Will There Be a Next Wave of Web3 Games? Veteran Player's Review: At the Peak of Hype, You Should at Least Sell Half

marsbitPubblicato 2026-07-02Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-07-02

Introduzione

**Title: Is There Another Wave for Web3 Gaming? A Veteran Player's Review: When Hype Peaks, You Must Exit at Least Half** **Summary:** In an interview, veteran player "Earn Money Chicken" shares his journey and reflections on Web3 gaming. He transitioned from being a traditional in-game trader to a Web3 gamer, having profited from games like Mobox, StepN, and Seraph, but also experiencing significant losses. He defines himself primarily as a player, not an investor, attracted to Web3 games for the blend of earning potential, engaging gameplay, and the satisfaction of researching game mechanics. While he enjoys strategic "gambling" within games, he emphasizes it's not about zero-sum competition with other players. The interview explores the complex, often adversarial relationship between players, projects, and major investors (whales). The player's experience as a traditional game merchant helped develop his analytical mindset for spotting opportunities, but wasn't directly transferable. He identifies the core sources of profit in early Web3 gaming as **"era红利" (era-specific红利)** and strategic foresight, not just simple calculations. He warns that the biggest mistake ordinary players make is calculating their return-on-investment (ROI) period at peak hype, as asset and yield depreciation can trap them. Reflecting on his wins and losses, he now advocates for managing expectations. His most successful exit was from Seraph, where he sold at a relatively good time. The key ...

Interview Guest: MoneyChicken

Host: GMA cccai Nann

Interview Time: Thursday, June 24th, 3:00 PM

Can Web3 games still be played? Do players make money in blockchain games through game understanding, capital, era dividends, or simply earlier execution?

This GMA interview invites in-depth blockchain game player MoneyChicken to share his journey from traditional game merchant to Web3 game player: making profits in Mobox, StepN, Seraph, but also experiencing heavy losses and total wipeouts in other projects. Compared to grand industry judgments, this episode is more like a real player's review: Why could early blockchain games make money? What are ordinary players most likely to misjudge? What are the real problems with Web3 games? And if the next wave of blockchain game opportunities emerges, what might it look like?

GMA Talk Q&A

Q1: Would you define yourself as a player, an investor, or a content creator?

MoneyChicken: I never really see myself as an investor, because I feel I'm not skilled at investing, nor am I a qualified investor. I prefer to define myself as a player, especially a blockchain game player. I used to call myself "BlockchainGameChicken", but changed to "MoneyChicken" because I kept losing money over the past two years, kind of a self-motivation thing. Creating content is more of a byproduct for me; mainly, I stand from the perspective of a retail player, sharing my experiences of playing blockchain games, making and losing money over the years to communicate with everyone.

Q2: What initially attracted you to blockchain games?

MoneyChicken: The biggest attraction was definitely making money, but not just that. Blockchain games have many mechanics to study, and figuring them out gives a great sense of achievement. For example, when I played Mobox early on, I made many spreadsheets to calculate card draw data, home upgrade data, studying how to combine cards, how to increase earnings. The process itself was very enjoyable. Later, when playing Seraph, hunting for treasures was also addictive; that was the blockchain game I enjoyed the most. For me, the appeal of blockchain games is: they are fun, can make money, and give me a sense of achievement from research and exploration.

Q3: You enjoy gaming strategy, but is this strategy more about competing against others?

MoneyChicken: The strategic aspect I enjoy in games is not so much direct competition with other people. I don't really like zero-sum or negative-sum games between players; it's not like my initial goal was to make money off other players. In projects like StepN shoes, Mobox, Seraph, Gas Hero, MapleStory Universe, I approached more from the angle of playing the game myself, thinking about how to play diligently, how to study the mechanics, how to find my own strategy. In the end, I did make money in many games, but my original intention wasn't to "outmaneuver everyone"; I feel this point needs clarification.

Q4: How do you view the relationship between players, project teams, and big whales?

MoneyChicken: So far, I feel this competitive relationship is quite evident. For instance, in the later stages of Mobox, I already felt the project team was strategizing against us mid-to-large players. And with Gas Hero, the team was more focused on customer relations, but ultimately let our investments go down the drain. Project teams have their own interests; big whales think their investment will bring returns, but they might get taken advantage of first. A truly good blockchain game should attract willing players to spend, bringing external capital into the ecosystem, but many end up becoming a game of strategy between the project team, whales, and retail players.

Q5: When did you realize there was business to be done in games?

MoneyChicken: This actually started with MapleStory. When I was a kid playing MapleStory, I noticed the merchant traders were a crucial part of the game's ecosystem. In MapleStory, gameplay is one part, socializing is another, and trading is also a very important component. Back then, what I admired most wasn't the high-level bosses or the well-equipped players, but the merchants in the market. Later, when I got to university and had some money, I started being a merchant myself, selling equipment, flipping gold. At that time, I also met a very skilled merchant friend; he would lend me items to sell, and after I sold them, I'd figure out a way to buy them back to return to him. That helped me a lot.

Q6: Did your experience as a traditional game merchant help you play Web3 games?

MoneyChicken: It definitely helped, but it's not a complete transfer. My merchant attributes are actually less prominent in Web3 games; I brought in more of the mindset from playing games before—studying mechanics, finding profit opportunities. For example, during Guild Wars, I thought the phase called for forming my own guilds, so I created 81 guilds. Putting aside the subsequent crash due to declining popularity, I think the strategy itself was successful. Another example is Seraph; many people started by farming and selling gold, but I chose to buy gold to upgrade to higher-tier NFTs. These are all ways of thinking formed from playing and studying game economies before.

Q7: How do you judge if a game asset has value?

MoneyChicken: My thinking is still more player-oriented, not professional investor thinking. First, I look at whether I like the game itself, if I can get hooked. If I get hooked, then I'll research if there are profit opportunities, places that are both fun and profitable. Then I look at whether the game has the potential to become popular in the future. For example, with Mobox and Gas Hero back then, I felt they had some innovation for their time, and their popularity might continue to spread. As long as I judge that future hype might be greater than now, I feel the current value is acceptable. But this judgment is often wrong too.

Q8: When was your first contact with Web3 games? Why did you enter then?

MoneyChicken: My first contact with Web3 games was probably Mobox in 2021. I had never played blockchain games before, but the quality of Mobox at that time was truly eye-opening. After drawing cards, you'd naturally be drawn in to research: How to combine cards? What bonuses do upgrades give? What combinations yield higher earnings? I think for that era, it was an excellent browser game and also the start of my blockchain game journey. It was also very friendly to beginners back then; you knew nothing, but if you got into it, you could get above-average returns.

Q9: Did concepts like NFT ownership rights and player asset ownership move you at the time?

MoneyChicken: It was very moving at the time. I even discussed this concept with my company boss. I'd say, before, when playing games, assets essentially belonged to the game company; if the game shut down one day, your assets were gone too. But blockchain games are different; NFTs are on-chain, theoretically, another game in the future could empower this NFT. For example, if you have a Dragon Slaying Sword, another game needing that player base could design gameplay around this NFT. As a player, I thought this was very compelling. But looking back now, it was also a bit naive. In the subsequent years of blockchain game development, this concept has been mentioned less and less.

Q10: What do you think is the most fundamental source of income in blockchain games?

MoneyChicken: The most important thing is the era, then comes thinking. Early blockchain games could make money primarily because they caught the era's dividend. But unlike many ordinary players, I wouldn't just think about setting up one account, calculating the payback period, and farming and selling daily. I would judge whether the game has growth potential in the future. If I thought it did, I would keep expanding the scale, reinvesting, capturing future growth and compound returns. For example, when StepN launched on the BNB chain, I judged it had a chance; I didn't just equip two shoes to produce and sell daily, but ran a shoe factory, continuously expanding the scale. Of course, if the judgment is wrong, it can be disastrous, so definitely don't blindly do this now.

Q11: What are ordinary players in blockchain games most likely to misjudge?

MoneyChicken: The most common misjudgment is calculating the payback period at the peak of hype. For instance, with StepN shoes back then, initially, someone calculated a 20-day payback, later 25 days, 30 days, and finally maybe 300 days. The problem is, the payback period calculated at the peak of hype makes you mistakenly think the investment is safe. But assets and earnings continuously depreciate, eventually forming a double spiral, making it impossible to break even, leaving you standing at the peak. So I think, the higher the hype, the less you should rely solely on payback period calculations.

Q12: In Web3 games, which is hardest: selecting a project, holding, or exiting?

MoneyChicken: For many people, holding and exiting are both difficult. But for me, the harder part is selecting a truly good project. I've played many games where I lazily didn't manage assets later, ending up with them going to zero, like Big Time, Matr1x. But if this approach selects a good game and holds until the end, it's easier to get above-average returns. So the key is still vision. For ordinary players, when encountering a good game, you also need to hold, not constantly flip. It's the same with trading coins; if you find a good coin, judge correctly but can't hold, making $500 today, losing $300 tomorrow, the total might still be a loss.

Q13: After experiences of making and losing money, how has your view on "making money" changed?

MoneyChicken: My view on making money has indeed changed over the past year. Before, I always thought about making a lot of money, achieving certain things. After losing money, maybe because there's no other way, I gradually became more accepting: making a couple hundred dollars a day, isn't life still pretty good? Of course, this acceptance might also be because I'm out of options, can't make that much anymore. But now I'm more willing to lower expectations, not overthink, which might actually let me earn some small money, at least not keep losing. Money—when you want too much, it might also mean you'll lose a lot.

Q14: What was your most satisfying experience in blockchain games?

MoneyChicken: If talking purely from operation and exit perspective, I'm most satisfied with Seraph. I made a lot early in Mobox, but later reinvested in the home system and subsequent games, losing a lot back. The money made from StepN was also lost back in Gas Hero, 2184, GMT staking, etc. Made money early in Big Time too, but didn't sell, then lost it back. Only with Seraph do I feel the exit ratio was relatively high, and the exit timing was good. Although I feel a bit guilty because the camaraderie back then was intense, the "500 Warriors" was very热血, but rationally, with popularity declining and major listings not happening, I had to consider exiting.

Q15: What do you think is the biggest problem with Web3 games?

MoneyChicken: The biggest problem is that most Web3 games themselves are not mature games. For a blockchain game to succeed, first, it needs to be a very good game, then use blockchain to solve some problems. You also need to find a consumer group truly willing to pay for the game, so the economic model can possibly work. The issue with many blockchain games now is, they're full of people wanting to make money, lacking people truly willing to spend money. MapleStory Universe actually has the makings of a mature blockchain game, with mature content too, but it didn't target the right player group. Blockchain games shouldn't create an economic system first and then find gameplay; it's gameplay first, then the economic system.

Q16: Do you still believe in the Web3 gaming sector?

MoneyChicken: I think blockchain games will likely have explosively popular projects again in the future, but not necessarily mature blockchain games. It's possible that when no one is paying attention, a very strong money game suddenly appears, driving up hype, and everyone rushes in again. From this perspective, blockchain games will still have opportunities. But for truly mature Web3 games, I also think they might appear in the future, just haven't seen particularly certain projects yet. It might come from traditional big studios, using mature IP, mature game content, plus NFT asset trading systems and wallet systems, bringing in both real players and blockchain game players. It might not be as explosively profitable as before, but more normal, more viable.

Q17: If a newcomer asks you, can they still play Web3 games now, how would you answer?

MoneyChicken: If they have absolutely no exposure to gaming, I'd suggest not playing. Playing Web3 games now is like looking for a golden retriever among 100 mutts. Without experience, you'll get hurt in the process. Unless you're exceptionally lucky, but what's the difference between that and opening contracts or gambling? For players still in this space, I think remember one thing: When no one is optimistic, when an asset is at a low point, if you judge it has future potential and the downside is limited, then be brave and take a position. But when everyone starts talking about it, no matter what, at least sell half. This is also a reminder to myself.

