The use of blockchain in crypto-based games could be a hinderance to the adoption as well as an exciting unique selling point. Now, before you start taking up your decentralized pitchforks and demanding that I be immediately chased out of Blockland and never spoken of again, please let let me explain.
This is not a suggestion that blockchain games are bad, or that the addition of blockchain is detrimental to games. On the contrary, there are hardly any existing genre of game which couldn’t be greatly enhanced through the integration of blockchain elements.
From provable fairness and permanent immutable ledgers to true ownership, trading and play-to-earn, the possibilities that blockchain brings to gaming are (ahem) game-changing.
Being part of the industry, it’s hard not to be in the “blockchain and gaming are a match made in heaven” camp. And we all know how the story goes from there: if just a fraction of the worlds estimated 2.7 billion gamers discover the benefits of these newfangled blockchain games, and just a fraction of those go on to learn more about blockchain and cryptocurrency, the size of the crypto market goes up exponentially.
So if attracting gamers is good for crypto, why are so many blockchain developers content to target the existing crypto crowd?
What do crypto fans want in a game?
To highlight this, let’s take a look at the showings on offer at a recent BGA Game Demo Day, where a full three of the four games featured (CryptoPick, Trade Stars and Crypto Colosseum) revolved solely or heavily on either trading or prediction markets.
CryptoPick is literally just a prediction market based on whether a certain cryptocurrency will go up or down or which crypto will perform the best or worst over a particular time frame. Some may argue that does not really counts as a game? Isn’t that just playing the markets, but for “Pickies” instead of real money? No wait. You can customize your avatar with NFTs… Well that’s certain to tempt the gaming masses.
Moving on… Trade Stars is a collectible trading card game that allows players to buy and sell (or Trade) shares in the famous players (or Stars) of various sports… although currently just cricket.
Sports fans tend to enjoy this kind of thing and cricket is very popular in a number of countries around the world. However, the performance of the players has no bearing on the value of the shares, so this basically seems like random stock-picking… with cricketers.
Has anyone seen some gameplay lying around?
Crypto Colosseum came out fighting with its colours pinned firmly to its chest. According to the blurb it is: “A crypto game of degenerate gambling and whimsical violence.”
A selection of gladiators, fighting for various crypto factions (BTC, ETH and MATIC), take part in automated text-based battles and tournaments. Players get to bet on the outcome of the battles and can also buy items to help or hinder the gladiators in battle in an attempt to sway the result.
Gladiators, back-stories, and the fight-sequences themselves are created by AI, adding the “whimsical” element to the violence. Fights are also affected by the real life price performance of the faction token throughout the battle, and the stats of the gladiator.
The prize pot is split between the holder of the gladiator contract, those with shares in the faction, and those betting on the winning gladiator. Sure there is a gameplay element, and sure, it does look quite interesting, but it is, as it indeed claims, essentially about the gambling.
Review: Maybe they want some DeFi?
One of the worst recent “offenders” is the bafflingly popular, Aavegotchi. I took an early look at Aavegotchi during testing, with the intention of writing up a preview. In order to test the game I was first provided with over $20,000 of the various tokens I might need for staking, although sadly only on the Kovan testnet.
Now, any game that requires an investment in the thousands is going to be a hard sell, even to hardcore gamers, who are currently baulking at being asked to pay $70 for a next-gen title.
Undeterred, I bought myself some testnet portals to claim the creatures inside, and I must admit to quite enjoying this element. The process of sifting through each portal’s 10 available Aavegotchi in order to choose a favourite based on its stats and the staking token it could hold was simple, but well implemented.
Being Kovan-rich, I was also able to bedeck my new friends in an array of accessories and gear, further buffing the rarity of my card. And that was pretty much it. The rarity affects the yield gained from the staked tokens.
They managed to gamify DeFi staking… but did that really need gamifying? According to the interest it has seen, the obvious answer is “Yes”? Or maybe the crypto crowd is so keen to see what blockchain gaming will produce that it will flock to the latest thing out of simple curiosity?
Blue sky on the horizon
Now, no one is suggesting that these projects are bad or that there isn’t a place for them. All of those mentioned have their fans, and will most likely do just fine. It’s just that they don’t seem to be particularly exciting for your regular gamer.
Instead of showing how blockchain-enabled features can be implemented to improve the existing gaming experience, many appear to have had their ambition hampered by the inclusion of blockchain technology; their scope limited to things that cryptocurrency already does well.
Being able to buy a sun hat for your Aavegotchi in order to improve your staking yield by 0.1% is not the killer entertainment experience which will take blockchain gaming mainstream.
It should also be stated that this bias toward being overly blockchainy was not typical for a BGA Game Demo Day. In the past, developers have presented an astonishing variety of forthcoming blockchain gaming goodness at these events, and in truth it feels a bit mean-spirited to highlight last month’s unfortunate scheduling to back up the argument here.
The Blockchain Game Alliance does a great deal to promote the use of blockchain within the wider gaming industry, and Game Demo Days also regularly include tools to help traditional developers easily incorporate blockchain into their games.
BGA president, Sebastien Borget, is also the lead of The Sandbox, a Minecraft-inspired world-building game with blockchain running through its veins, which should lure in its fair share of regular gamers on public launch.
The future’s still bright
Perhaps that is the key source of the issue? Having seen some of the “proper” games that are coming through, it’s harder to get excited about projects that arguably don’t particularly expand the blockchain gaming experience any further.
The movement that Dapper Labs started with CryptoKitties in 2017 is still finding its feet, and in many ways still experimenting with the best ways to integrate the worlds of gaming and blockchain. As the movement is blockchain-led we are currently seeing a lot of variations on a theme.
Blockchain itself is still but a youth compared to the gaming industry, which has already been around for over half a decade. It was always going to take time before the arrival of AAA games with blockchain capabilities, but be assured that they are on their way and closer than ever.
The much lauded Infinite Fleet went into private alpha earlier this month, with early supporters being given access to the first playable version of the game.
The fourth game featured in the aforementioned Demo Day, My Neighbour Alice, was actually an interesting looking isometric world building game where players could earn in-game currency for performing quests. Not exactly action blockbuster, but certainly “a game” in the traditional sense of the word, but with blockchain capabilities.
As a gamer, I want to play… and like for many, it’s hard to justify investing too much filthy lucre either. To attract gamers, blockchain games have to provide compelling experiences around true ownership of assets and all the rest.
So when suggesting that the problem with blockchain games is blockchain, it’s not a call to see it removed from the equation. Simply that it should never overshadow the actual game.
Mexican Company Launches Blockchain-Powered COVID-19 Test Certificates
Medical services company MDS Mexico is using blockchain technology to prevent the forgery of fake COVID-19 tests in the Latin American country.
The COVID-19 crisis panic seems to be dissipating after almost two years; however, governments around the world are still searching for tools to control its expansion and allow their citizens to return to normal life.
A Mexican company is using blockchain technology to improve the reliability of COVID-19 diagnostic tests, using cryptography and the real-time auditability of the blockchain as a way to prevent counterfeiting and fraud.
Fighting COVID-19 With Decentralized Technology
According to a report by Hispanic news outlet iProUP, medical services company MDS launched a rapid test application and interpretation service, as well as home PCR sample collection specifically designed to react to COVID-19. The results are delivered physically and digitally 24 hours later and will be certified with blockchain technology to guarantee in real-time the application of the test and the authenticity of the results.
As explained on its website, MDS produces a unique hash associated with the results of each test and generates a QR code that links to a digital certificate with personal information of the person who took the test, the results obtained, the physician responsible for administering the test and the date the test was taken.
To avoid the falsification of negative results, we began to certify the SARS-CoV-2 detection tests with blockchain technology and cryptographic signature, which protects the information in a unique, immutable, and unalterable QR Code that can be verified worldwide.
Mexico: Pro-Blockchain, Anti-Bitcoin
Mexico is one of the Latin American countries where the application of blockchain technology has known use cases that transcend the monetary.
As an example, the local Congress of Quintana Roo in Cancun, Mexico, experimented with the implementation of the Avalanche blockchain to digitize the records of the local public administration. The project was successfully implemented in March at the cost of 600,000 Mexican pesos (USD 290,000).
However, the week the congress decided not to renew the contract on the grounds that the use of blockchain was “overqualified” for the needs of the Legislative Branch, i.e., the costs outweighed the benefits.
Similarly, the National Chamber of Commerce (CANACO) of Querétaro, Mexico, had already announced the availability of a digital vaccination passport issued in alliance with the blockchain company Xertify, which would allow locals to digitize their physical certificates issued by the authorities after a payment of about 400 pesos.
However, when it comes to finance, the use of cryptocurrencies – especially Bitcoin – does not enjoy the same support from the authorities.
The country’s Central Bank has already stopped an initiative by the president of Banco Azteca to offer Bitcoin compatibility, and acted against 12 cryptocurrency exchanges for being linked to criminal cartels. Even last week, the country’s president even ruled out the use of Bitcoin as legal tender.
So, at least for now, in Mexico, the financial revolution and the blockchain revolution will walk two very distant paths.
Benefits of Blockchain Technology to Businesses
The year 2008 saw the introduction of bitcoin (decentralized electronic cash system). Since then, many more cryptocurrencies have been introduced to the market and turned doubters into believers. Those who had misgivings have slowly and surely embraced it as the future and alternative to fiat currency. Indeed, it is correct to say that the blockchain technology has greatly evolved and with it, a whole lot of benefits across industries (from finance to medicine).
Many businesses across different sectors are now looking for ways in which they can integrate the blockchain technology into their infrastructure. Without a doubt, it is correct to say that the future is here. We are firmly in the era of the blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies are slowly providing a paradigm shift to the way we view fiat currency and even transact. That said, how do businesses benefit from the blockchain technology?
If you thought that solutions brought about by blockchain are confined to the exchange of cryptocurrencies, you couldn’t be more wrong. Through its decentralized nature, businesses across various sectors and industries stand to benefit in the following ways.
1. Increased And Greater Efficiency
As a decentralized digital currency, blockchain has fully done away with the need for middlemen especially when making payments or engaging in transactions of whatever nature be it in the real estate or any other lucrative industry. When you compare blockchain to conventional financial services, there is no denying that it’s faster, instantaneous, and its peer to peer decentralized nature made transactions to be more efficient.
If there is something that puts blockchain on a different level, it has to do with the fact that transaction ledgers for public addresses is accessible for viewing by pretty much anyone. This level of transparency and an unprecedented layer of accountability is one of the reasons why blockchain has become very popular with businesses. This greater transparency has in essence held businesses to higher standards and essentially made them to be more open and ascribe to higher levels of integrity in so far as their dealings with customers is concerned.
The beautiful thing about the blockchain ledger is that every single time there is an exchange of goods or a transaction recorded in the blockchain, there is an audit trail. This audit trail is instrumental in providing an irrefutable proof of ownership or simply to let a person know where goods came from. This improved traceability provided by blockchain is instrumental especially in industries or sectors where verifying authenticity of transactions or traded assets improves efficiency and customer confidence.
Where security is concerned, blockchain is way ahead of other record keeping systems. Why is this the case? Well, every new transaction is not only linked to a previous transaction but also encrypted. There are zero chances of a transaction being altered and this gives individuals a sense of security and trust. The decentralized nature of blockchain also ensures that individuals can transact without having to answer to central governments.
To sum it up, if you are a business in whatever sector, you cannot afford to wish away the key benefits of blockchain outlined in this post. If you are keen on being transparent, efficient, and keen on winning the trust of your customers through secure transactions, blockchain is the way to go. The future that was blockchain is now here with us.
