I remembered that play-to-earn game; it was like a joke before I experienced a play-to-earn game where I experienced earning $100 up to $250. At that time, we players were pioneering.
then those play-to-earn games only ran for 1 week; after 1 week, the rules changed immediately, and that's when the so-called rug pull started. I just told the story. which is not really forever in such things.
Topic: Play to earn model vs move to earn model. (Read 423 times)
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1043
Little_Mouse Campaign Management | OrangeFren.com
~
Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?
Or would this 'move to earn model' just follow its hype and fade into existence leaving cryptocurrencies to be the only better innovation that is much more helpful to the economy?
Your thoughts are welcomed!
If Play 2 Earn games changed the lives of a few people, move to earn doesn't.Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?
Or would this 'move to earn model' just follow its hype and fade into existence leaving cryptocurrencies to be the only better innovation that is much more helpful to the economy?
Your thoughts are welcomed!
TBH, the move to earn model has goods and bads depending on how you will look at it. If you think that the app will give you money just by exercising and don't focus on the amount of money that you will get, it might change your way of thinking and because of that, you might be forced to make some exercises and that's good for our health. Move to earn is a double reward for us. You will make your health better through exercising and you will earn as well. On the other hand though, the earnings isn't that high that's why if somebody will use these move to earn apps or whatever they're using, don't focus on the money that you can get or it will just make you disappoint.
Move to earn model will not solve any problems at all. The amount of money that you're getting isn't even enough to pay your bills.
If you're focusing about the earning aspect, forget about it. Maybe it might make your health better because you will be forced to exercise for the sake of a "SMALL" amount of money, but that's all. Solution to economic problems? I don't see it happening TBH. The model will just vanish or at least will be unpopular. It is of course not as it used to be before when the talk of cryptocurrencies or the Blockchain network was a myth and everyone including me, wanted nothing to do with it, because it felt like a Ponzi scheme or the subject of cryptocurrency was just too complex and incomprehensible to understand.
How can they say money is invisible and decentralized and it can hardly be tracked and it can only be available online and has the same purchasing power as the fait we have grown accustomed to from birth; this was my thoughts until now having known better and understand to the point where I can say that in this world currently, the cryptocurrencies exchanges and the decentralized network use a 'play to earn model' which is different from the 'move to earn model' that apps offering same prices and rewards in tokens like Sweatcoin among others use.
This is the business strategy for most emerging and upgrading technology companies that have been created sinçe and before the bloom, acceptance, regulation and advancement in cryptocurrency and its investment.
Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?
Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?
Or would this 'move to earn model' just follow its hype and fade into existence leaving cryptocurrencies to be the only better innovation that is much more helpful to the economy?
Your thoughts are welcomed!
How can they say money is invisible and decentralized and it can hardly be tracked and it can only be available online and has the same purchasing power as the fait we have grown accustomed to from birth; this was my thoughts until now having known better and understand to the point where I can say that in this world currently, the cryptocurrencies exchanges and the decentralized network use a 'play to earn model' which is different from the 'move to earn model' that apps offering same prices and rewards in tokens like Sweatcoin among others use.
This is the business strategy for most emerging and upgrading technology companies that have been created sinçe and before the bloom, acceptance, regulation and advancement in cryptocurrency and its investment.
Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?
Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?
Or would this 'move to earn model' just follow its hype and fade into existence leaving cryptocurrencies to be the only better innovation that is much more helpful to the economy?
Your thoughts are welcomed!
When you make everything a job we all become less free, not more free.
What something like the sweatcoin idea does (I recall hearing about it because I did some surveys asking if it sounded good as an incentive to exercise) is actually gamify some mundane task, rather than create any economic fluidity. It also is highly optimistic and prone to abuse, and if you do not immediately start thinking of ways to abuse the system, then you are very naive and likely holding a bag or two, respectfully. This goes for most systems like this. It stops being fun or valuable as a tool and becomes a minmax effort.
Quote
Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?
How can a "paid to walk" app be a micro or macro solution for economic problems? Are you kidding me? Do you think that the people will leave their jobs in order to focus on earning money 24/7 on a paid-to-walk app? Those apps are paying pennies(unless you are living in a Tier 1 country).
1.Those paid-to-walk apps are a variation of the Get-paid-to(or GPT) websites like Swagbucks and Qmee.
