Topic: Play to earn model vs move to earn model. - page 3. (Read 338 times)

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.

None are beneficial to me, since earning in this kind of model is very hard.  Like for example, earning in play to earn needs a player to spend some amount in order to gain advantage against other player, they need to spend money in order to get part of the money they spent, this is beneficial to those who have deep pocket but not on normal users like me.

While move to earn scheme also needs to purchase in-game items in order to boost the earnings thus, the models are almost identical to play to earn scheme.  It can also be said that it is borderline a Ponzi Scheme where earnings and rewards came from new people that is introduced to the system and invest money in order to get advantage against other users.




It is never a solution to both micro and macro economics problems even if adopted on a large scale.  First, the token needs to have a value to use in real life world.  To have stable value or have high liquidity it needs to be backed up by fund that can sustain the market value of the token.  So the main concern is the source of fund to back up the financial activity.  And where does this fund come from?  Obviously, it will come from users and investors who need to purchase certain items to be a premium member.  In the end, the users are first milked with funds before they can milk the system.

According to the business model of sweatcoin, they intend to gain revenue through merchant partnerships but this model is yet to be established.


They will eventually fade when new system of earning is introduced, or when their financial model collapses.  We have seen several projects like these to fade into existence after some months of operation because they can't maintain the reward system or the value of their cryptocurrency in the market.

They both got their own benefits but I'm not going to lie, it's really difficult to make money because they're all taking a lot of efforts to do and the rewards that they give is somewhat not that worth the effort, sure there's some outliers that did made some people a lot of profit but we have to understand that there's not a lot of these outliers out there and most of these projects that do this kind of thing aren't really good with doing follow ups that would lead them to something better, the worst thing too is there's probably a lot of these projects that are a rugpull scheme that doesn't benefit the new players.

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.

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.

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!