Q18: If a successful Web3 game appears in the next three years, what might it look like?

MoneyChicken: I think it will likely be a mature game driven by a traditional major studio. It won't just be us crypto/blockchain game players inside, but able to attract many real players. It will have a relatively mature NFT asset trading system and wallet system, allowing blockchain game players to also participate and make some money. But it won't be as explosively profitable as those purely Ponzi-like blockchain games before; that would be the normal, viable kind of blockchain game. The previous model relying on continuous new capital was unsustainable. In the future, if discovered and entered early, there might still be decent gains. MapleStory Universe is actually a signal: big studios are starting to try integrating their IP games with blockchain.

Crypto di tendenza

CitreaCTR

wrapped stUSDTWSTUSDT

Velodrome FinanceVELODROME

BrevisBREV

ZRX（0X）ZRX

PancakeSwapCAKE

Domande pertinenti

QWhat was the original motivation and attraction for interviewee 'Money Chicken' to enter Web3 gaming?

AThe primary motivation was the potential to earn money. However, it wasn't just about profit; the appeal also came from the enjoyment of researching and understanding complex game mechanisms, achieving a sense of accomplishment. For example, early experiences with Mobox involved deep dives into data analysis for card draws and upgrades. The combination of fun, earning potential, and the satisfaction of exploration was the key attraction.

QAccording to the interviewee, what is the fundamental source of profit for most players in Web3 gaming?

AThe most important factor is the era or timing, essentially catching the 'era dividend' or initial hype cycle. Secondary to that is the player's strategic mindset. Early Web3 games were profitable largely because they coincided with a period of market enthusiasm and low competition. The interviewee differentiates himself by not just calculating a return-on-investment (ROI) period for a single account, but by judging a game's potential for future growth and scaling his involvement accordingly, though this carries significant risk if the judgment is wrong.

QWhat common mistake do ordinary players most easily make in Web3 games, as identified in the interview?

AThe most common mistake is calculating the return-on-investment (ROI) period during the peak of a game's hype. For instance, with StepN, ROI estimates started at 20 days but eventually stretched to 300 days. During peak popularity, asset prices and daily rewards are inflated, making the ROI appear safe and short. However, as hype fades, both the value of assets and the rewards depreciate rapidly in a 'double spiral,' leaving players unable to recoup their investment and effectively 'standing at the peak' with devalued assets.

QWhat does 'Money Chicken' consider the biggest problem with current Web3 games?

AThe core issue is that most Web3 games are not fundamentally good, mature games. For a blockchain game to succeed, it must first be an excellent game that people want to play for its own sake. Blockchain technology should then be used to solve specific problems, like true asset ownership. The current model often fails because the player base consists almost entirely of people looking to earn money, with no substantial group of players willing to spend money purely for in-game enjoyment or items. This creates an unsustainable economic model lacking external capital inflow.

QWhat is the interviewee's key piece of advice for players who remain in the Web3 gaming space regarding entry and exit timing?

AThe advice is to be contrarian and disciplined about exits. When an asset is at a low point and public sentiment is negative, if you judge it has future potential with limited downside risk, that can be a time to make a strategic entry. Conversely, when everyone is talking about a game and hype is at its peak, regardless of how promising it seems, you should 'at least run half'—meaning sell at least half of your position to secure profits. This disciplined approach to taking profits during high excitement is crucial for managing risk.

Letture associate

ENS Founder Seeks to 'Seize Power' from DAO

On June 29th, the ENS community entered the on-chain voting phase for a proposal to renew the ENS DAO Security Council's veto power for two more years. Shortly after voting began, ENS founder Nick Johnson used his substantial ENS holdings to cast over 3.55 million votes against the proposal, swinging the outcome despite initial strong support. The Security Council was established in July 2024 with a 4/8 multisig veto power to protect the DAO's treasury (valued over $350 million) from malicious proposals during a period of low voter participation. Its powers were limited to vetoing only harmful proposals, not normal ones. Nick Johnson's opposition stems from broader concerns about ENS DAO's governance. In late 2025, he and others expressed frustration that the DAO had become mired in political gamesmanship, with capable contributors leaving and leadership falling to less experienced or misaligned parties. This context set the stage for a major restructuring proposal by ENS COO Katherine Wu on June 19th, titled "Next Era of ENS DAO: Empowering the ENS Foundation." The controversial proposal aims to transfer daily operations, treasury management, and long-term strategy to a restructured ENS Foundation with a professional board, while the DAO would retain core protocol governance powers. Critics, including original ENS constitution author Brantly Millegan, argue this effectively transfers treasury control from token holders to ENS Labs (the core development team), undermining the DAO's original decentralized design. Nick's massive "no" vote on the Security Council renewal is seen as the first move in this power struggle. He explained his vote was due to concerns about insufficient checks on the Council's power and the potential for its veto to be used politically. In response, Katherine Wu submitted a revised proposal with higher execution thresholds (5/8 instead of 4/8) and stricter limits. The push for change comes as ENS's annual revenue has declined significantly, from over $10 million in 2023 to under $2 million in 2025, increasing pressure to manage the treasury more effectively. Nick Johnson now faces the challenge of proving that a more structured foundation can steer ENS better than the current DAO model.

Foresight News6 min fa

ENS Founder Seeks to 'Seize Power' from DAO

Foresight News6 min fa

Zcash whale opens $8.1M long position: What’s next as ZEC struggles near $400?

Zcash (ZEC) is struggling to hold the $400 price level, currently trading around $399 after recent volatility. Despite this market weakness and a bearish technical structure, significant whale activity has emerged. A large whale deposited $10.12 million into HyperLiquid and opened an $8.1 million long position on ZEC. This aligns with a rising Long/Short Ratio, indicating growing trader optimism for price gains. However, ZEC remains below key moving averages, and momentum indicators suggest strong downside pressure. If whale demand fails to spark an upside, ZEC could fall toward $336. Conversely, if it triggers short liquidations, the price could hold $400 and rally toward $452.

ambcrypto18 min fa

Zcash whale opens $8.1M long position: What’s next as ZEC struggles near $400?

ambcrypto18 min fa

Predicting World Cup Knockout Matches: Why Are Different AI Models So Far Apart?

AI performance in predicting the 2026 FIFA World Cup knockout matches varied significantly, according to an analysis of models including ChatGPT, Grok, DeepSeek, Gemini, and Claude. The standout predictions came from DeepSeek and Gemini for the Netherlands vs. Morocco match. Gemini precisely forecasted a 1-1 draw and a penalty shootout win for Morocco, while DeepSeek correctly identified the high probability of a draw and Morocco's potential to advance via a defensive and counter-attacking strategy. Grok and Tongyi Qianwen (千问) demonstrated strength in predicting accurate scores for matches with clearer favorites. They correctly called the narrow 1-0 win for Canada over South Africa and Brazil's 2-1 victory over Japan, as well as Norway's 2-1 win over Ivory Coast. ChatGPT and Claude excelled more in match process analysis than in predicting exact scores or upsets. They frequently identified potential challenges for favorites, such as Japan's pressing against Brazil or DR Congo's defensive tactics against England, even when predicting the favorite's ultimate victory. A notable failure was the unanimous misjudgment of Germany vs. Paraguay. All models incorrectly favored Germany, underestimating Paraguay's ability to force a penalty shootout and cause an upset. In summary, Gemini and DeepSeek showed the most insight for high-stakes, unpredictable matches. Grok and Qianwen were reliable "score predictors" for less volatile games. ChatGPT and Claude were strong "analytical models," adept at outlining match dynamics but often hesitant to predict upsets.

Odaily星球日报36 min fa

Predicting World Cup Knockout Matches: Why Are Different AI Models So Far Apart?

Odaily星球日报36 min fa

VELVET stalls at $2—How deep could the current pullback go?

Velvet (VELVET) experienced a bullish push above the key $2.00 resistance on June 29, reaching a high of $2.17, fueled by partnership news with Aerodrome Finance. However, momentum has since slowed, with an 11.5% price correction in 24 hours and a 27.1% drop in trading volume. Technical analysis shows mixed signals. While the On-Balance Volume (OBV) indicates sustained buying pressure, the Chaikin Money Flow (CMF) has turned negative, signaling significant capital outflows and short-term distribution. The overall structure remains bearish on the 1-day chart, though the recent correction found support at the 20-day moving average. Market data suggests the current pullback represents controlled selling pressure rather than a full trend reversal. Key supports to watch are the $2.00 level and the 20-day moving average near $0.75. The risk-to-reward ratio for new long positions is currently unfavorable, but the steady spot Cumulative Volume Delta (CVD) and funding rate indicate underlying bullish strength. Traders may consider using a deeper pullback as a potential buying opportunity.

ambcrypto47 min fa

VELVET stalls at $2—How deep could the current pullback go?

ambcrypto47 min fa

Solana dApps Generated $257 Million In Q2 Revenue, Data Shows

Solana's decentralized applications (dApps) generated $257 million in revenue during the second quarter of 2026, marking the ninth consecutive quarter the network has led major Layer 1 and Layer 2 blockchains in fee-generating activity. This revenue metric, considered harder than hype, indicates real on-chain economic activity like decentralized exchange trading and token launches. While the figure underscores Solana's position as one of crypto's most active ecosystems and provides a narrative edge over Ethereum rivals, it is heavily tied to high-velocity, speculative trading such as meme coin activity. This dependency means revenue could decline if market sentiment shifts. The key test for Solana's dApp economy will be sustaining this revenue base during quieter market conditions.

bitcoinist1 h fa

Solana dApps Generated $257 Million In Q2 Revenue, Data Shows

bitcoinist1 h fa

Trading

Spot

Articoli Popolari

Come comprare HYPE

Benvenuto in HTX.com! Abbiamo reso l'acquisto di Hyperliquid (HYPE) semplice e conveniente. Segui la nostra guida passo passo per intraprendere il tuo viaggio nel mondo delle criptovalute.Step 1: Crea il tuo Account HTXUsa la tua email o numero di telefono per registrarti il tuo account gratuito su HTX. Vivi un'esperienza facile e sblocca tutte le funzionalità,Crea il mio accountStep 2: Vai in Acquista crypto e seleziona il tuo metodo di pagamentoCarta di credito/debito: utilizza la tua Visa o Mastercard per acquistare immediatamente HyperliquidHYPE.Bilancio: Usa i fondi dal bilancio del tuo account HTX per fare trading senza problemi.Terze parti: abbiamo aggiunto metodi di pagamento molto utilizzati come Google Pay e Apple Pay per maggiore comodità.P2P: Fai trading direttamente con altri utenti HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): Offriamo servizi su misura e tassi di cambio competitivi per i trader.Step 3: Conserva Hyperliquid (HYPE)Dopo aver acquistato Hyperliquid (HYPE), conserva nel tuo account HTX. In alternativa, puoi inviare tramite trasferimento blockchain o scambiare per altre criptovalute.Step 4: Scambia Hyperliquid (HYPE)Scambia facilmente Hyperliquid (HYPE) nel mercato spot di HTX. Accedi al tuo account, seleziona la tua coppia di trading, esegui le tue operazioni e monitora in tempo reale. Offriamo un'esperienza user-friendly sia per chi ha appena iniziato che per i trader più esperti.

301 Totale visualizzazioniPubblicato il 2024.12.11Aggiornato il 2026.06.02

Discussioni

Benvenuto nella Community HTX. Qui puoi rimanere informato sugli ultimi sviluppi della piattaforma e accedere ad approfondimenti esperti sul mercato. Le opinioni degli utenti sul prezzo di HYPE HYPE sono presentate come di seguito.