2.This sweatcoin isn't an actual cryptocurrency. It's more like a token, just like the points you earn on Swagbucks.
3.The play-to-earn model was a total ponzi scheme scam. No wonder that games like Axie Infinity died in terms of popularity.
Even bitcoin, a currency designed to overcome the shortcomings of the current fiat currency system, has not really brought any significant benefits to the economy, let alone trash projects left over.
In short, don't be too delusional and fall into the trap of crypto projects. Until now, the cryptocurrency market is just a money game, nothing more and nothing less. No project will bring us convenience, benefits or practical applications, let alone create positive impacts on the macro economy. The cryptocurrency market is just a place where we create virtual models to take money from each other, money will go from the hands of stupid people to the hands of smarter people. That's all.
Quote
Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?
How can a "paid to walk" app be a micro or macro solution for economic problems? Are you kidding me? Do you think that the people will leave their jobs in order to focus on earning money 24/7 on a paid-to-walk app? Those apps are paying pennies(unless you are living in a Tier 1 country).
1.Those paid-to-walk apps are a variation of the Get-paid-to(or GPT) websites like Swagbucks and Qmee.
2.This sweatcoin isn't an actual cryptocurrency. It's more like a token, just like the points you earn on Swagbucks.
3.The play-to-earn model was a total ponzi scheme scam. No wonder that games like Axie Infinity died in terms of popularity.
Currently, I don't see how those technology is seriously or slowly impacting the economy. Through out this year, I don't think I have hear anything related about "play to earn " Or "move to earn" Crypto but I have been hearing about Bitcoin, Ethereum, meme coins, Solana coin but have not heard about sweat coin.
Other valuable and important cryptos like Bitcoin and Ethereum can impact the economy but not any kind of shitcoin that will not even have a reasonable value in the future.
Other valuable and important cryptos like Bitcoin and Ethereum can impact the economy but not any kind of shitcoin that will not even have a reasonable value in the future.
Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?
Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?
Or would this 'move to earn model' just follow its hype and fade into existence leaving cryptocurrencies to be the only better innovation that is much more helpful to the economy?
Your thoughts are welcomed!
Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?
Or would this 'move to earn model' just follow its hype and fade into existence leaving cryptocurrencies to be the only better innovation that is much more helpful to the economy?
Your thoughts are welcomed!
There is no model that we didn't see towards the beginning of 2023, different model just for the team to raise money and launch nonsense. All most all of those projects were nothing to speak about. The only model I like is that move to earn model, if we remove the hype and greed around these projects, they are actually good for the society particularly lazy people that doesn't want to work out will be motivated to some exercise because they know they are not doing that exercise for free.
Airdrops also has hands in why these project were killed. I just think there are some project who are not supposed to launch airdrop in the first otherwise the right purpose of the airdrop will be defeated, hence why many of them all died after the bear market.
I've been into P2E and they're profitable at the beginning but it's not a sustainable business model and the same goes with move to earn. But I think I like more the move to earn because it gives people the way to move their bodies and the main benefit of it is about being healthy as you need to move from here and there and you can just treat that as a favor to yourself and you're doing an exercise that's being incentivize but just do it mainly for your health.
There has been some kind of games developed, that used to offer real tokens and any user who is good at playing them will be able to earn crypto depending on the games design.I prefer them to the move to earn model which of course requires that I sweat to earn tokens that may not be converted to real coins or usable tokens.
The method of trading in-game tokens earned through the levels of achievements or as a reward when playing some of these play to earn games, for other cryptos or fiat on any exchange, makes the play to earn model a possibility for passive income.
Upon doing my own research on play to earn vs move to earn model, the play to earn is better and users can connect a wallet funded with purchased tokens to play and win as much as NFTs and utilities that can be traded of course.
copper member
Activity: 2800
Merit: 1179
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
-
I’m confused on how is this related to the topic about the comparison of play to earn on move to earn model.
Both model is just a sugar coat to create a fake euphoria about they are working hard to earn tokens while in the end both model are destined to failed because those work done by participants can’t gain profit for the company that rewards users who done the task.
It’s more realistic those who use ads task to pay users since the user work is earning money for the company.
If we go outside we will see that there is no shortage of employment in the world and different people are in different occupations. Some are selling fruits, some are cleaning the mess, some are office workers and some are office officials. The country is running according to someone's decision and someone is running according to someone else's decision, that is, everyone is working. If a doctor is asked to construct a building, he will not be able to construct the building, whereas if an engineer is asked to perform surgery, he will not be able to. That is, every person is right in every position if he chooses his desired profession. For some people playing sports is a profession and for some people watching sports is an addiction.
I think you're confusing things a bit, Play to earn model and move to earn model are just some of the small apps that have emerged from blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies.
In fact, they do not constitute any important economic strategy and do not provide any solution to any economic or technological problem. They are just small applications for profit and nothing more, and the profits that come from them are very small and cannot constitute economic income for individuals, let alone support the economy or influence it.
In fact, they do not constitute any important economic strategy and do not provide any solution to any economic or technological problem. They are just small applications for profit and nothing more, and the profits that come from them are very small and cannot constitute economic income for individuals, let alone support the economy or influence it.
It's not something to depend on for survival and upkeep,I heard that the earnings are relatively small compared to others.They're both gaming technology that requires users to function properly like performing various tasks and end up receiving cryptocurrency rewards.
I haven't really tried any of them before but that shouldn't discourage anyone too.Its doesn't really seem beneficial to me and its something that you can go into just for fun and during your leisure time and make extra income for yourself,Just so you can be able to stay fit and active earning crypto.
Can the 'move to earn model' offered by a company like Sweatcoin, of whom are willing to pay tokens to users who have either sweated using the app while running or swimming, be a micro or macro solution to economic problems, if adopted on a large scale?
It's not a solution to anything. Microearnings have always been a waste of time. Only the poorest and most desperate people do them, and still it's not worth for them. They would have been better off spending that time on developing skills that could help them earn better money - these days you can learn almost anything on the Internet.
And even thinking about macroeconomic effects of microearnings is just funny.
I agree. In the most of the cases micro-earnings are only appealing to people who are living in very extreme economical conditions, in countries where inflation has completely ground the value of their Fiat, so they need to ding alternatives for it in cryptocurrencies and other payment systems.
For a country to succeed and see some positive changes in their macroeconomics, it is necessary to do actual investment into the education sector, into job creation and building new universities and high education institutions of all kind.
At best, micro-earnings are a temporary solution for people who seek to accumulate a bit of extra money, at the worst, it is a complete loss of time.
Though, I am not going to lie, I first I felt optimistic with the concept of move to earn, but it does not sound to be a sustainable model to do sctisl business, unleds there id dome serious partnership behind all of it, like Adidas or Nike, so those users actually expecting to get paid for sweating could get something worth their time.
Currently currency prices are almost no longer balanced, especially when the market is all affected, the presence of crypto currency is an alternative for entrepreneurs to spend their money buying several types of coins, as to maintain their foundation. If at any time there is a high jump then these coins will be able to make money. other capital besides fiat money, there are many schemes that we have to play so that we don't just watch them but have to be among them to both benefit.
Maybe Davos has a good reason to promote SWEAT:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/this-entrepreneur-is-aiming-to-reverse-his-carbon-footprint-here-s-how/
To me it seems like an ESG project, so perhaps it could have some future on the way to Net Zero...
Don't think of it in strictly capitalist terms (banning cars and promoting bicycles doesn't make much financial sense either).
There's a huge ecological agenda going on right now. It is what it is.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/this-entrepreneur-is-aiming-to-reverse-his-carbon-footprint-here-s-how/
To me it seems like an ESG project, so perhaps it could have some future on the way to Net Zero...
Don't think of it in strictly capitalist terms (banning cars and promoting bicycles doesn't make much financial sense either).
There's a huge ecological agenda going on right now. It is what it is.
Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?
Neither of the model is actually not a passive income, because you need to excel an effort to any of that model to get significant income. Move to earn doesn't seem beneficial from the financial aspect in my opinion, because the coin you're earning on most of the platform are very little that it would literally take you a while to accumulate enough coins to qualify for the minimum withdrawal.
On the other hand, play to earn model will require you to at least spend a few hours everyday to keep the earning mechanism running. You will also need to spend money for you to maximize the earning potential and not to mention that you also need to compete with other players.
Therefore, both needs extra time and effort that would hinder your time with your business or 9 to 5 job.
But don't know how STEPN is doing in the market, one move-to-earn model that I know so far which is still alive, at least their app and website.
