[Featured Res.]Defining On-chain Gaming

Jump CryptoPublicado a 2023-01-11Actualizado a 2023-01-12

Resumen

While a healthy level of skepticism remains around on-chain gaming by crypto natives and gamers alike, the ingredients for exciting and engaging on-chain games are very much in place. The final ingredient required is robust infrastructure that can make the gaming experience on-chain as frictionless for users as traditional gaming is today.

Background

Gaming has long been touted as a potential core use case for crypto. Built around natively digital assets and serving global audiences, games are in many ways the perfect candidate to leverage on-chain verifiable attestation, ownership, and global payment rails. As with any new innovation, however, the first version often leaves much to be desired. The first cohort of games was naturally clunky, gimmicky and turned off many true gamers by hyper-financializing the experience.

The next cohort of games being built on-chain, however, looks to leverage verifiable attestation, ownership, and asset programmability, while focusing on game loops built around genuine user acquisition and retention versus token speculation; more importantly, this cohort is being built by experienced game developers. In addition to a new genre of games enabled by shared-state serverless compute, we are starting to see IP from some of the largest game studios in the world beginning to come on-chain.

In this series of articles, we will cover everything from types of on-chain games to types of infrastructure required to realize each version of on-chain games.

We begin by defining the types of on-chain games that could exist.

Types of “On-Chain Games"

Broadly speaking, the phrase “on-chain gaming” has been used to describe a spectrum of game types where the degree of the game that lives on-chain can range from state updates for every move to one-off optional cosmetic mints for assets. Below is a rough overview of each game type on this spectrum.

Approach #1: Fully on-chain (FOC)

Fully on-chain games have been the focus of most of the recent discourse around on-chain gaming. Under this approach, the blockchain is used as an alternative to a centralized game server, with all players indexing from and writing to a shared state on-chain.

The shared state captures data related not only to assets but all aspects of game state. E.g. in a chess game, the shared state on-chain would capture details around the position of each piece for both black and white after every move made by a player. This approach enables features such as persistence (i.e. games can continue to survive even without continued contribution form the original creator), censorship resistance, and community-owned development.

While this enables the creation of new game types, this approach is currently well suited only for certain subset of turn-based games, given that each move must be submitted to the blockchain as a transaction that must go through consensus and reach finality before the next move can be made. Specifically, this is well suited for games with relatively few state updates per session either as a function of fewer players or fewer moves per player per session. Examples of games that have successfully adopted this approach include Dark Forest and 0xMonaco. Genres such as 18xx, which have been well documented in AllianceDAO blogs, are also well suited to this approach.

As game complexity increases, either in the form of simultaneous play or more frequent state updates per session, required state transitions may expand to include not only player inputs, like moves in a chess game, but also trivial mechanics (e.g. passive regeneration of hit points in an RPG). Requiring continuous “crank” (and accompanying gas fees) for these game mechanics therefore limits the practical game design space. Given the current state of blockchain architecture, these game types may be better suited to a hybrid on-chain/off-chain approach.

Approach #2: On-chain assets (OCA)

Under this model, user assets live on-chain while game loops live off-chain. On-chain asset state is indexed by the game server at the start of a session and state transitions are recorded off-chain on the game server. State is only relayed back on-chain from the game server at the end of a session or when game loop outcomes materially impact asset state. Perhaps a user could opt to “save state” and pay the associated gas cost. This approach makes tradeoffs around trustlessness for speed and performance.

Let’s consider a PvP combat game like Street Fighter. Users can own their Ryu avatar on-chain and attest to their ownership to initiate a game session off-chain. However, unlike the first approach, the state after every move (e.g. how much energy the character has lost after each move) will remain local to the game server. State will only be updated on-chain when a winner is declared if there are any implications to the assets living on-chain. For example, if the character has achieved a level-up that warrants a change in the NFT metadata, or if two players were part of a cash-incentivized tournament for which a smart contract needs to be settled. This approach is better suited to feature-rich games with greater frequency of moves per player, such as MMORPGs and FPS games.

This approach requires performant infrastructure. Some requirements include rapid indexing, metadata updatable asset standards on-chain, data relay infrastructure to communicate off-chain state on-chain, and automatic on-chain execution based on relayed data. Without these, user friction will be high and developer adoption low.

Approach #3: Optional Cosmetic Mints (OCM)

Under this approach, games look exactly like they do today where asset ownership and state updates are recorded in the off-chain game database. The only difference versus existing games is that users have the option to mint the current version of character assets as NFTs on-chain and trade them there if they so choose. Additionally, the game may have some sort of loyalty/season pass that lives as an NFT on-chain and facilitates access control within the game based on ownership. While appropriate infrastructure for approaches #1 and #2 is being built out, this path likely has the least friction for users.

Conclusion

Each approach above solves a different problem.

Approach #1, for example, solves game server trust. By indexing and writing to a shared state on-chain, this approach circumvents the need for game servers. This opens a new design space for fully on-chain games and may be well suited for a certain subset of turn-based games.

Approach #2 solves verifiable asset ownership and asset programmability. This approach limits trustlessness requirements to the asset layer rather than to all aspects of game state. This also enables the creation of verifiable economies around game assets by introducing trustlessness to secondary sales.

Approach #3 solves user experience. This approach argues that, under the current state of infrastructure, both aforementioned approaches introduce too much friction for gamers and therefore on-chain components should be optional and limited.

We argue that, with the right infrastructure, approach #1 and #2 could offer a similar user experience to approach #3 with the added benefit of having varying parts of game state on-chain. This would require standards that make communication, inventory management, and state transition automation seamless.

Stay tuned!

Lecturas Relacionadas

The Full Story of How Crypto Unicorn Blockstream Is Mired in Serious Fraud Allegations

This article details serious allegations of fraud against Bitcoin infrastructure company Blockstream, founded by Bitcoin pioneer Adam Back. In June 2024, investigative account NatInfoSec published a report accusing Blockstream's mining note (BMN) program of potentially operating a multi-billion dollar scheme with Ponzi-like characteristics. The core allegations focus on Blockstream Mining Notes (BMNs), which offer investors fixed annual yields up to approximately 20% from Bitcoin mining. NatInfoSec's investigation raises several key issues: 1. **Suspicious Hashrate & Payout Capacity**: The analysis suggests Blockstream would need 20-45 EH/s of mining power to cover its BMN obligations, but its public dashboard shows only around 15 EH/s. Furthermore, no verifiable public evidence (e.g., grid connection records, import data) was found to support the massive mining operation required. 2. **Questionable Payout Source**: The BMN contract allows Blockstream to use Bitcoin from *any source* (Substitute Performance BTC) to fulfill investor payouts, raising concerns that payouts may not come from actual mining revenue. 3. **High-Risk, Fixed Returns**: Offering ~20% fixed yields in the volatile, cyclical Bitcoin mining industry is viewed as highly unusual and requires clear explanation. 4. **Undisclosed Criminal Record of Key Figure**: Christopher William Cook, a key figure in Blockstream's mining operations and CEO of spin-off Exacore, was found to have a federal felony conviction for mail fraud in 2008, a fact not disclosed in BMN offering documents. His background was also allegedly embellished. 5. **Potential Contagion to BSTR SPAC**: Questions were raised about whether these liabilities and Cook's record should have been disclosed in the SEC filings for Bitcoin Standard Treasury Company (BSTR), a separate Adam Back-associated firm planning a SPAC merger. The crypto community is divided. BitMEX Research validated Cook's criminal record and expressed concern over the high yields but found other evidence lacking or misleading, noting the legal separation between BMN, Blockstream, and BSTR. Blockstream defenders, like Samson Mow, argue the mining is real. Critics, however, emphasize the lack of independent, verifiable proof of the mining operation's scale and the true source of investor payouts. The article concludes that BMN remains shrouded in key unanswered questions regarding its actual size, the verifiability of its underlying mining assets and payouts, the source of its high yields, and the full role and disclosure concerning Chris Cook. Blockstream had not issued a comprehensive response at the time of writing.

marsbitHace 17 min(s)

The Full Story of How Crypto Unicorn Blockstream Is Mired in Serious Fraud Allegations

marsbitHace 17 min(s)

South Korea Targets 40 Unregistered Crypto Operators in Regulatory Crackdown

South Korea's Financial Intelligence Unit has referred around 40 unregistered virtual asset service providers to the police as part of a regulatory crackdown. Under local law, all crypto exchanges must obtain ISMS certification and FIU registration before operating, yet only 28 entities are currently registered. The FIU identified methods used by offshore platforms to attract Korean users, including advertising on local messaging apps and using private money changers to convert stablecoins. Officials stressed that unregistered platforms are not protected by Korean law. This action aligns with South Korea's push for stricter global crypto compliance through FATF measures. FIU Director Lee Hyung-joo recently urged FATF members to remove transaction thresholds for the "Travel Rule," as South Korea plans to mandate identity checks for all crypto transactions starting in August, expanding from the current 1 million won (≈$730) minimum. Regulatory enforcement has intensified in 2026, with authorities pursuing criminal cases against market manipulation schemes and enhancing cooperation with financial institutions to curb cross-border illegal transactions.

TheNewsCryptoHace 52 min(s)

South Korea Targets 40 Unregistered Crypto Operators in Regulatory Crackdown

TheNewsCryptoHace 52 min(s)

The Full Story Behind Encryption Unicorn Blockstream's Deep Entanglement in Serious Fraud Allegations

This article details allegations of serious fraud surrounding the crypto company Blockstream, founded by Bitcoin pioneer Adam Back. Investigation account NatInfoSec accuses Blockstream of raising billions through its Blockstream Mining Note (BMN) products, which offer high fixed yields of up to 20% from purported mining revenue. The core allegations are: 1) Blockstream's public mining hash rate (15 EH/s) appears insufficient to cover the massive payout obligations from sold BMN notes, raising questions about the true source of investor payouts. 2) Key executive Christopher William Cook, central to the mining operations, has a prior federal conviction for mail fraud, a fact not disclosed to investors. Cook's background and lavish lifestyle are highlighted as red flags. 3) The structure allows payouts from any source of BTC, not necessarily mining revenue, which critics argue gives it Ponzi-like characteristics. The controversy also touches on Bitcoin Standard Treasury Company (BSTR), a related entity planning a SPAC上市. Critics question whether BMN's liabilities and Cook's record should be disclosed in BSTR's filings. BitMEX Research offered a tempered analysis, confirming Cook's criminal record is likely true and the high yields concerning, but found other claims like insufficient抵押证据 less substantiated. Community debate centers on the need for verifiable proof of Blockstream's mining output and revenue. The article concludes that while fraud is not proven, BMN presents significant, unresolved questions regarding its actual scale, the source of its high fixed returns, the verifiability of its mining operations and payouts, and the full disclosure of associated risks and personnel backgrounds. Blockstream has not yet issued a formal response.

链捕手Hace 1 hora(s)

The Full Story Behind Encryption Unicorn Blockstream's Deep Entanglement in Serious Fraud Allegations

链捕手Hace 1 hora(s)

Crypto Lobby Pushes Congress To Keep Staking And Mining Tax Bill Intact

Crypto advocacy groups are urging U.S. lawmakers to pass the Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act (H.R. 9175) without changes. The bill seeks to clarify that rewards for proof-of-work miners and proof-of-stake validators are taxed only when the assets are sold, not immediately when received. This deferred tax treatment is crucial for operators' cash flow and profitability. The proposal faces opposition from banking interests, who argue it could give crypto yield products an unfair advantage over traditional savings. The outcome will impact network decentralization, as complex tax rules could push out smaller operators. The lobbying effort marks an expansion of crypto's policy focus beyond market structure into tax rules that underpin network economics. The bill's fate depends on whether Congress advances it as a standalone clarification or part of a broader digital-asset package.

bitcoinistHace 2 hora(s)

Crypto Lobby Pushes Congress To Keep Staking And Mining Tax Bill Intact

bitcoinistHace 2 hora(s)

Legacy Polygon Royalties Contract Exploit Drains $261K Through Reward Logic Flaw

A hacker exploited a legacy Polygon royalties contract, stealing approximately $261,200 in cryptocurrency. Security firm TenArmorAlert identified the attack on June 23. The exploit was made possible by a flaw in the contract's reward calculation logic within the Royal1155LD.beforeLdaTransfer() function. By executing several zero-value transactions, the attacker manipulated reward accounting and token ownership data, artificially inflating balances to enable excessive withdrawals. The attacker also utilized a flash loan to amplify the exploit's profit after repayment. This incident highlights ongoing security risks associated with older, inactive smart contracts that still hold funds, following similar recent exploits. Developers are urged to audit, update, or decommission such legacy deployments to prevent future attacks. The Polygon blockchain's core infrastructure was not compromised.

TheNewsCryptoHace 2 hora(s)

Legacy Polygon Royalties Contract Exploit Drains $261K Through Reward Logic Flaw

TheNewsCryptoHace 2 hora(s)

Trading

Spot

Futuros