGA holds firm and doesn't allow the rebels to join, their "player owned assets" will make the move, leaving the PGA with the lower quality pool, which sends it into a death spiral, as they will lose sponsorships and prize money attractors to the platforms that are of higher quality players and therefore, more public interest.

---

Perhaps you can see why I am interested in this a bit, because what is happening is an increase in "player freedom", where they are able to choose to opt-in to different professional opportunities based on their personal needs. And, remembering that they are professionals, money is a big incentive and in order to earn it against other professionals, so is lower competition.

This is a very high profile example of what crypto offers all participants in pretty much every activity they do, because it is always opt in and out and, there is also mobility of assets, meaning that a fork can be created like from Steem to Hive, without degrading the integrity of the past asset, but allowing for new capabilities once on the new platform.

For example, as long as there is a Steem blockchain that is decentralized, my past activity on Steem will remain intact, but since it isn't decentralized now, it is very iffy as to whether my account is "non-fungible". On Hive however, all of that same past exists, but it is in a truly decentralized environment that has developed further, which means at the point of the fork, my NFT account split into two and gained new attributes and possibilities. And, as we have seen over the last 2+ years, the value of social blockchains is unsurprisingly, in the community that see value in it, so the "rebel league" is now worth significantly more than the original league, and supports a whole range of second-layer platforms, each with their own value mechanisms in play.

What I am expecting in the coming years, is that this kind of "opt-in" mentality and freedom of movement is going to become far more important in people's decision making process, especially after a prolonged period of lockdowns and economic hardship. People are going to have to start making choices on their own economic futures as the economy collapses and, decisions are always incentive driven - meaning, at some point, they are going to want to play-to-earn also.

The next decade is going to see monumental shifts in culture and it is all heading toward an economy where there are more options, less centralized control and increased mobility of wealth globally - all being driven by ordinary people like you and me - who are already on the green.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]