Topic: Play to earn model vs move to earn model. - page 2. (Read 338 times)

When you're getting paid for something in a token, the rule is this:
If for the said action a normal world nobody would pay you a cent, then the amount of tokens you will receive for that "work" of yours will also be worth less than a cent.

Simple economics!
Nobody is interested in paying you to walk as you don't generate any revenue.
Nobody is interested in you playing games as long as you don't pay first to play!

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!

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?

That seems to be the case. Sweatcoin is basically a product for non-crypto users while they offer Sweat Walelt for crypto users, at least that's what they said on their website. Sounds like Uniswap and their UNI token, or just any altcoin project in general.

This reminds me, I used to track my physical activity with an app a few years ago. They offered rewards in the form of free stickers or wallpaper if I reached a certain milestone. Some argue that these rewards can help my brain feel rewarded for every exercise, but I never feel that way. I'm not sure how I'd feel if I got a token for doing exercise, but I'd feel terrible if my goal is to earn money by doing squats and I only earn $1 after a month or so.

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.

Upon reading, Sweatcoin and Sweat Economy are just one right?

None has benefitted me and I've never subscribed to any of them because they are not really worth it. I'd rather invest my time doing something profitable than wasting my time on these micro earning opportunities. The developers of these apps are the ones smiling to the banks, they generate a lot of revenues from running ads, collecting and selling users data but the users are rewarded with peanuts for their data, time and effort.

Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?

I have never invested or tried any move to earn projects so I can only answer the other option.

The move to earn model sounded great during the pandemic since a lot of people were unable to get out and do their usual physical activities. It died down a couple of years after the pandemic since those who usually don't exercise were back to their old habit. The market for this project is limited to people with active lifestyle and that's less than the market of gamers.

[...]
Which model has been more beneficial to you, when you think of investing time and resources to earn a passive income?

I have these two tokens, and the application, and active on both platforms, it's a total waste of time imagine spending hours playing and making you sweat for a few cents worth of tokens you cannot do these two at the same time.

And if you do this on a large scale can the price sustain to make it worth the effort of those doing the tasks, Axie Infinity was a huge success but after they crashed all the other play-to-earn models followed similar paths same thing with the move to earn models.

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?

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.

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?

After trying both types of games, I realized that they are essentially the same, merely wasting people’s time. I don’t know about other people’s experiences with them, whether they are better or just like mine, but I feel that the system is akin to an MLM pattern where you need to buy their tokens and then use their services to earn the rewards they offer. In reality, the rewards they provide are also very low, so you need a lot of time just to collect 1-2 dollars, which is actually not worth it. Yeah, maybe some people say that they don't have a problem with this, but I personally conclude that this microearning platform is just a waste of my time.

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.