Indeed, considering that bitcoin is a decentralized peer to peer cryptocurrency, it doesn’t make much sense to create in-games tokens. Game developers could have bitcoin as the in-game token.
Then there wouldn’t be the cost for creating other tokens, need for players to convert them to bitcoin before exiting nor the risk of players’ value being decreased because of over-issue of the tokens.
Having said that, the game developers are better placed to understand the industry. Maybe it is logical to create game’s own tokens.
But your observation makes a lot of sense.
Topic: Compliance Hurdles for Licensed Gaming Operators when Accepting Bitcoin (Pt3) (Read 349 times)
March 07, 2017, 08:18:29 AM
March 06, 2017, 12:17:52 PM
They should also consider the cost between implementing a counter party token or another Alt coin, compared to Bitcoin. I see a trend lately
where game developers focus on their own technologies built for their games and I think that is stupid. These companies force people to buy
their tokens to play the game and most of these tokens are being pumped out like crazy... this decrease it's value. They also have to convert
this to Bitcoin to get to fiat.
where game developers focus on their own technologies built for their games and I think that is stupid. These companies force people to buy
their tokens to play the game and most of these tokens are being pumped out like crazy... this decrease it's value. They also have to convert
this to Bitcoin to get to fiat.
March 06, 2017, 12:11:56 PM
In this post, we look at the *cost-benefit analysis* as explained in the case study of Payment 21 that PaymentEye, a leading resource site in the global payment sector, published late last month.
In the case study, Payment21 advises merchants to use the following *cost-benefit analysis* formula a before introducing bitcoin payments:
1. Adding a lump-sum of 1% volume increase on existing turnover.
2. Working with a maximum of 5% of players depositing in bitcoin, and maximum 15% requesting payouts in bitcoin.
3. Summing up the number of new players and the additional estimated customer lifetime value (CLV).
In the last post in this case study series, we will look at the *things a gaming company should consider before adding Bitcoin* as one of their payment methods.
Case study link:
http://www.paymenteye.com/2017/02/27/case-study-benefits-of-bitcoin-payouts-for-the-gaming-industry/
In the case study, Payment21 advises merchants to use the following *cost-benefit analysis* formula a before introducing bitcoin payments:
1. Adding a lump-sum of 1% volume increase on existing turnover.
2. Working with a maximum of 5% of players depositing in bitcoin, and maximum 15% requesting payouts in bitcoin.
3. Summing up the number of new players and the additional estimated customer lifetime value (CLV).
In the last post in this case study series, we will look at the *things a gaming company should consider before adding Bitcoin* as one of their payment methods.
Case study link:
http://www.paymenteye.com/2017/02/27/case-study-benefits-of-bitcoin-payouts-for-the-gaming-industry/
Jump to: