融资千万美元,即将进行空投,解析射击链游Farcana「GameFi猎手」

Odaily星球日报Опубліковано о 2024-02-05Востаннє оновлено о 2024-02-05

Анотація

静态回报率较高,但已初步快照且游戏落地可能性未知,请谨慎参与。

原创 | Odaily星球日报

作者 | 南枳

融资千万美元,即将进行空投,解析射击链游Farcana「GameFi猎手」

Farcana 是一款旨在引入Web2玩家的高质量第三人称射击链游,于 23 年 12 月宣布 1000 万美元种子轮融资,近日 Farcana 宣布了代币空投规则并表示即将空投,Animoca Brands 等参投。该项目品质如何,是否还有代币空投参与机会,Odaily 将于本文详解。

融资千万美元,即将进行空投,解析射击链游Farcana「GameFi猎手」

项目情况

Farcana 是由 Farcana Studio 推出的第三人称射击游戏链游,提供了丰富的游戏内容与玩法,包括角色系统、武器系统、技能系统等,结合了Web2品质和Web3经济。

Web2游戏体验

Farcana 旨在构建一款精致的、能够媲美传统游戏的链游,无缝引入Web2玩家,其游戏的主要设计要素包括:

  • 注重文本设计:为每个英雄角色设计相应的背景故事和匹配的角色形象,搭建丰富的底层文本;

  • 高质量枪战体验:提供仿真射击效果(后坐力、瞄准抖动、视觉特效、UX 等);

  • 丰富游戏组合:包括 24 种角色、 20 种独特武器、 4 类团队角色、 10 多种游戏模式,旨在为玩家提供丰富的选择和新鲜体验;

  • 竞技性为主:强调游戏的战术和防御能力,同时强调团队合作,提供竞技性为主(而非打金)的游戏体验。

Farcana 计划登录 PC、PS、Xbox 等平台,目前刚刚结束 Open Alpha 阶段,即将开启 Closed Beta 测试。

融资千万美元,即将进行空投,解析射击链游Farcana「GameFi猎手」

游戏经济体系

Farcana 采用免费游戏模式,对所有玩家开放。该游戏融入了赛季元素,包括定期的短时赛季,提供独特的内容和有价值的奖品。

传统赛季式游戏

Farcana 将持续开启为期 2-3 个月的短期赛季。每个赛季都将提供各种可收藏的游戏资产,包括主题人物、武器皮肤、动画和玩家定制元素。Farcana 旨在以定期更新的赛季形式提供新鲜感,维持用户黏性。

集成Web3技术

Farcana 将Web3游戏整合到传统框架中,允许玩家以 NFT 形式拥有资产,并灵活在市场上流通。

Farcana 还计划推出将收藏品、游戏产出转为游戏道具的制作系统。

Farcana 暂未披露游戏将以何种形式产出游戏资产,以及相关的具体参数。作为免费入场的游戏,付费系统如何循环?用户为何原意购买资产?其披露的联赛制度揭示了 Farcana 计划发展的一个方向:

Farcana 将开展两种联赛,面向所有玩家的冒险联赛和需要付费报名的专业联赛。其中冒险联赛为期三个月,奖金为 12000 美元。而专业联赛报名费为 20 美元,为期 1 个月,奖金池为报名费的 35% 。此外 Farcana 还计划开展锦标赛,在 1-3 天内快速结束,同样以报名费作为奖金池基础。

综上可以看出,Farcana 计划通过免费+高品质游戏引入广大基础用户,一方面引入具有收藏爱好的付费玩家,为独特的制作品付费。另一方面通过联赛,吸引具备竞技技术的用户,以赢得竞赛奖金为目标,或将促进其付费购买进阶道具。

游戏代币

目前,Farcana 代币 FAR 已上线 Bybit,现报 0.105 USDT。此外 Farcana 还即将进行代币空投,目前是否还有参与机会?空投详情如何?本节将进行详解

代币经济学概览

FAR 代币总量共 50 亿枚,其中生态基金占比 55% 、投资者 25% 、团队 14% 、顾问 6% 。除生态基金外都要进行 6-9 个月的 Cliff 锁仓,因此初始流通量预计为生态基金的首月释放额 68, 368, 056 枚,对应流通市值约 710 万美元。

代币用例方面,FAR 将是游戏生态中的主要流通货币,能够用于购买实用道具——经验提升道具、竞赛入场券等,装饰道具——NFT 皮肤、宠物等。Farcana 表示,虽然游戏道具也可以使用法币购买,但将保留部分特定物品,仅向 FAR 开放,而这部分购买资金将用于代币回购。

空投计划

Farcana 宣布,将从生态系统基金中拨款分发 FAR 代币空投,共 100, 000, 000 枚 FAR 代币(总量的 2% )用于空投,将面向 Farcana 推出的两款 NFT 和活动参与者发放。其中:

  • Mars Enigma Golden Vault(发行于 BTC 网络) 每个 NFT 空投 45, 045 个 FAR 代币,初始解锁 7% ,剩余锁仓 3 个月后 12 个月线性释放。

  • Mars Enigma Vault (发行于 Polygon) 每个 NFT 空投 32, 175 个 FAR 代币,初始解锁 7% ,剩余锁仓 3 个月后 12 个月线性释放。

  • 空投活动:已结束。

Farcana 在空投公告中强调,所有与 NFT 相关的未解锁代币,将随着 NFT 的转移而转移给新的购买者。因此虽交互空投已经结束,但用户仍可根据对后市币价的预期选择是否购买 NFT,从而月度领取 NFT 奖励。

按照当下价格计算,NFT 回报如何?

  • Golden Vault 现价 0.0263 BTC(1130 USDT),假设价格不变,空投价值约 4729 USDT,回报率 418% 。初始将释放价值约 331 USDT 的 FAR。

  • Enigma Vault 现价 0.325 ETH(747 USDT),假设价格不变,空投价值约 3378 USDT,回报率 452% 。初始将释放价值约 236 USDT 的 FAR。

(Odaily星球日报提示:Farcana 于 2 月 4 日凌晨 2 点宣布将于 24 小时内快照,发文时已超过快照时间,虽未进行空投,当下购买或已失去初始解锁资格,回报率计算时建议以线性释放部分保守估计。)

融资千万美元,即将进行空投,解析射击链游Farcana「GameFi猎手」

此外,Farcana 宣布,还将推出质押系统,为 NFT 和 FAR 代币 持有者提供回报,具体细节暂未公布。

结论

Farcana 项目融资情况优质、游戏愿景较宏大,市场对其代币给予了较高的估值,静态计算回报率较高。但游戏本体距离发布仍较远,能否真正落地暂不可知,且当前处于快照后的关键节点,建议读者谨慎参与。

注:「GameFi 猎手」是Odaily星球日报推出的专注于 Web3 游戏的全新版块,定期更新热门项目动态、拆解经济模型以及分享交互教程。寻求报道,请联系微信:AmadeusL。

Пов'язані матеріали

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit37 хв тому

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit37 хв тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit54 хв тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit54 хв тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1 год тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1 год тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3 год тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片