If Bitcoin gold and Bitcoin SV are still surviving why wouldn't a coin that got millions from investors at the start and it's printing more millions still be alive? Rebrand, a bit of hype, trapped whales with millions of tokens, the usual...
Right now, it seems like it's difficult to repeat what happened to Axie Infinity, right? Maybe if we just play, it will be fine because it gives us amusement.
Difficult, no, everyone is copying the outcome
- 95.23% in two years despite a bull run now
- 90% drop in players
Every single one of those "pay to work doing a repetitive task that looks like a game in order to earn a penny" model is heading the same way.
Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?
Neither of the model is actually not a passive income, because you need to excel an effort to any of that model to get significant income.
Move to earn doesn't seem beneficial from the financial aspect in my opinion, because the coin you're earning on most of the platform are very little that it would literally take you a while to accumulate enough coins to qualify for the minimum withdrawal.
On the other hand, play to earn model will require you to at least spend a few hours everyday to keep the earning mechanism running. You will also need to spend money for you to maximize the earning potential and not to mention that you also need to compete with other players.
Therefore, both needs extra time and effort that would hinder your time with your business or 9 to 5 job.
I think you're confusing things a bit, Play to earn model and move to earn model are just some of the small apps that have emerged from blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies.
In fact, they do not constitute any important economic strategy and do not provide any solution to any economic or technological problem. They are just small applications for profit and nothing more, and the profits that come from them are very small and cannot constitute economic income for individuals, let alone support the economy or influence it.
In fact, they do not constitute any important economic strategy and do not provide any solution to any economic or technological problem. They are just small applications for profit and nothing more, and the profits that come from them are very small and cannot constitute economic income for individuals, let alone support the economy or influence it.
While you've made it quite clear, I agree with you and then I can only say that those micro or macro development earning app systems are just so waste of time and much efforts are being expected while earning rates are being overrides. The so apps modernity were too congested to provide global economy up springs and its technological developments is concealed beyond comparison of the blockchain potentials to spread the wide range of blockchains of today's in a global circulations.
Is this play-to-earn model referred to in this topic section similar to the one before that made noise in the crypto industry? Right now, it seems like it's difficult to repeat what happened to Axie Infinity, right? Maybe if we just play, it will be fine because it gives us amusement.
Then it's really in favor of the gamers; now with the move-to-earn model, it's a wide issue. I remember last year there was an app on the cellphone that you could download that, when you played it, you'd earn money immediately, or something like this. We practice cryptocurrency, which also gives us profit through trading, right?
Then it's really in favor of the gamers; now with the move-to-earn model, it's a wide issue. I remember last year there was an app on the cellphone that you could download that, when you played it, you'd earn money immediately, or something like this. We practice cryptocurrency, which also gives us profit through trading, right?
I've been into P2E and they're profitable at the beginning but it's not a sustainable business model and the same goes with move to earn. But I think I like more the move to earn because it gives people the way to move their bodies and the main benefit of it is about being healthy as you need to move from here and there and you can just treat that as a favor to yourself and you're doing an exercise that's being incentivize but just do it mainly for your health.
Microearnings have already helped early BTC adopters to earn from zero considerable sums of money in current BTC rates. It's not always a waste of time. Sometimes there is long term potential on microearnings offers and they should be analyzed by people who are looking for opportunities and can't find them on their local communities. Each case is one case. What works for you might not work for someone else, but what works for him, might not work for you.
Therefore, I don't discourage anyone from seeking for offers, even inside the microearnings niche. The important thing is to be constantly searching something to make an income from, even when it seems nothing is going to work for you. It's necessary to be attentive to what life is bringing and trying to show. There might lie the opportunity you have been looking for, but couldn't find so far.
Therefore, I don't discourage anyone from seeking for offers, even inside the microearnings niche. The important thing is to be constantly searching something to make an income from, even when it seems nothing is going to work for you. It's necessary to be attentive to what life is bringing and trying to show. There might lie the opportunity you have been looking for, but couldn't find so far.
Maybe some people collected some sats from faucets in the yearly years and they went up x1000, but they would have been much richer if they went and found a job, even for a day or two, and used the earning to invest in Bitcoin. Those microearning yielded less than a dollar per hour, while in real life you can make at least a few dollars per hour.
The only argument is that someone had zero earning opportunities, but I don't believe a lot of people are in that position, especially in the age of Internet when you can do something online.
Jump to: