The following is a review of an industry interview; the views are for communication purposes only and do not constitute investment advice.
In recent years, Web3 gaming has experienced numerous narrative cycles of rise and fall. However, the real questions Web3 gamers care about are straightforward: Is this still a playable Web3 game? Can it generate sustainable income? How does the project team make a profit?
This episode of the GMA interview invites project representative Leo to discuss, from the project's perspective, why Web3 games are difficult to develop: long development cycles, uncertain cash flow, traditional capital markets' dislike for non-linear returns, and Web3's inherent financial and speculative attributes.
GMA TALK: "Why are more and more people saying: Web3 gaming is dead?"
Guest: Leo Gamebank CBO
Interview Date: Thursday, July 2, 2026, 3:00 PM
Host: GMA Nann
GMA Talk Q&A
Q1: Why did you transition from a traditional finance and investment background to a Web3 gaming project?
Leo: I previously worked in private equity, mainly in traditional industries such as consumer goods, real estate, hotels, cruise ships, and media. However, I gradually realized that there is a natural conflict between truly creative entertainment industries, especially gaming, and traditional capital markets. Game development cycles are long, cash flow is unstable, but once a hit is made, the returns are extremely non-linear, which doesn't fully align with the predictable, linear growth that traditional finance seeks. I first encountered blockchain around 2013-2014. Initially, I had many doubts about it, including its financial attributes, regulatory conflicts, and technical issues. But after a decade of development, I increasingly believe that blockchain represents part of the future financial model. Gaming itself is a collection of culture, emotion, and creativity, so I believe the combination of gaming and Web3 is not a short-term trend but a long-term one.
Q2: What kind of product is Pump Snake exactly?
Leo: Pump Snake is, first and foremost, a casual competitive game that supports multiplayer simultaneous battles. You can think of it as a multiplayer, competitive version of Snake. We want it to be easy to pick up but also competitive and entertaining, allowing dozens or even hundreds of players to compete in the same room. We conducted extensive research initially, such as looking at battle royale games. If everyone contributes one unit of currency and the winner takes all the rewards, some players might find it fun, but others might prefer a system where the top ten players receive rewards. Later, we felt that a game like Snake, with its wide appeal, simple mechanics, and competitive potential, is well-suited as our first product. Our goal is not just to create a simple "play-to-earn" game but to enable players to become stakeholders during gameplay. You are not just topping up and consuming but gaining value realization by participating in interaction, competition, and asset distribution.
Q3: Is Pump Snake's positioning primarily a game or a financial asset issuance platform?
Leo: Our primary positioning is definitely a game. Without a good gaming experience and willing players, all subsequent financialization and assetization are meaningless. However, if the DAU can reach scales like 100,000 or even 1 million in the future, this platform could indeed gradually evolve into an asset issuance and IP value realization platform. For example, if a KOL or IP wants to go on-chain, the traditional method is costly, and fans and users can only simply buy and sell tokens. But if they use our gaming ecosystem, they could build a Gindex around their traffic, attracting fans and players into the game for interaction. So, in the short term, it's a multiplayer casual competitive game; in the long term, it could become a platform for asset issuance, community interaction, and value realization through gaming. However, the prerequisite remains: the game must be successful first.
Q4: Is there any actual revenue now? How will commercialization be approached?
Leo: We don't rigidly distinguish between Web2 and Web3 revenue because, fundamentally, this is a game. For example, each game session can be seen as a transaction, with fixed transaction fees. We will also have subscription services, like SVIP, offering extra features or point rewards to highly active users. In the future, there will also be monetization points like skins, blind boxes, and items. However, these designs won't compromise competitive fairness. Just like Honor of Kings sells skins, but the matches themselves must remain as fair as possible. At the same time, we have implemented some more Web3-oriented mechanisms, such as "Loss is Mining." If a player loses money, they receive an equivalent amount of points, which can be used to draw blind boxes, obtain skins, items, or future map fragments. After launching this mechanism, the average daily game sessions per player increased from 12 to nearly 18, indicating it genuinely boosted engagement.
Q5: Why do you emphasize "Loss is Mining"? What problem is this mechanism trying to solve?
Leo: Because our game uses a ticket system, in every session, there are winners and losers. Winners getting rewards is satisfying, but if losers only lose money, their experience is poor, and they are unlikely to stay. So, we designed the "Loss is Mining" mechanism. For the amount you lose, you receive corresponding points that can be used to draw blind boxes. These blind boxes cannot be purchased directly with money; they can only be obtained through points. The purpose is to give players a reason to continue participating even after losing. We hope this economic system isn't a simple zero-sum game but rather allows players of different skill levels and spending capacities to find a sense of participation. Skilled players can earn money, while less skilled users can accumulate points and items, thereby improving overall player retention.
Q6: How does Pump Snake bring Web2 users into Web3?
Leo: My idea is that in the future, perhaps 90% or even 95% of users will be traditional Web2 users. However, their entry into Web3 shouldn't start with going to an exchange to buy tokens but through gaming. If a user first finds the game fun, is willing to top up and play, and then discovers during the process that they can open a wallet, cash out rewards, and access on-chain assets, they have naturally entered the Web3 world. This process is much smoother than directly telling users, "Go buy tokens first." Therefore, we are open to various payment channels. iOS, Google, traditional top-up methods, and Web3 wallets can all coexist. For users, they can choose whichever method is more convenient or has lower fees. For us, Web3 isn't about forcefully educating users but allowing them to naturally encounter a new value system while playing.
Q7: Why is the team currently relatively low-key, even somewhat anonymous, on the Web3 side?
Leo: This is mainly because we currently want to focus more on the product itself. The game is already listed on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, and we have fully communicated with these platforms during the listing process. However, from the Web3 side, we are not in a hurry to emphasize the team's background, token issuance plans, or on-chain roadmap on day one. We want to first get the product experience, commercialization aspects, and user retention right. If the game truly takes off one day, people will naturally learn about the team's background and project details. Right now, the most important thing is continuous iteration and making the game better. This doesn't mean we are not doing Web3. On the contrary, token issuance and on-chain asset systems are definitely our direction. But the pace must match the product, market conditions, and regulatory environment; we can't push everything out prematurely for short-term hype.
Q8: Will you definitely issue a token in the future, or does it depend on project development results?
Leo: We will definitely issue a token; that is clear. However, the specific timing depends on many factors. First, the broader market environment needs to gradually recover from its downturn. Second, the regulatory environment, especially in the U.S., will become clearer regarding definitions for related models like PolyMarket and Kalshi. Third, our own product and user scale need further refinement. I don't think spending excessive effort on a highly complex token issuance plan is the most important thing right now because infrastructure, development costs, and regulatory conditions are still evolving. For us, this is actually a good window period: to improve the product, grow the user base, and validate the commercialization model. When the market and regulations mature further, we can then fully implement token issuance and on-chain mechanisms.
Q9: How do you avoid the token economy entering a death spiral?
Leo: What we value most is player experience and the game's long-term operation. If a mechanism benefits the project team or a group of speculators in the short term but harms the game's long-term development, we absolutely will not implement it. Many past projects initially gathered a lot of attention and attracted many players, but because their economic mechanisms failed to align the long-term interests of the project team, players, and the ecosystem, they ultimately failed. We do not want to repeat those mistakes. Therefore, if we haven't fully thought through a mechanism, we'd rather not release it. We will first get the product and gaming experience right, then gradually add the on-chain components and necessary binding mechanisms. Gaming itself involves many uncertainties, and market, regulatory, and user structures are also changing, so we don't want to lock in all economic models from day one.
Q10: Will ad revenue, subscriptions, and blind box mechanisms affect player fairness?
Leo: We will strive to ensure fairness between free and paying users at the competitive level. For example, SVIP might offer cool avatars, additional features, or point rewards but will not make you directly stronger in the game. Advertising is similar. We won't force players to watch ads like many free-to-play games do. Instead, we give players a choice after each session: they can watch or skip. If ad revenue is generated, we will return a relatively high proportion to users; if revenue is low, we will provide some in-game items instead. The blind box mechanism also uses points to draw, and the drawing probability is consistent for players in different ticket-level rooms. High-ticket players might lose more in one session, earning more points, while low-ticket players might need to play more sessions to earn the same amount of points, but the drawing probability itself is the same.
Q11: How will AI influence your game design?
Leo: AI will definitely have a significant impact on gaming. Currently, we first use AI tools to monitor abnormal behavior, prevent botting, and combat cheating, similar to what traditional gaming companies do for anti-cheat. However, I think the more interesting future possibility is that we might not just treat AI as something to guard against. If the game becomes popular enough one day, players will naturally wonder: I can only play a few sessions a day myself, so could I have a bot play for me? This demand will inevitably arise. Therefore, we are also considering whether, in the future, we could directly integrate AI mechanisms into the game—for instance, allowing players to own an AI snake, binding AI behavior to NFTs, or even opening an SDK for players to program themselves. This would be a very interesting direction. Web2, Web3, and AI will become increasingly integrated in the future, and Web3 might even become the infrastructure for AI payments and asset flow.
Q12: What are Pump Snake's current metrics? What are the plans going forward?
Leo: Three months after launch, total registered users are close to 15,000 to 20,000. Excluding duplicate users, the real player count is close to 10,000. Daily DAU is roughly between 1,000 and 2,000. For a startup project with almost no marketing investment, I think this is a very good performance, and as we continue to update, many metrics are becoming healthier. In July, there will be a significant commercialization update, including skins, blind boxes, NFT systems, etc. We will also do more promotions in Southeast Asia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and other Asia-Pacific regions. In some previous offline events, simply telling users, "This is the most fun Snake game in the world," made many willing to download and try it. Once the commercialization content is more complete, I believe it will help with retention and word-of-mouth.
Q13: If someone says "Web3 gaming is dead," how would you respond?
Leo: I don't believe Web3 gaming is dead. On the contrary, I believe the ultimate form of true value realization in gaming will be on Web3, or Web3 combined with AI. The problem now is that we are in a transitional period between two eras. In the past, there were many failures in Web3 gaming, along with immature mechanisms and excessive speculation. But this doesn't mean the direction is wrong; it just indicates that the product, users, regulations, and infrastructure are not yet fully mature. I believe more Web2 games will actively embrace blockchain technology in the future, and more Web3 games will truly succeed. However, the next stage of Web3 gaming cannot rely solely on token issuance and short-term hype. It must genuinely have playability, retention, paying users, and use blockchain to solve problems related to assets, value distribution, and community participation.