Private distributed ledger technology or public blockchain?
Some people think that permissioned distributed ledger technology can perform better than open blockchain because it is tweaked to address the issues of the latter. Such systems are also called “permissioned blockchain,” as if blockchain is a high-level concept and “permissioned” is one of its variants. But this statement is controversial and down below, you will come to understand why.
Is “permissioned” decentralized?
There are a lot of other options to choose from in DLTs: permissioned, private, enterprise, federated DLT, etc. And frankly, sometimes, it is not easy to distinguish between them. Therefore, for this level of discussion, let us compare just DLTs vs. blockchain.
A permissioned DLT and the mentioned variety thereof are not decentralized. There should not be any fallacy around this, as it might be fatal for a project. While some opponents to this statement might claim that decentralization can have a degree, and of course, permissionless blockchain is more decentralized.
Let us put it simply. If there is someone between two counterparties in a transaction, and you can do nothing about this, it is centralized. In a public blockchain, if an ordinary user does not want to rely on a miner for their transaction to be included in a block, they can draft their transaction, and mine a block themself. If the block is valid, the network will accept it. Of course, mining nowadays requires enormous computational resources, but there are no technical or formal barriers to it — you don’t need to seek permission to mine. In DLT, users of the network have different roles and authority, and ordinary users are not able to create and validate blocks. There is nothing wrong with having a centralized system; it is just a matter of understanding what you are dealing with.
Permissioned DLTs can be decentralized only from one perspective, i.e., by having a consortium of independent members (organizations, companies, etc.) running the network with the exclusive authority to create blocks. Having a few affiliated companies controlled by one beneficiary will not make it decentralized.
And keep in mind, any consortium structure with independent members can be decentralized but only for these members — it will always be centralized for all those outside of the consortium.
Is DLT a cartel?
A consortium (private/permissioned) DLT can be considered a cartel. Sooner or later, an antitrust body may question this. A safe strategy would ensure that the terms and conditions of the consortium were built in compliance with the antitrust laws.
By the way, to be completely centralized system is much safer. But a centralized system will never achieve the same level of reliability and credibility that blockchain can. It will be vulnerable as any other centralized system is, and here is why.
A centralized DLT is not immutable. The ledger can be rewritten arbitrarily by the one (or more) who controls it or due to a cyberattack. Because of its open and competitive nature (mining, staking, etc.), any blockchain can achieve immutability and hence its records will be credible. Thousands of independent nodes can ensure an unprecedented level of resistance to any sort of attack.
Usually, it comes next after the discussion about immutability. How to correct a mistake? What if you need to change your smart contract? What if you lost your private key? There is nothing you can do retroactively — alteration in the blockchain is impossible. What’s done is done. In this regard, the DLT is usually the opposite of an alternative to blockchain. You will hear that DLTs can be designed so that those who control the network verify transactions on entry and therefore, non-compliant transactions are not allowed to pass through. But it would be a fallacy to think that censorship in the network will ultimately exclude all mistakes and unwanted transactions. There will always be a chance for a mistake. Then what? A retroactive change as the last resort? But if you can alter history, you undermine the whole idea of blockchain. No other technology can ensure such a level of the immutability of data. It is not one of the advantages of blockchain — this is its distinguishing advantage.
Nevertheless, immutability is perceived as something that impedes its legal application. Say, your circumstances changed, and you need to alter the smart contact. The answer to this is the proper design of an application that does not undermine the immutability of the ledger. The smart contract should be designed in a way that the user can attach a new transaction to reflect a change toward the previous one. Blocks are firmly chronological and only the latest transaction will reflect the current state of affairs, while all previous transactions will be a historical reference. You don’t need to change history. The blockchain is a public repository of evidence for everything that happened. There are different methods of designing applications that address all possible legal issues; for example, this and this academic paper proposed solutions to manage property rights in blockchain registries. These issues are also discussed in the series of articles that I published last year.
Permissioned is not blockchain
If anyone questions it regarding your system, they will be right. Further discussion about why permissioned is not a blockchain can be found in this academic paper, but in a nutshell: Not every chain of blocks is a blockchain. Connecting timestamped chunks of data with hashes was invented by Haber and Stornetta in 1991. But nobody has ever called it “blockchain” because blockchain is more than just a chain of blocks. It is about how these blocks are created and validated. Blocks that are created are the result of an open, decentralized and uncensored competition. This is the definition of blockchain and this is what Satoshi Nakamoto designed. Hence, anything that is centralized (permissioned, private, etc.) is whatever but not blockchain.
Unfortunately, anyone is free to attribute the word “blockchain” to any technology they want, as there is no legal copyright or any legal protection to this word. DLT proponents tried hard to erase the boundary between these concepts. But it is only a matter of time until a few high-profile knockdown hacks of private DLTs show the real difference between DLT and blockchain and dramatically change the situation. There is a big difference in how many nodes ensure the security of the network, i.e., a handful of known nodes in the DLT network, or thousands and anonymous nodes around the world in the blockchain network.
We can argue about this on the theoretical level, but when it comes to losing money due to vulnerabilities in the system, nobody will listen to enthusiastic speeches about DLT. People will start asking questions. If you use “private/permissioned,” you should be ready for this.
If you still want permissioned
A safe strategy would be to use the word “DLT” in all communications. It might not address possible vulnerabilities, but you can then say: “We had never said it was blockchain.” By the way, ENISA (the European agency on cybersecurity) always uses “distributed ledger” instead of blockchain in their reports. Conversely, their colleagues in the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States used “blockchain” in their earlier report.
Do you want to create your own public blockchain network? It is not necessarily a good idea unless you have reliable technology and a robust plan. First, [permissionless] blockchain does not mean safe by default. To achieve a decent level of immutability and resistance to attacks (hence, credibility and a high capitalization of your coin), you need thousands of independent nodes all over the world. If you have enough resources to create your community on this hard path, your network will survive and you will reap the rewards. But what are the odds?
If you are still considering creating your private or permissioned network, think about how this infrastructure will be maintained. If this is solely your network, you can have a solution to this because its maintenance can be covered by the commercial applications that you develop on it. But you have to understand — the network maintenance is completely on your shoulders.
If you have a consortium of members, how do they redeem expenses on infrastructure? In a blockchain, there is a native mechanism to this — cryptocurrency. Independent nodes compete to mine coins. This is how the whole infrastructure is created and maintained. Those who develop applications on the blockchain need to worry about fees, not infrastructure.
But how about your DLT? Is your DLT only for private use among the members of the network? In this case, the end must justify the means, so the reason why independent players on the market created their own DLT network must cover the cost they bear to create and support it.
Consider another story about DLT by members who develop a network for outside users. Inevitably, you will need to design a viable economic model for the network members. No one will spend their resources for nothing or the resources will be applied unfairly — you will end up with a common tragedy. A possible solution to this is to create a native token of the network — say hello to cryptocurrency.
Private DLT o a blockchain?
Is a permissioned/private DLT better than a blockchain? This is not an appropriate question. They are different and their use depends on what you are trying to achieve. But it would be a fallacy to attribute the features of blockchain to a permissioned DLT.
Leading existing blockchains can provide you with reliable infrastructure for an application. The idea that immutability impedes the application of blockchain is a misconception. On the contrary, it is the major advantage as no other technology can provide such a level of credibility to records. Various methods exist to create mature applications without bumping up against the immutable ledger.
A solely controlled DLT is centralized and therefore requires as much attention to cybersecurity as any other centralized technology. A consortium DLT is decentralized for its members, but will always be centralized for outside users (if, of course, the DLT is designed for public use). At the same time, the use of such a DLT can be fruitful in a private application among independent members, but be careful with objectives as it can be considered a cartel and questioned by antitrust bodies.