以 The Sandbox 为例:解析区块链元宇宙初形态

分布式资本Опубліковано о 2022-03-29Востаннє оновлено о 2022-03-29

Анотація

从用户体验、内容生产、经济系统等维度分析 The Sandbox。

元宇宙是现实世界的虚拟世界,需要对内容生产、经济系统、用户体验以及实体世界内容等进行大量改造。目前,行业内接近元宇宙形态的平台包括 SandboxDecentralandCryptovoxels 等。其中,Sandbox 目前生态最为完善。本文将以用户体验、内容及内容生产、经济系统这几个维度来分析这个项目。
用户体验
从媒体介质来看,游戏无疑是最为适配元宇宙世界的媒介。从用户体验来看,游戏是应用中互动性最强、用户注意力最集中的品类。未来随着 3A 游戏出现,游戏效果将极大增强感官冲击,让玩家产生如临游戏场景的体验。随着人们对于游戏形态的不断拓展,玩家将不仅停留在打怪闯关上,也会探索游戏内的社交、玩赚以及学习等功能。最后,当爆款游戏成为一种文化现象而引发人们的讨论时,其意义将远超游戏本身。

经济

Sandbox 是现阶段唯一具备游戏性的项目,Decentraland 以及 Crypto Voxels 还停留在浏览的基础上。浏览指的是玩家只能在虚拟空间中走动,而无法做到其他的互动。在最近的 Sandbox Alpha Season2 中,玩家可以惊喜地发现不同的地图(游戏)对应不同的功能:有的地图强调游戏性(德古拉篇),有的地图突出文化输出(Snoop Dogg 篇),有的地图则侧重于科普(天星小轮篇)。当游戏开始拥有着复合的功能时,人们将实现在虚拟空间中云蹦迪、云逛展、云演唱会、云学习、云结婚,不仅仅是打怪升级而已。

经济

内容以及内容生产
UGC 其实不是一个新鲜的词汇了,Web2 中的 Youtube、Tiktok、Bilibili 等短视频平台都是采用的 UGC 模式,永动机式的内容创作使平台拥有强劲的生命力。对于游戏 UGC 而言,从魔兽 3 开始小试牛刀,到 Roblox 将概念发扬光大;游戏 UGC 代表游戏创作的一种先进的思路。相较于传统游戏从萌芽到诞生历经艰辛,寿命却非常有限;游戏 UGC 使基于底层架构的游戏源源不断开发出来,实现了生态的可持续发展。虽然 Roblox 是划时代的产品,却受困于 Web2 体制而发展受限,这会在最后一个章节中细说。
Roblox 给开发者提供的支持在于平台为创作者提供工具帮助开发游戏,且作为流量入口为游戏倒流。参照 Roblox,Sandbox 为创作者提供了两款创作工具。其中 VoxEdit 帮助游戏开发者创造体素素材(Asset)并放在市场上售卖,而 Game Creator 则帮助玩家搭建游戏场景、放置体素素材以及设计角色的动态效果等。

经济

对于 UGC 而言,创作工具的难易程度以及平台方的扶持都至关重要。目前,Sandbox 的创作工具完全是内部开发的,还未引入外部工具。这意味着第一,对于不熟悉体素创作的创作者需要时间学习,且从入门到精通的周期长。第二,现有的体素素材库库存还远远不够,官方需要吸引更多创作者创作以及引入外部素材。目前,官方开启了优秀体素作品的激励计划以及资助了部分的工作室,扶持力度有待加强。
如果元宇宙平台是飞船,UGC 作为引擎已经有了,而以 IP 主导的内容作为燃料需要不断填充进来。有人说元宇宙的形态是赛博朋克,而事实上元宇宙横亘古今、放眼寰宇,且亦实亦虚,如梦似幻。元宇宙可建立在现实世界中,亦可脱离开现实;目力所及或想象力所达之处皆可称元宇宙。以 Sandbox 为例,IP 可以是耳熟能详的阿迪达斯、华纳音乐以及 Snoop Dogg,亦可以是创作者脑海中的德古拉城堡、唐朝边陲小镇、海底世界等等。现实世界 IP 诸如阿迪达斯、Smurf、Snoop Dogg、Atari 的入局赋予了传统 IP 新的生命力,同时也让元宇宙平台更加出圈。同时,UGC 模式也鼓励新 IP 的创作,比如说 The Walking Dead、Deadmao5 等都将持续在平台上推出游戏。只要 UGC 模式不熄火,那么内容将会不断迭代更新。

经济

经济系统
上文提到 Roblox 发展受限,其原因可以归结于 Roblox 的货币 Roblux 仅仅在游戏系统中流通,兑换成法币颇为困难。这导致创作者的收入锐减,远低于行业的平均水平。除了平台、流量、创作者以外,变现以及收入分成才是 UGC 的精髓。比如,短视频平台目前采用的是对用户免费开放以获取流量,通过广告以及游戏进行变现的模式。对于 Web3 平台来说,即便拥有了 FT&NFT 可以灵活地调和各方的利益,仍要审慎地运用并掌握经济模型。经济模式终归是把双刃剑,它能加速生态的发展,也能让生态进入死亡螺旋。Sandbox 涉及了诸多的利益相关方:平台、创作者、B 端用户、C 端玩家、土地持有者以及通证持有者,一旦 NFT 或者 FT 的价格出现剧烈波动,打破了各方的平衡,便会影响到整个生态的发展。因此,项目方需要保证生态渐进发展,以谋求更长远的未来。
综上所述,Sandbox 是目前元宇宙平台中生态发展最为稳健的。这种游戏+UGC+IP 内容+经济系统的组合充满着机遇(对于创作者而言),却也面临着不小的挑战。比如,平台如何吸引创作者源源不断地进入生态?又如何平衡平台以及创作者的利益?平台方除了土地收入以外,还有哪些盈利模型?这些挑战还待项目方认真思考以及解决。

