如何看待耶鲁大学新论文提出的ServerFi概念?

Odaily星球日报Pubblicato 2024-08-15Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-08-15

Introduzione

ServerFi论文从理念上探索了一种把GameFi带出Ponzi泥潭的可能性。

原文作者:Haotian

如何看待耶鲁大学新论文提出的 ServerFi 概念?它会成为 web3 创新匮乏下的新转机赛道吗?在系统翻阅了这篇论文后,我提炼了一些关键点,并附加若干思考和大家讨论下:

1)传统 GameFi 都打着 Play to Earn 的玩赚旗号,通常还会采用内外两个经济体来维系平衡(双币模型):内部币构建消耗并制造稀缺性系统,通过增值权益带动存量用户消耗手中权益代币,并降低潜在对外抛压;外部币则通过持续引入外部用户、资金等带动币种的价格增长,进而促成外部代币增长带动内部游戏活跃度提升,最终吸引更多外部用户参与的增长正螺旋。

但双币模型本质上是一种短期内靠外部新用户来供养早期玩家获利的 Ponzi 结构,其代币经济模型会吸引大量 Speculators 进入,而真正的游戏爱好者可能会碍于高门槛儿被排挤在外。一旦场内玩家某一天发现消耗投入不再有更高收益预期的时候,游戏的衰退熵就会形成,大量老玩家急速流动性退出,新玩家也没有信心继续进入,从而形成「死亡螺旋」。Axie infinity、Stepn、甚至 CryptoKitties 等都逃不开这类运行框架和结局。

2)这篇新论文中提出了 SeverFi 的概念,简单而言:允许玩家将游戏内资产进行组合最终获得未来服务器主权。这种新运行框架有三个特性:

1、侧重长期参与和价值创造,玩家所获得的服务器所有权是一种依赖长期游戏产生实际性收益之后才能兑现的权限,吸引到的会是一批注重长期收益大于短期收益的玩家。因此更多高留存、高忠诚度的玩家的产生会是游戏增长的根本;

2、降低 Ponzi 结构性风险并减少投机行为,ServerFi 框架下,引导玩家更看重服务器长期的实际价值和运营收益,减少了对新玩家资金投入的依赖。因此可以降低新用户参与的门槛,继而从大量新用户中转化出真正对游戏长期增长有贡献的服务器「股东」用户,这种模式天然会做大游戏池子,同时也会产生用户分层,投机用户会逐步被边缘化,而长期忠诚玩家会成为主流,这和传统游戏模式靠忠实氪金玩家经营的理念趋于一致;

3、由 web3 的去中心化社区精神驱动,不难理解,既然服务器所有权被分割,那游戏的所有权会从平台开发者转嫁到玩家和社区身上,因此这类游戏需要保持足够的透明度,避免开发者跳过用户对游戏进行恶意操纵,同时这类游戏注定短期不会有 Ponzi 一样的增长爆发力,但长时间的陪伴成长和持续运营会让忠实玩家有意想不到的收获。

总的来说, #ServerFi 论文从理念上探索了一种把 GameFi 带出 Ponzi 泥潭的可能性,算是一种有益的探索和进步,期待后续能有相应的现象级游戏能跑出来。

Letture associate

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit1 h fa

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit1 h fa

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit2 h fa

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit2 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片