真人玩家在 Bot 遍地的链游中还能保持竞争力吗?

比推Опубліковано о 2024-07-26Востаннє оновлено о 2024-07-26

链上游戏必须接受机器人作为用户群的一部分。

撰文:WMP, Bankless

编译:Felix, PANews

链上游戏吸引了一类极其高效的玩家:机器人。当机器人参与其中,真人玩家还能保持竞争力吗?

完全链上游戏将一切(包括资产、逻辑、规则和状态)直接放在底层区块链上。在这个新的游戏领域,每个举动最终都被记录在链上。

这种功能提供了各种好处,例如透明度和围绕新颖游戏经济的可能性。然而,这也吸引了一类极其高效的玩家类型:机器人。

真人在链上游戏有竞争力吗?

最近,风投公司 Nascent 联合创始人 Dan Elitzer 在 X 上问道,「是否有可能制作出一款完全链上的游戏,让没有辅助的真人也能在其中竞争?」

Elitzer 在 plotchy 的推文中提出了这个问题。plotchy 是 Nascent Security 的安全研究员,plotchy 已在游戏 Kamigotchi 的排行榜上占据了主导地位(Kamigotchi 是一款全新的完全链上 RPG 类游戏)。

尽管 Kamigotchi 早期的测试网智能合约未经验证且是闭源的,但 plotchy 还是设法对游戏架构进行了逆向工程,并创建了一个索引器来解析其数据。

通过访问详细的游戏信息,包括 Kami 宠物的位置和健康状况,plotchy 随后编写了一个机器人来追捕其他 Kami,并开始迅速登上游戏排行榜。

鉴于这种操作,plotchy 一直在与 Kamigotchi 团队进行讨论,后者一直在不断进行迭代。玩家也在调整游戏风格以更好的生存。团队为此引入了一项新任务,引导玩家协作对抗 plotchy 的宠物军队。

尽管如此,链上游戏中的机器人仍然存在。

Kamigotchi 的开发者之一 lethe 在推文中指出,链上游戏必须接受机器人作为用户群的一部分,因为游戏具有开放性,而团队的挑战在于对游戏设计进行调整,以平衡这种状况。

也就是说,团队的最终目标是创建一个游戏环境,让真人玩家和机器人玩家能够共存,既有趣又不会让真人玩家感到难以忍受。那么,在实现这种平衡方面,链上游戏的未来会是什么样子呢?

至于如何减少那些部署了许多机器人并通过自动账户群操纵游戏的用户,反女巫措施可能会越来越多地被采用。

可以肯定的是,女巫攻击仍然是加密领域的一个悬而未决的问题,没有完美的解决方案。然而,一些个人身份证明技术的组合,如通过社交媒体注册、社区报告计划和 AI 分析,可能会在抑制链上游戏中的机器人群方面卓有成效。

另一方面,对抗机器人的另一种策略是正面对抗。正如作者以前的同事 FaultProofBen 最近所说,「在链上游戏中对抗机器人的最佳方法是加入公会。」

FaultProofBen 也知道这一点,他是 WASD 的创始人,这是加密领域最大的链上游戏公会。当你拥有一大群紧密合作的真人玩家时,你就拥有了一支可以与机器人玩家抗衡甚至更好的战斗力量。

当然,如果无法打败他们,那就加入他们吧。FaultProofBen 还预测,「机器人的使用将变得民主化,非技术玩家也可以使用。」想想游戏插件或服务之类的东西,它们让所有玩家都可以轻松优化游戏玩法。至少,这种方法有助于创造公平的竞争环境。

链上游戏仍处于发展初期,因此该领域现在正在努力应对机器人也就不足为奇了。当作者在玩《Fall Guys》或《Overwatch》等主流游戏时会遇到机器人,这些游戏在更封闭的轨道上运行,机器人只是游戏中的一个范例(无足轻重)。

然而,作者不认为因 Bot 的存在,而永远将链上游戏定位为小众游戏。随着这个领域的成熟,进步和创新将有助于削弱机器人玩家的主导地位,以便真人玩家仍然能够蓬勃发展。未来还有很多挑战,个人对未来持乐观态度。

说明:比推所有文章只代表作者观点,不构成投资建议
原文链接:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/6995938

Пов'язані матеріали

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbit9 хв тому

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbit9 хв тому

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbit16 хв тому

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbit16 хв тому

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Title: STRC Deeply Discounted, mNAV Falls Below Break-even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Redefined The recent volatility in MSTR and STRC highlights the need to reassess the core business model of Bitcoin reserve companies. These entities function more like leveraged, single-asset banks rather than software/tech firms. Consequently, they should be valued using banking metrics, not based on their total Bitcoin holdings. The key valuation metric is mNAV (market net asset value), akin to a price-to-book ratio. It compares the company's market capitalization to the equity value of its Bitcoin holdings after deducting all senior debt and preferred equity (like STRC). As of June 24, Strategy's mNAV was 1.10x. The focus should be on "net Bitcoin per share" (the Bitcoin claim per share after senior claims) and its growth rate, equivalent to a bank's book value and return on assets. Given STRC's 19% discount to its $100 par value (yielding 14.2%), issuing new MSTR equity at the current price to buy more Bitcoin is inefficient. It slightly dilutes the widely watched "total Bitcoin per share" metric while providing minimal improvement to the more critical "net Bitcoin per share." The article analyzes four potential uses for $1 billion in new equity: 1. **Buy Bitcoin:** Least effective. Improves net Bitcoin per share only marginally while diluting total Bitcoin per share. 2. **Repurchase STRC:** Most effective for balance sheet repair. The discount creates immediate value, increasing net Bitcoin per share by 1.0%, reducing debt burden, and lowering future dividend obligations. 3. **Boost Cash Reserves:** Dramatically improves the "cash coverage ratio" for STRC dividends from 9.8 months to 16.8 months, a crucial liquidity metric in a tightening funding environment. 4. **50/50 Split (STRC buyback & cash):** A balanced approach improving all key metrics. Strategy's own Q1 report indicates its internal break-even mNAV for profitable equity issuance to buy Bitcoin is 1.22x. With the current mNAV at 1.10x, such a move would be value-destructive. The core assumptions of its previous expansion model—issuing STRC at par and maintaining ample dividend coverage—have broken down. The recommended path is to use new capital to optimize core financial health: repurchasing discounted STRC and/or bolstering cash reserves. This would repair the balance sheet, signal liquidity strength, support STRC's price, lower its yield, and potentially reopen the par-value issuance channel. The current STRC discount represents a low-cost capital opportunity to restart this positive cycle. Bitcoin reserve companies must be evaluated as banks, focusing on book value, leverage, and liquidity resilience.

Foresight News18 хв тому

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Foresight News18 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片