Пов'язані матеріали

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella's Latest Warning: Betting Entirely on a Single AI Model Hands Over a Company's Lifeblood

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warns that companies relying solely on a single AI model could jeopardize their survival. He argues that over-dependence leads to "vendor lock-in," where businesses risk ceding control over their core data, memory, contextual history, and AI usage patterns. This dependence essentially outsources a company's critical thinking and operational know-how to an external provider. The deeper a company integrates with one AI system—feeding it prompts, internal data, and workflows—the more it reveals its unique business methods and competitive edge. This accumulated knowledge could become accessible to the AI supplier. Furthermore, switching providers becomes extremely costly and complex, as companies would need to rebuild their entire AI-augmented workflow, memory, and tool integrations from scratch. Nadella's solution is "decoupling." Companies should separate their proprietary data, memory, and control layer (or "harness") from the underlying AI models. By retaining metadata from every AI interaction, businesses can preserve their operational "brain" or institutional knowledge. This allows them to flexibly use different AI models (e.g., from OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft) for specific tasks without losing their accumulated expertise. The core idea: companies can rent the smartest models available, but they must keep their own "brain" and operational control firmly in-house.

marsbit26 хв тому

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella's Latest Warning: Betting Entirely on a Single AI Model Hands Over a Company's Lifeblood

marsbit26 хв тому

Miners Advised Not to Buy GPUs for AI and to Focus on Infrastructure

A founder at an energy investment forum advises bitcoin miners not to purchase GPUs for AI themselves, but to instead focus on infrastructure like power and data center space. Mike Alfred of Alpine Fox stated that while AI infrastructure demand is a long-term, 20-30 year trend, it presents a key choice for miners. The first, riskier model involves owning and operating GPUs, which requires financing expensive hardware that quickly becomes obsolete. The second, more conservative model is akin to real estate: providing colocation services where clients bring their own servers, and the miner sells space, power, cooling, and water. Alfred noted this model is easier to finance. Most existing bitcoin mining sites are difficult and expensive to convert for AI, as AI data centers require far higher construction costs, redundant fiber connections, backup power, complex cooling, and near 100% uptime. A hybrid model, where mining acts as a flexible load to use excess power during AI data center construction or from generation facilities, was discussed. However, participants concluded this is only viable with very cheap power; otherwise, developers are better off focusing solely on AI. Miners are increasingly being evaluated for their available power capacity and project portfolios rather than just bitcoin output. Panelists also warned of risks in the AI sector, predicting at least one major default or contract breach among AI tenants, lenders, or landlords before bitcoin's next halving in 2028.

cryptonews.ru35 хв тому

Miners Advised Not to Buy GPUs for AI and to Focus on Infrastructure

cryptonews.ru35 хв тому

Millisecond 'Pay-to-Cut': How Did Hyperliquid's Priority Fee Turn into a Multi-Million Dollar Business?

"Millisecond 'Paid Queue-Jumping': How Hyperliquid's Priority Fee Became a Multi-Million Dollar Annual Business" In traditional finance, high-frequency trading firms spend millions on infrastructure for millisecond advantages. Hyperliquid has translated this race onto the blockchain with its "Priority Fee" system, creating an open economic game for speed. This system auctions two types of priority: **Gossip Priority** for faster data feeds (via a Dutch auction every 3 minutes), and **Order Priority** for front-of-queue trade execution (users bid a fee for lower latency). This converts a hardware race into a transparent, market-priced mechanism. Since launch, this feature has generated over $5M in protocol revenue. Projected annualized buybacks from this income exceed $30M, accounting for ~7% of total protocol revenue. The demand stems from large traders and market makers on Hyperliquid, for whom milliseconds can mean the difference between profit/loss or avoiding liquidation. Market makers pay these fees as "protection" to ensure their orders execute first, which in turn improves liquidity for all users. Crucially, Hyperliquid internalizes Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) that typically leaks to external validators or searchers, creating a new revenue stream beyond trading fees. The mechanism also strengthens HYPE's tokenomics. While 97% of trading fees fund secondary market buybacks (via the Assistance Fund), Priority Fees are **directly burned**, adding a second deflationary engine. Furthermore, fees for order priority are deducted from users' undelegated HYPE balances, encouraging large traders to hold and lock up tokens, reducing circulating supply. However, a key challenge remains: balancing the speed needs of institutional players with fair market access for retail users, as those who cannot pay high fees may suffer worse slippage during volatility. In summary, Hyperliquid's Priority Fee is a novel model that monetizes latency, captures MEV for the protocol, and enhances its native token's value through burning and lock-ups.

marsbit40 хв тому

Millisecond 'Pay-to-Cut': How Did Hyperliquid's Priority Fee Turn into a Multi-Million Dollar Business?

marsbit40 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片