The fastest growing SaaS company funded by Sequoia Capital is building the future of sales engagement, a solution that helps sales teams personalise at scale while consistently staying on message and on task, through true multi-channel outreach including email, phone, SMS, chat and social media

Outplay

SaaS Competitive Analysis 101: How To Outplay Your Startup’s Competitors

When in-game cheating becomes the norm, does the gaming industry have a major problem on its hands? A global study of the gaming industry would say yes. It was found that 77% of online gamers are likely to stop playing a multiplayer game online if they think other players are cheating, and 48% of online gamers are likely to buy less in-game content. Add in the accrued value of digital assets as a key feature of blockchain gaming, and developers have an obligation to tackle this problem head-on. An attractiveness to bending the rules is not something limited to the world of online gaming; it is rife in all parts of society. However, as social psychologist Corey Butler points out ‘anonymity (playing with strangers or online) and opportunity can tip the scales toward greater cheating. When strong incentives like money or grades are on the line, otherwise honest people might be tempted to cheat. If somebody with a competitive nature is presented with the opportunity to easily outperform the other at a task, then it's safe to say that many will bite the bullet and risk the reward for the easy win—factor in the monetary value of rewards in Web3 gaming, and this desire to win increases significantly. However, when it comes to multiplayer online games, the competition is designed around entertainment, fun, and the community. These core values of gaming make cheating a stain on the industry as a whole. Cheating is the new norm. Cheating in some of the largest games has become an economy of its own, with many platforms and YouTube channels dedicated to introducing cheating, hacks, and navigating the ways to cheat. Don't believe us, simply type fortnite cheat terms into a google search. Combating this trend is critical for maintaining the reputation of these brands. Simon Vieira, CEO of MixMob, a Solana-based gaming platform, believes the temptation to cheat is rife, but it is nothing new, “Web3 games offer enhanced incentives due to the tangible value of game coins and digital items. However, this also creates a greater temptation to cheat. That said, traditional gaming has previously addressed similar issues. For instance, real money gaming employs methods such as biotic randomness to obscure certain game aspects like matchmaking. This approach reduces predictability, thus diminishing the incentives to cheat while still maintaining a skill-based gaming environment. We apply these strategies at MixMob to ensure fairness and keep the game engaging for all players,” says Vieira. When hacking games, cheaters now have an endless stack of tools to choose from when it comes to infiltrating game mechanics with glitching and farming to using aimbots in the software and speed hacks. This problem is exacerbated in Web3 gaming as it lacks an authoritative host. “Fair play is crucial in multi-player games as it directly impacts player engagement and retention. A fair environment ensures that players feel valued and that the game remains competitive and enjoyable for everyone,” notes Vieira. Furthermore, with AI, it is easier than ever to predict patterns of player behavior and create new ways to exploit and manipulate gaming data. So, how can this problem be addressed without compromising the gaming experience? Speaking to Tashi Protocol CEO Sandeep Bhatia, it is clear that consensus will play a future role in blockchain gaming. “Dynamite as the network transport for multiplayer games can prevent certain forms of cheating like 'lag switching' or local state hacking. The benefit of having consensus on top of a peer-to-peer network layer ensures that players cannot cheat, and the architecture reduces costs.” Frustration with the publishers Publishers are tackling the issue of one player, or several players at a time, by banning them and using anti-cheat software. Just last month, Activision, a gaming giant and creator of Call of Duty, banned 27,000 accounts from the game. However, this isn't deterring new cheats coming into the sector. Tackling it from the outset in the process of the game studio is the only way to ensure that both the publishers and the gamers benefit in the long run. To restore confidence, creators of blockchain games must demonstrate trust from the outset. “Shifting from a traditional gaming infrastructure to adopt a decentralized, serverless framework will optimize the entire Web3 gaming experience and solve the issue of cheating from the ground up. Not only can we reduce the costs by eliminating the need for centralized servers, but Tashi's Dynamite ensures fair distribution and protection against common security threats,” says Bhatia. Once a player sees that a game is compromised, it ruins the fun element and may even deter them from entering the environment because of security fears. In addition, the influx of bots and other hacks has led to unfair advantages within some of the most loved games. What can blockchain game publishers do? Gaming studios must take the necessary steps to demonstrate their commitment to fair play. This is essential in the blockchain space as it continues to build trust with the traditional gaming communities. At MixMob, they leverage blockchain transparency to allow the community to participate in monitoring and reporting cheaters actively. “This community refereeing not only helps maintain fairness but also fosters a sense of responsibility and integrity among players, and it has worked great for us,” says Vieira. “Web3 game publishers must take decisive steps to limit cheating. The actions taken should vary based on the severity of the cheating incident. Potential measures include banning, suspending, or permanently removing players involved in unfair practices. Additionally, publishers can adopt proven strategies from traditional gaming, such as introducing randomness to some parts of the game to reduce predictability, which helps deter cheating,” he continues. Game developers who are keen to implement anti-cheat measures are often outplayed by hackers who have mastered the art of cheating and the avoidance of detection. Sure, developers can ban cheaters who are caught in the act or embed cheat detection software. However, this doesn't prevent cheating from occurring from the outset. The vulnerabilities have already been exploited by the time the developer has their hands on the activities. If, however, a game creator starts the development process using the Tashi Consensus Protocol, it has eliminated the act of cheating from the initial design stage. “Gamers rely on trust that game developers would have implemented the best practices to ensure cheaters are punished. That is why Tashi works to educate all its gaming partners on the novel ways blockchain solves cheating issues. We make our tech easy to use and guide all our partners who might come from the Web2 world and are new to using blockchain tech,” added Bhatia. While anti-cheat software like Riot Game's Vanguard or Activision Blizzard's Ricochet stands as the frontline defense, the second layer can utilize the transparency provided by blockchain technology to fight against bad actors. Implementing innovative approaches to game development, like the Tashi Dynamite Consensus Engine, pushes gaming to a new era of fair play and reclaims the values that true gamers want to see in the game development stage. In addition to fostering a culture of fair play, a paradigm shift is necessary in the approach to combating cheating in online gaming. By 2027, the number of users in the Online Games market is expected to amount to 1.2bn users. The projected revenue in the Online Games market worldwide is expected to reach US$27.97bn in 2024. Reclaiming the gaming sector for true gamers who value the entire gaming experience is crucial as blockchain games position themselves alongside some of the gaming giants. When in-game cheating becomes the norm, does the gaming industry have a major problem on its hands? A global study of the gaming industry would say yes. It was found that 77% of online gamers are likely to stop playing a multiplayer game online if they think other players are cheating, and 48% of online gamers are likely to buy less in-game content. Add in the accrued value of digital assets as a key feature of blockchain gaming, and developers have an obligation to tackle this problem head-on. study study An attractiveness to bending the rules is not something limited to the world of online gaming; it is rife in all parts of society. However, as social psychologist Corey Butler points out ‘anonymity (playing with strangers or online) and opportunity can tip the scales toward greater cheating. When strong incentives like money or grades are on the line, otherwise honest people might be tempted to cheat. If somebody with a competitive nature is presented with the opportunity to easily outperform the other at a task, then it's safe to say that many will bite the bullet and risk the reward for the easy win—factor in the monetary value of rewards in Web3 gaming, and this desire to win increases significantly. However, when it comes to multiplayer online games, the competition is designed around entertainment, fun, and the community. These core values of gaming make cheating a stain on the industry as a whole. Cheating is the new norm. Cheating in some of the largest games has become an economy of its own, with many platforms and YouTube channels dedicated to introducing cheating, hacks, and navigating the ways to cheat. Don't believe us, simply type fortnite cheat terms into a google search. Combating this trend is critical for maintaining the reputation of these brands. Simon Vieira, CEO of MixMob, a Solana-based gaming platform, believes the temptation to cheat is rife, but it is nothing new, “Web3 games offer enhanced incentives due to the tangible value of game coins and digital items. However, this also creates a greater temptation to cheat. That said, traditional gaming has previously addressed similar issues. For instance, real money gaming employs methods such as biotic randomness to obscure certain game aspects like matchmaking. This approach reduces predictability, thus diminishing the incentives to cheat while still maintaining a skill-based gaming environment. We apply these strategies at MixMob to ensure fairness and keep the game engaging for all players,” says Vieira. When hacking games, cheaters now have an endless stack of tools to choose from when it comes to infiltrating game mechanics with glitching and farming to using aimbots in the software and speed hacks. This problem is exacerbated in Web3 gaming as it lacks an authoritative host. “Fair play is crucial in multi-player games as it directly impacts player engagement and retention. A fair environment ensures that players feel valued and that the game remains competitive and enjoyable for everyone,” notes Vieira. Furthermore, with AI, it is easier than ever to predict patterns of player behavior and create new ways to exploit and manipulate gaming data. So, how can this problem be addressed without compromising the gaming experience? Speaking to Tashi Protocol CEO Sandeep Bhatia, it is clear that consensus will play a future role in blockchain gaming. “Dynamite as the network transport for multiplayer games can prevent certain forms of cheating like 'lag switching' or local state hacking. The benefit of having consensus on top of a peer-to-peer network layer ensures that players cannot cheat, and the architecture reduces costs.” Frustration with the publishers Publishers are tackling the issue of one player, or several players at a time, by banning them and using anti-cheat software. Just last month, Activision , a gaming giant and creator of Call of Duty, banned 27,000 accounts from the game. However, this isn't deterring new cheats coming into the sector. Activision Activision Tackling it from the outset in the process of the game studio is the only way to ensure that both the publishers and the gamers benefit in the long run. To restore confidence, creators of blockchain games must demonstrate trust from the outset. “Shifting from a traditional gaming infrastructure to adopt a decentralized, serverless framework will optimize the entire Web3 gaming experience and solve the issue of cheating from the ground up. Not only can we reduce the costs by eliminating the need for centralized servers, but Tashi's Dynamite ensures fair distribution and protection against common security threats,” says Bhatia. Once a player sees that a game is compromised, it ruins the fun element and may even deter them from entering the environment because of security fears. In addition, the influx of bots and other hacks has led to unfair advantages within some of the most loved games. What can blockchain game publishers do? Gaming studios must take the necessary steps to demonstrate their commitment to fair play. This is essential in the blockchain space as it continues to build trust with the traditional gaming communities. At MixMob, they leverage blockchain transparency to allow the community to participate in monitoring and reporting cheaters actively. “This community refereeing not only helps maintain fairness but also fosters a sense of responsibility and integrity among players, and it has worked great for us,” says Vieira. “Web3 game publishers must take decisive steps to limit cheating. The actions taken should vary based on the severity of the cheating incident. Potential measures include banning, suspending, or permanently removing players involved in unfair practices. Additionally, publishers can adopt proven strategies from traditional gaming, such as introducing randomness to some parts of the game to reduce predictability, which helps deter cheating,” he continues. Game developers who are keen to implement anti-cheat measures are often outplayed by hackers who have mastered the art of cheating and the avoidance of detection. Sure, developers can ban cheaters who are caught in the act or embed cheat detection software. However, this doesn't prevent cheating from occurring from the outset. The vulnerabilities have already been exploited by the time the developer has their hands on the activities. If, however, a game creator starts the development process using the Tashi Consensus Protocol, it has eliminated the act of cheating from the initial design stage. “Gamers rely on trust that game developers would have implemented the best practices to ensure cheaters are punished. That is why Tashi works to educate all its gaming partners on the novel ways blockchain solves cheating issues. We make our tech easy to use and guide all our partners who might come from the Web2 world and are new to using blockchain tech,” added Bhatia. While anti-cheat software like Riot Game's Vanguard or Activision Blizzard's Ricochet stands as the frontline defense, the second layer can utilize the transparency provided by blockchain technology to fight against bad actors. Implementing innovative approaches to game development, like the Tashi Dynamite Consensus Engine, pushes gaming to a new era of fair play and reclaims the values that true gamers want to see in the game development stage. In addition to fostering a culture of fair play, a paradigm shift is necessary in the approach to combating cheating in online gaming. By 2027, the number of users in the Online Games market is expected to amount to 1.2bn users. The projected revenue in the Online Games market worldwide is expected to reach US$27.97bn in 2024. Reclaiming the gaming sector for true gamers who value the entire gaming experience is crucial as blockchain games position themselves alongside some of the gaming giants.

Is It Game Over for Cheaters? Using Blockchain Technology to Eliminate Unwanted Gaming Behavior

HER FATHER'S DAUGHTER

Bitcoin would go down as one of the greatest inventions of the 21st century. The cryptocurrency's underlying blockchain technology introduced us to several other possibilities, making crypto only a glimpse of what the system will power. Before Bitcoin launched, there were several iterations of cryptocurrencies, but they always lacked a significant element that rendered them not fit for public use. Bitcoin launched as a decent iteration and became what creations like eCash, B-money, Hashcash, BitGold, etc., only imagined. Of course, the mentioned crypto solutions were influential in the creation of , and recognition will go to the framework laid due to years of diligence and research. There are reports that the creators of these other experiments were a part of Satoshi's mailing list and were pretty much in the loop. Bitcoin Bitcoin has grown over the years, almost becoming a mainstream financial solution as it is the most dominant asset in the market, with over $1 trillion valuation at its peak. Moreover, the cryptocurrency landscape has evolved so fast since the creation of Bitcoin, leaving bitcoin in the dust regarding relevant contributions to the ecosystem. Many crypto enthusiasts today would argue that Bitcoin does not deserve its position as the market leader, considering the landscape has moved past what the cryptocurrency offers. This has been the basis of the Bitcoin vs. Ethereum debate over the years, with supporters claiming a time would come soon in the nearest future when Ethereum would overtake Bitcoin as the market leader. The premise for this argument is not far-fetched as Ethereum is the most valuable network in the ecosystem, with thousands of other decentralized applications existing on it. Ethereum What Does Satoshi Think of Bitcoin Now? As a creator myself, I know what it feels like when a constantly evolving landscape invalidates my work. That feeling plays out like you were the last to catch on to a trend when it started from you. If Satoshi Nakamoto is alive today, it's hard to find out if he still feels as delighted as he felt when he made the first announcement about Bitcoin. Only to come back a few years after retiring from working on the network, and the landscape has totally changed– with users questioning the use of your creation. What makes the job easy for Bitcoin is also what makes it hard. As a first innovation, you have no holes to fill. The dilemma of being the first innovation is you'd be creating holes. The holes you have creates the possibility of getting outplayed by a second product that has come to build on your existing framework. In the Innovator's Dilemma, a book by Clayton Christensen, he expressed the value-to-innovation relationship as an S curve. This sigmoid relationship stresses the progression of an innovation over time in relation to what the end users draw from it, which is the utility. He explained that value drawn from a first innovation is highly dependent on the improvements the innovation can make on itself. This makes for an arguable case for logic in other industries, but the blockchain industry is much slower. A simple analogy for the book's theory is the faster you can fix the holes you have created, the more you can retain some market dominance. The pitfall for bitcoin in this scenario is that the blockchain ecosystem is a fast landscape with slow participants. It is fast-evolving, and there's a hasty hunger for the next progressive and interesting thing to come out of the landscape. Bitcoin is already behind in terms of cutting-edge solutions like smart contracts and is also not a top choice in terms of scalability. Understandably, you may not get it as right as you want it for your innovative solution, but blockchain upgrades are not the easiest things to do. Ethereum recently had an upgrade called the Merge, in which the network transitioned from a Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism to a Proof-of-Stake consensus mechanism, making the network environmentally friendly and setting it up for several other upgrades. Ethereum is one of the best iterations of the blockchain, and its main shortcoming is its scalability issues. Some emerging projects have tried so hard to depose Ethereum, even touting themselves as Ethereum killers, only to end up being alternatives. Ethereum understands the need for constant upgrades. As the co-founder, Vitalik Buterin, believes, the network is only 40% complete– a similar statement to Satoshi's last message to the Bitcoin community before his disappearance. After the Merge, there are plans for Ethereum to undergo four other processes called the Surge, Verge, Purge, and Splurge. These processes will cater to scaling, upgrading, and the evolution of the network over the next few years. A consensus has to agree, which means over 90% of the nodes have to get involved in the process. Consensus is not the easiest process in a decentralized protocol, especially on a network like Bitcoin, which is heavily distributed. Consensus is more like a democratic way of coming to a decision, but a small percentage of the network not agreeing to make the necessary changes would cause a hard fork. Hard forks would usually not mean much except that the Ethereum blockchain currently has two ghost chains (Ethereum Classic and Ethereum PoW) which were a result of upgrades. Considering how fast and frequent first innovations will have to upgrade and catch up with the market it created, bitcoin stood almost no chance of being a much more decentralized protocol. Bitcoin has had some upgrades recently, but they were a very slow grinding situation and would slow the pace of really significant moves. Of course, bitcoin is a creation anyone would be proud of. However, one can't help but imagine what Satoshi Nakamoto thinks of it at the moment. In the early years of bitcoin's creation, Satoshi kept close contact with the community, making over 500 posts on the popular . In his final post to the community, he reiterated the need for the developers in the community to keep building to keep bitcoin safe, and since then, no one has heard of him. This is an article about what he thinks of his creation at the moment, but again, you pause to think if he's even alive. bitcointalk forum Stumbling on the post attached above was an inspiration for this article. In the post, Satoshi discusses how zero-knowledge proof could greatly improve the implementation of bitcoin(BTC). However, it didn't seem possible while he was active. Today, zero-knowledge protocols are a great way to improve scalability on blockchain networks. What Are ZK Proofs? Zero-knowledge proof technologies allow one person to demonstrate to another that they know something without the prover needing to disclose the information itself. They are a privacy-improving technology since they decrease the amount of information that must be supplied between users and the scaling technology. After all, they allow proofs to be verified quicker because they do not include the full amount of information for non-private systems. ZK-STARKs and ZK-SNARKs are two of the most promising zero-knowledge technologies today. ZK-STARK means zero-knowledge scalable transparent argument of knowledge, while ZK-SNARK stands for zero-knowledge succinct non-interactive argument of knowledge. SNARKS have been the popular alternative with developers and emerging blockchain solutions because they offer the most convenient ways to implement. However, one point of criticism for ZK-SNARKS is they are not quantum-resistant. As soon as quantum computing becomes widely available, the privacy systems of SNARKS will be unreliable. Although, it is also argued that this would be the least of our problems as quantum computing also poses some threat to most wallet infrastructure and the breaking of . RSA encryption There are several reasons SNARKs have been embraced at a far quicker pace than STARKs, despite the challenges associated with the setup. SNARKs were discovered years before STARKs, giving the technology advantage in terms of acceptance. One of the older digital asset initiatives, Zcash, promoted the use of SNARKs among the blockchain development community. SNARKs has the most developer libraries, published code, projects, and developers actively working on the technology because of Zcash and other early adopters. In addition to Zcash, the emerging DEX Loopring employs SNARKs. If a developer wants to start using zero-knowledge technology, SNARKs would be significantly more helpful than STARKs. Furthermore, SNARKs are projected to need just 24% of the gas that STARKs would require, implying that dealing with SNARKs would be significantly less expensive for the end user. Finally, the proof size for SNARKs is much smaller than that of STARKs, implying that less on-chain storage is required. How ZK-Proofs Could Have Made Bitcoin Better In a typical world that looks forward to blockchain adoption and Bitcoin is at the top of the market, one would expect that the cryptocurrency is primed for it. Although Bitcoin's whitepaper does not overstate any expectations for the cryptocurrency, it's quite expected for what is perceived to be revolutionary to be close to its precedent, which at the time were traditional finance systems and service affiliations like Mastercard. At the time of this writing, Bitcoin poses some scalability issues that cannot be ignored– offering the capability to process only about five transactions per second compared to the thousands per second offered by centralized services like Mastercard, Visa, etc. Bitcoin uses the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm(ECDSA), which is the algorithm that ensures individual access to their wallet and control over their assets. The verification of this algorithm is inefficient such that it limits the scalability of the network. A potential solution other developers, including Satoshi, have considered over the years but could not figure out how to apply is the use of ZK-proofs. At the time of Satoshi's post, the existing implementations of ZK-SNARKs had scalability limitations, but they were still much better than what Bitcoin offered. However, using modern elliptic-curve cryptographic techniques and methods for exploiting the proof systems' field structure and non-determinism, the verification algorithm of ZK-SNARKs has gotten so much better. Even better implementations of ZK-SNARKs offer future-proof resistance to quantum attacks. It's also important to state that ZK-STARK has an advantage over SNARKS as it relies on hash functions rather than elliptic curves, and it's a much better and more secure implementation of zero-knowledge proof. However, the emphasis has been ZK-SNARKs because they were the solution closest to when Satoshi was last active. While ZK-STARKS would have made for an off-chain solution for Bitcoin's scalability issues, one can't help but think if Satoshi thought of a layer-2 solution for Bitcoin using ZK-SNARKS. There's a chance he never thought of a layer-2 solution since upgrades are a tough consensus to reach. Also, instead of having to have to read through the whole section to find out our ZK-SNARKS could have made Bitcoin better, ZCash(ZEC) is an iteration of that. The network seems to be pretty fine with only a few shortcomings; most people would agree that it's a much better solution than Bitcoin, except that we would argue for Bitcoin's exceptional security. Blockchain Expansion Once the first brick is laid, you don't have to be there to see the complete house, and it would be much faster than you imagined. This has been demonstrated throughout history– technology has thrived under this model since immemorial. The closest proof for this argument is to look at the progression of technology and the millions of years we have probably lived without technology. Bitcoin set a precedent for the use of blockchain, and I doubt Satoshi could have foreshadowed how quickly the landscape would change. Today, blockchain has established itself as a technology sufficient for daily activities and would be central to decentralization and open governance. Blockchain is becoming the contemporary option for financial solutions, and it is mind-blowing realizing the other sectors this technology can power. Of course, bitcoin is not the first iteration of blockchain but probably the first viable iteration. We have Satoshi to give most of the credit for perfecting the mechanisms that previous iterations had trouble with. Creating such a revolutionary technology is great work, but I can't help but question how it feels to see the state of bitcoin in this current landscape. I'd like to assume that Satoshi finds more delight in the overall growth of the space than Bitcoin.

I Wonder What Satoshi Thinks of Bitcoin Today

The year 2021 was marked by multiple DeFi frauds, with rug-pulls and exit scams being among the most popular. It looks like 2022 is going to outplay 2021 not only by the number of hacker attacks but also by the volume of funds stolen. This time, hackers are shifting to blockchain bridges. The Wormhole Attack February was marked by one of the most expensive DeFi hacks to date. Hackers managed to steal more than $320 million in wETH from Wormhole - a blockchain bridge that enables the transfer of funds between the Ethereum and Solana blockchains. The attacker exploited a bug in Wormhole’s code that was part of the deprecated function that enabled bypassing the signature verification. What I find interesting is the fact that the attack was conducted after the . The update revealed a fix to the bug. code was updated in the GitHub repository Some hours later, the bridge was hacked. I agree with Information Security Architect who said that publishing this update without implementing it in production was a mistake. Matthew Garret It revealed the vulnerability to the public by basically explaining what the vulnerability was.. It is not surprising that somebody took advantage of this. Another detail that attracts my attention is the code. It doesn’t look like a common update but instead, contains extensive changes. That’s why for a hacker, to figure out that the changes were not implemented in the production only took moments. The hacker forged a signature verification that allowed him to mint 120K wETH (approx. $320 million) without depositing funds first. Then, the stolen funds were moved to the hacker’s wallet. The Wormhole team managed to find out which ETH address was involved in the exploit. They offered the attacker a $10 million bounty if he returned the funds. The message with the offer was embedded as text in a transaction sent to the wallet. As of now, the funds have not been returned, and the value of SOL dropped by 10% after the hack. The Ronin Bridge Exploit Some time later, the Ronin bridge that was used by Axie Infinity players to transfer assets between the Ronin network and the Ethereum blockchain was attacked by using private keys. These were cryptographic keys used to sign transactions. With them, hackers transferred funds from five of nine validator nodes on Ronin. The hackers managed to escape with $622 million in ETH and USDC. Sky Mavis, the developer behind the game, named an , and the United States Department of the Treasury linked the wallet to the North Korean hacking group Lazarus. The note about the first crypto project backed by the government also indicates a connection with Lazarus as they are government-backed. Ethereum wallet as the Ronin attacker The Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) added the wallet to its . list of sanctions tied to Lazarus For Lazarus, it is common to use Tornado Cash which is a transaction mixing service that makes it more difficult to trace cryptocurrency movement between wallets. This time, . Tornado Cash announced that it will block any address listed by the OFAC That’s why it was impossible for the wallet to launder funds through Tornado Cash. It starts by sending massive amounts in ETH to more wallets. This enabled the OFAC to find out what other wallets are involved in the hack and list them as linked to Lazarus. Axie Infinity has recovered from the hack by hard forking the protocol and raising funds to reimburse users. Binance was leading the funding round, accompanied by Animoca Brands, Andreessen Horowitz, and Paradigm, among others. Binance also managed to recover $5.8 million in funds sent to the platform by the listed wallets. The Harmony Horizon Bridge On the 23rd of June 2022, the Harmony Horizon bridge was hacked which resulted in a massive loss of $100 million. The bridge relies on a transaction validation process to transfer funds. Normally, a multi-signature scheme with five validators is applied by bridges, but not in the case of Harmony Horizon. The bridge used a 2 or 5 validator scheme, which means that attackers had to compromise two blockchain accounts to approve any transaction. The attacker managed to steal two private keys as only they were needed to approve any transaction. They then extracted $100 million from the bridge all the while having money laundered through Tornado Cash. Harmony published a post requesting the criminal to return the funds in exchange for stopping the investigation. The company also managed to identify the , along with some other wallets that were sent significant sums in ETH from the Horizon Bridge exploiter. wallet involved in the hack Unlike with the majority of hacks, the story doesn’t end here. Multiple AAG coins (the native coin of metaverse software company AAG Ventures) were stolen from Harmony. The company lost coin amounting to  $84 million. AAG partnered with Lossless DeFi and has applied their mitigation tool to protect its funds. It represents the industry’s first framework for exploit mitigation. Only one day before the attack, Lossless launched their protocol on Harmony. So, they managed to intervene in the event of the attack as soon as the theft was announced and freeze $78 million in AAG coins. when  the coins were recovered. Lossless announced on Twitter Further, the retrieved AAG coins were successfully sent to the . AAG Ventures wallet Bottom Line All the major attacks are performed on blockchain bridges. It demonstrates that this technology, even though highly necessary, needs to be improved. The smallest flaw in code may lead to huge losses that are frequently lost forever for users. I believe that while the technology of blockchain bridges is improving, exploit mitigation solutions like the one offered by Lossless will also grow in importance.

The Biggest Recent Cryptocurrency Hacks: What Is Behind Them?

A call to action for Linux Desktop Distros When it comes to those we care about, we wish to see our loved ones succeed and become the best versions of themselves. We encourage them to push forward through this crazy thing we call life, and maybe even become a bit disappointed when someone we love makes a less-than-ideal decision. Perhaps the same can be said of fans of the Linux desktop. It's like family to us. But to say that our relationship with Linux on the desktop has been strained would be an understatement. We love our favorite desktop distribution. Perhaps not in the same way as we would feel for a human or canine family member, but we do want to see the Linux Desktop flourish - and dare I say it, succeed. Perhaps that's part of the reason why it sometimes becomes so irritating when we Linux enthusiasts witness Linux shooting itself in its own foot. Linux itself is incredibly successful, yet far from perfect - but still surprisingly popular depending on how you look at it. Chances are, the majority of your favorite sites and online services are powered by Linux. And while you were in the process of binge-watching the entirety of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds last week, it was probably a stripped-down variation of the Linux kernel running inside your television that presented Captain Pike's latest adventures onto your screen in glorious 4K. If you carry around an Android phone, you can thank Linux for facilitating your recent delivery call to your favorite Chinese restaurant. Who knows, perhaps some of you are reading this article from a Linux PC. (Maybe). Here's the thing, and I'm going to be very blunt. . It always has. But like I alluded to in a recent video on my YouTube channel while I was talking about the "Year of the Linux Desktop" - that's just not going to happen. At least, not until less-than-ideal decisions stop being made that ultimately leave newcomers frustrated. Especially when their best friend can't stop talking about how great Linux is - but every time they attempt to use it, they wonder why the list of available WiFi networks is always empty. Or even why their fancy ultra-wide display isn't able to reach its native refresh rate. Linux already has the power to conquer the Linux desktop Soon, I'll let you know exactly why I feel as though the decisions being made for many popular distributions are causing the entire Linux desktop dream to be an exercise in futility. But I think it's important to first acknowledge that historically some major advancements have in fact been made, and there are a ton of bragging rights we Linux nerds can legitimately claim as our own. When I first started using Linux, even attempting to install an Nvidia driver risked bricking the entire installation. Either that or I had no idea what I was doing back then. And that's just the beginning. Default networking wasn't configured automatically during installation like it is now, so good luck getting anything on the internet to load until you figure out how to set up a default route. That's no big deal, though - you can perform a quick Google search and find the solution within a Stack Overflow post. But you can't Google anything (the internet doesn't work). Even worse, Stack Overflow didn't even exist back then when I first started. Today, problems like those (and many others) are a thing of the past. Nowadays, 20 years after I installed my first Linux distro on a scrawny 300Mhz PC (the kind where the monitor sat on top of the desktop, remember those?) most things actually work out of the box. And considering how bad compatibility was when I first started, that’s saying a lot! However, the few things that (still) don't work, are the things that are causing a great deal of damage when it comes to Linux adoption, especially for newcomers with a low tolerance for frustration. To best describe the actual issue I'm referring to, I'm going to describe a hypothetical scenario because that's always more fun. And also because I'm going to make your brain do some work while you read this article. Just go along with it: Joe, a pretty cool guy in upstate New York, has a nerdy friend named Nick that does all that hacky/matrix-like computer stuff. Joe's computer is old as dirt and all the local computer fix-it people are telling him it's time to buy a new one. Nick, being the typical Linux stereotype that he is, springs into action. He's been for this. This is HIS moment, and he's going to seize the day! Then, he opens his mouth and drops the stereotypical Linux bomb: training "Don't replace your computer, run Linux on it! It's so much faster it’ll feel like you have a new computer". So, Joe decides to take his advice and install Linux. But unfortunately, we run into a fork in the multiverse with two totally different outcomes. If Joe somehow ends up trying Debian first, that's Universe A. If he lands on Linux Mint, he's made his way into Universe B. In this particular iteration, Joe ends up in Universe A because he landed on Debian for some reason. His chances of success are, unfortunately, very low. Perhaps he'll boot the installation media, but see nothing but a blank screen because Debian doesn't like his choice of video card. Or, maybe he's not a gamer and has integrated graphics made by Intel. In that case, the installation media starts with no problem - but after installation, he can't access the internet because Debian doesn't appreciate the particular WiFi card that Dell decided to preinstall in his notebook. Or, maybe all of that is totally fine and works great. But unfortunately, Joe ends up feeling intense rage when he sits down to listen to his favorite Metallica album, only to find out his sound card isn't supported and as a result, Kirk’s signature guitar riffs won’t be coming through his speakers anytime soon. Congratulations - We've lost Joe. He'll never try Linux again. He's now a permanent Windows or Mac user. So, what about Universe B? What if Joe went along with Linux Mint for his first foray into the magical world of Penguin-powered computing? Well, there's actually a much higher chance of success. Why? Well, because Ubuntu (which is what Linux Mint is built on, long story) also hates the hardware inside Joe's machine but they loathe it a bit less than Debian does, so they go a bit further in trying to make sure Joe's hardware works out of the box. On a side note, why the heck hasn't someone made the back-and-forth drama within the Linux community a streaming TV series yet? It would be GREAT. Anyway, the unfolding story of Joe's migration to Linux was completely made up by yours truly shortly after I impulsively decided to write this article. But actually, it's kinda true though. In real-life, scenarios just like that play out over and over and over. Someone's success rate depends on their level of patience, and how understanding they are, yet mostly on which distribution of Linux they happen to start out with. More specifically, the politics behind the distro itself. If you told me twenty years ago that Nvidia GPUs would still be a pain in the you-know-what to get working inside a Linux install to this very day, I wouldn't believe you. Yet, here we are. As I scrolled through my news feed earlier this week, a story came up from Phoronix in which the popular Linux blog broke the story that folks within the Debian project are having a serious discussion regarding how to handle proprietary hardware. The current year is 2022. Why are we only solving this now? This has literally been a problem for longer than I've had a career in Linux. What's the actual issue? Mainly, proprietary hardware. "Proprietary hardware" refers to hardware for which the Linux community doesn't have source code. Whenever that's the case, we rely on the good graces of hardware vendors to do us a solid and create a driver for our preferred operating system. And believe it or not, many of them do. Yet the drivers they provide are closed-source "proprietary" blobs, are shunned by the Linux community, and are considered evil. And you know what? I totally agree with that mindset when it comes to proprietary drivers. They truly are bad. Because distribution maintainers don't have access to the source code, they can't fix any bugs that are found. But, so what? We could simply just have the vendors fix the bugs in their own drivers. After all, they wrote the darned things. But good luck with that - Linux users aren't important enough for them to prioritize, so we're stuck with proprietary drivers as-is (bugs and all). Another issue with proprietary drivers is that a newcomer to a particular Linux distro might encounter glitches and quirks if these drivers are used, resulting in them having a negative experience with that distro that could influence their opinion of it. So, how do some distributions protect their users from having such a negative experience? By giving them a negative experience. (Seriously. You can't make this up). Some distributions handle the proprietary driver debacle surprisingly well, yet other distributions do an absolutely terrible job of dealing with this. Let's pick on Debian again. (Dear Debian, I really do actually love you, honest). What Debian does in response to this (and other distributions of the same mindset do this as well) is remove access to the required drivers from their installation media. To be fair, there are reverse-engineered open-source equivalents for many pieces of hardware being made available, and they’re great. (Actually, those drivers are terrible and barely work at all - but their developers are talented humans that mean well). Removing access to drivers that are required for a user's piece of hardware to function at its peak capacity sounds like a really mean thing to do, doesn't it? But in actuality, the reasoning distribution maintainers have for doing this is sound. The situation around proprietary drivers is truly as bad as they make it out to be, they're not exaggerating. There's an actual reason why Linus Torvalds famously gave Nvidia the middle finger at a convention a while back. I don't necessarily agree with his delivery on getting his point across, but hardware vendors can't be bothered to take us seriously. If we Linux folk had access to the source code, we could fix any bugs that are found in a fraction of the time it would take for Microsoft or Apple to release an update to their respective OS. And we'd look better doing it, too. Technically, when I refer to source code in regard to a specific piece of hardware, I'm actually referring to design specs - but I say source code for those that don't care about specifics. But the lack of access to this information, which is information that we could use to make the Linux desktop more performant and stable, ends up causing Linux users to have a negative experience, and that negative experience gives our beloved operating system (yes I know it's a kernel) a bad reputation. As I alluded to earlier, some distributions actually do a good job when it comes to handling this situation. Or at least, as good of a job as possible given what we have to work with. Ubuntu is actually a great example of a desktop distro that does this right. If your hardware requires proprietary drivers, Ubuntu has you covered. During the installation process, you can select an option to tell it to install those drivers for you. If you forget to do that during the installation, or if you buy proprietary hardware, later on, Ubuntu includes an "Additional Drivers" app, that gives you access to (drum-roll please) additional drivers! After making a selection and rebooting your PC, your hardware starts working. It’s actually that simple of a process, and I'm not even done with Ubuntu yet. Another clever workaround its developers at Canonical have come up with is a feature known as Hardware Enablement Updates. These enable the longer-supported "enterprise" releases of that distribution to have access to drivers for supporting newer pieces of hardware. Wow! Ubuntu, Canonical's flagship Linux distro, knocks it out of the park! They literally cover every angle of this problem. Yet for some reason, Ubuntu is the distribution that the Linux community seems to hate the most. Again, you really can't make this stuff up. But getting back to our friends Joe and Nick and the rest of that contrived scenario I came up with earlier, this is why Joe's migration to Linux on his notebook has a good chance of ending in failure. His overall opinion on Linux can be influenced largely by his experience, and with the inconsistency in how well or not each distribution handles this situation, it could literally go either way. Either he'll become a lifelong Linux convert, or someone will witness his notebook being tossed out of his second-story office window as if it were a frisbee. Some of you may feel as though I'm blowing this out of proportion. But consider this. If you didn't already know, my entire career is built around Linux. All of my bills and personal expenses are paid from the work I do producing Linux-related content (which I create solely while using Linux - I’m actually that obsessed with it). I absolutely love Linux and the fabulous people within its community. But I almost didn’t become a part of that community. I remember being frustrated when I first started researching Linux, and I almost didn't even bother trying it. I'm nervous to even think about how different my life today would be if I fell into Universe A or some similar branch of the multiverse. The reality is, that many people actually give up on Linux on the desktop all the time. And in a lot of cases, the reason is due to how poorly some distributions handle the situation with proprietary hardware. You know what? This needs to change. As the brilliant and talented people in this wonderful community that we are, it's time for us to work together and fix this. I totally understand that proprietary drivers are unethical. I don't like them either. But we have to take into consideration some absolute, non-debatable FACTS. Whether we like it or not, proprietary hardware exists and is being sold on PCs. And the owners of said hardware just want it to work. As genuine as our loathing for proprietary drivers happens to be, our users don't care about these politics in the way that we do. We can certainly educate people on why proprietary drivers are bad. We can encourage them to speak out against the companies that have bad policies around their hardware. But we cannot, under any circumstances, hold the user experience hostage just to prove our point. It's time for each and every single Linux distribution in existence to give their users as good of an experience out of the box as we possibly can, even if that means enabling proprietary drivers and including them inside all installation media. Am I making that out to be simpler than it actually is? Yes, absolutely - there's so much history (including laws) around proprietary drivers and why they're such a thorn in our side, that I cannot possibly summarize all of the core issues surrounding them in one article. This is a tedious situation, for sure. But we need to stop punishing the user. There's no excuse. So, what can we do about it? Sure, I can come up with solutions and propose them, and you might even think my ideas are clever. But that's not the right way to handle it. The Linux community needs to work together to solve this (in the interest of the user) and the community specifically needs to be what comes up with said solution. A solution where the end result must be the user having an out-of-the-box installation of any distribution with their hardware fully enabled. It doesn't matter how it's designed and how we get there, but the end result needs to be exactly that. No other outcome is acceptable. And you know what? The Linux Community is amazing, and I know for a fact this can (and it will) be solved. Let's make like Picard and make it so.

Linux Desktops and Hardware Enablement - It’s Time for a Change

A short story about your future John has finished his night shift as a security guard in some international corporation and went straight to the convenience store to buy something sweets for his granddaughter. It was the day of her 5th birthday party to which John was invited. He was looking for something extraordinary when he finally saw a gigantic box with various sweets inside. The moment John saw it, he knew it would be ideal for the gift. Having checked his account promptly, John saw that he had enough money to live till the next payment, so he decided to make the purchase. John took the enormous jar and went to make the purchase. The payment has been declined John was a little shocked by this message; however, with all those technical novelties, it is clear that mistakes happen, aren’t they? So John made his second attempt. The payment has been declined. To access more information, please check your personal profile How come John cannot make the purchase if he has sufficient funds in his account, you might think. The situation seems illogical. Something must have happened to his payment card; it is the only sensible reason. John took the smartphone out of his pocket and checked his profile. A new message was waiting in his information box, along with a bright red notice saying The payment has been declined due to personal limitations. - How can I be limited by this stupid profiling system they just introduced two months ago? It is something for those teenagers out there and not for me, an old chap. Nevertheless, John read the message. Read it while standing there in disbelief. He was not even angry, not even sad. He just stood there. Empty. Helpless. Outplayed by the world and society to which he devoted his entire life. He did not go to his granddaughter’s birthday as he was too ashamed to go there without any gift, and he did not have enough time to search for something else. John headed home to his old armchair. The last thing that reminded him of the past times he used to live in. The message on his personal profile was as follows. * *Citizen no. L3789B4 — John Smith Due to health problems caused by diabetes, it is highly advised not to accept any purchases of sweets, food containing a high level of sugar, and any alcoholic beverages until further notice. Dr. Samuel Thorace. Society needs you healthy John Smith. You will accomplish great things in the bright future that will come with our hard work and effort. We care about you. * *The message has been sent automatically as a reminder. The introduction of CBDC — Central Bank Digital Currencies Let us begin with a short explanation of what CBDC are and what they are not, no matter how the concept is presented to the broader public. CBDC are not cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum. CBDC are not money in the proper definition of this word either. There is also a claim stating that CBDC will be the digital equivalent of the money that we have at present. However, are we using cash all the time? At the moment, we are paying at checkout using our credit card; we are purchasing tickets via the Internet with our digital funds. Is this not a form of digital currency? When we think of the monetary system nowadays, its substantial part is digital to such an extent that cash is a rare view to see. So why are we talking about digitizing our money if those are already digital? What is the purpose of it? In order to answer this question, we have to consider the following things and look for answers which will emerge: Who is in charge of our funds Can our funds be used in any way we like How private is our account Who is the one in charge? Let us begin with the first of the listed criteria. As the name states, CBDC is created by Central Banks; however, what is the difference between having an account in a central bank and an ordinary bank that we know? A bank is a bank. At least, most of us think so. The truth is, those two institutions are not equal. are responsible for managing and creating monetary policies of given countries in most cases. You can think of it as The Bank of a given country. It is an oversimplification; however, the details and discrepancies of the banking system are not of the utmost significance here. Central Banks - Oh, so Central Banks are just the superior banks for which the country is responsible? It is not so bad then. I trust my government. The answer is — it depends. Whether Central Bank is an institution tied and managed by the government or a private institution entirely or to some extent depends on the country. Taking the United States, for example, with its , also called FED, it is not so true to say that FED is a state institution. Federal Reserve System However, FED is also not private. In this case, the Board of Governors is an independent government agency. The individual Federal Reserve Banks, on the other hand, are private institutions in which you can hold stocks and earn dividends. This leads us to the point where we are aware that our funds will be held by the Central Bank itself. The institution which, quite often, single-handedly influences or creates the state monetary policies. Personal accounts stored and maintained directly by Central Banks will significantly alleviate the influence on the financial policies that Central Banks already pose. It will also be dramatically easier to control the individuals within the society. Freedom of use If the Central Bank is in charge of our funds, can we use our funds as we like? Well, yes and no. The freedom of choice is not going to be restricted within the previously established boundaries. However, can such a choice be called freedom? Can we agree that the choice of books to read while being supervised on every step in prison be called freedom? I do not think so. The state, which pretends to act in the name of the highest virtues, will set the boundaries, and societies will have to obey in order to create an idyllic world. The world in which everyone is the best version of himself thanks to the state. However, this world is an ideal one from the perspective of a government. The world where the state does not have to be afraid of nonconformists going wild or acting against the will of the ruling party. To me, such a world resembles the one portrayed in the great book 1984 written by George Orwell. Time also plays a significant role here as some CBDC can be and probably will be . Some voices speak of the immoral spending of the funds sent by the government to help people in need. The families living in poverty are being given some money that is spent on alcohol rather than on food. The people who faced some in a given area are buying electronic devices and other unnecessary items rather than buying clothes and ensuring safe shelter for their children. time-based natural disasters We are aware that such situations take place even more often than we might think. However, can it be the spark that will ignite the public debate and advocate for time-based CBDC for every citizen? It definitely can. When it happens, what will be the way of saving money? How will we be able to store savings in order to achieve the goal of financial freedom? Well, freedom of the individual is something that CBDC is going to annihilate, so come up with the answer for yourself. Nevertheless, let us assume that time-based CBDC is not implemented, and we can still manage our savings. In such a situation, we shall focus on the problem of our by the bank due to a violation of the account or the law of a given country. funds being frozen What can we do if our funds are frozen on our account, and every transaction can be monitored and located? The answer is not much because we are only left with the cash. However, the introduction of CBDC is the first step to a swift cleanses of all the cash within the system. When it happens, we can do nothing. That is the answer to the previous question. What do we have to do to freeze our funds on the account? Well, the answer is — anything that the state or the bank will not like. Any act of disobeying, any rebellious tweet, any written article that the party will not like. That is the freedom of the money we will be left with. Privacy The future does not seem to be so bright for our privacy. Not everyone is concerned with this ongoing change; some people claim that privacy is the cost we have to pay in exchange for security. I am not saying that this is an entirely false or wrong claim; however, I am not an enthusiast of exchanging my privacy for security. So how does CBDC endanger our privacy? It is highly possible that to create the monetary system based on CBDC societies will have to share personal information at the very beginning. However, the further we delve into the system, the more visible the notion of collecting personal data is; even the data that is not crucial or even needed for the system to work correctly. The next step in data collection will be the medical records of people suffering from severe or chronic illnesses. This will significantly limit the use cases of using money as well as will give away the information that should be kept private and shared only with the medical personnel. Medical records as the next reasonable step along the route of collecting as much information as people are willing to give away is an eerie vision. The point at which the Central Banks and institutions connected to the CBDC system will cooperate to gain almost limitless control of society will come shortly after. When the time comes, people would have to use designated applications to use their funds. However, being constantly connected to the systems managing their personal profiles, such applications might not be as great as we may think. The society in which everyone will have a profile is not as distant in time as it might seem. The very inception of the ranking system in China called the took place in 2009. Since then, more and more institutions are taking an active part in enforcing the mentioned system or the system whose underlying mechanics resemble the one from China. Social Credit System The summary All of the aforementioned ideas and anticipations are not to be laughed at but taken with the greatest caution. Even if those seem ridiculous to some of us, it is better to be following the way of caution than the way of negligence. The future of the monetary systems is the very beginning of the new chapter in the great book of humanity. However, the inception of the CBDC system will probably bring an end to the privacy and the freedom of an individual as we knew in the past. We can say “The future is now old man”, however, not only the elderly will be perplexed about the revolutionary monetary system that is slowly emerging, but everyone who will find out that the freedom of spending our money as we like is no more. Then the time will come to say that the freedom of privacy and the freedom of the individual is no more. Yet, I hope I am wrong. “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” Mayer Anselm Rothschild Lead Image by on Christine Roy Unsplash Also published here.

Monetary Systems and The Future 

There’s a disparity between Work-to-Earn (W2E) and Play-to-Earn (P2E) that will likely hinder the growth of P2E, as an industry. The disparity is caused by prioritizing monetary wealth over experiential wealth. P2E earners have, on many occasions, stated that they are, in essence, generating income via “Play-as-Work.” This begs the question, if they’re playing other games for fun, what does the future look like for P2E, as it stands alone? There’s a way to bridge that gap, however. Resting between W2E and P2E is a need for involvement and belonging that revolves around creating better opportunities for the people around us, without falling behind in modern society. Do gaming guilds provide this? Sometimes. In some ways. Speaking to my personal experience, having been in gaming clans and guilds for a decade or more, it’s not enough to fill the void. Help-to-Earn (H2E) is a new operational model that seeks to supplement the current P2E and W2E economies. Rather than prioritize monetary wealth, H2E, like , prioritizes experiential wealth. People don’t just want to “live their best life” on Insta or any other platform. They want to build lives, rich with experience, for themselves. The , founded in 2020 highlights this. Gen-Z at large LOG OFF Movement Available opportunities to belong and contribute to a cause that is, at least perceptibly, greater than yourself are the root of satisfaction. These can be hard to find. (especially when you’re locked behind a screen for 6-8+ hours each day—just for P2E purposes.) Never mind the highly addictive content serving and social media algorithms that keep people engaged for hours more. Gen-Z purportedly on screen time. spends half of their daily waking life Many communities of older gamers have come to realize the emergent Pay-to-Win model is far better than a traditional “Grind-to-Win” model, provided a player cares sufficiently about what their time is spent on. Time is not money. Time is the one resource in the world that can be traded for anything. There’s practically no time left in the day to seek these causes, much less support them on a wide scale. Help-to-Earn can provide these opportunities on the micro-scale. This results in the empowerment of entire communities, wherein contributors seek their own paths while retaining enjoyment in the other things they do. Some may guide raids, while others may sherpa couples to the top of Mt. Everest. Can P2E Really Scale, Globally? The meteoric rise and (not-so) steady downtrend of popular Play-to-Earn (P2E) games, such as Axie Infinity, has highlighted several core issues. Economies are, ultimately, driven by demand. If you don’t want it, it won’t matter to you. The thing with games like Axie Infinity is, that they’re progression-centric, but their end never really comes—only an opportunity to become the best. Unfortunately, a vast swathe of the Axie community viewed playing the game as a job. Filip, a Slovakian in their 30s, stated that . When asked what they do for recreation, they replied, they only played Axie Infinity for money “ .” I play real games There are projects, such as “ ” that work to bridge the gaps, but most  aren’t fully available or proven yet in the market. Cradles: Origin of Species MOBA games, such as and are progression-centric in a different sense. Start from the ground floor every time you play. Roguelite games, a genre that repeats on death but allows players to carry some progress forward, embody the concepts underlying League of Legends very well, but with a “P2E” twist—death isn’t all for naught. P2E games seek to cross the work-to-earn bridge, but fall short in the sense that , while pleasant in some circumstances, can just as readily become work, . League of Legends DOTA 2 grinding games sometimes worse Just How Well Can P2E Economies REALLY Scale? In-game economies are driven by advancement—progress—rather than scarcity. In-game base currency, such as gold, in League of Legends or DOTA 2, is often infinite in terms of supply, but time-based variables make the unlimited supply. Having this consistent, cohesive, pattern of feast and famine allows players to familiarize it. This ultimately creates a shortened feedback loop by decreasing the game’s overall difficulty, until the match ends. Players’ brains become wired for extracting dopamine in specific channels. If left unattended, this process can effectively hamstring players’ ability to derive pleasure from life’s daily activities. These activities often provide a service that unifies players with the greater society. Without that, they are left with a deep and unfulfilled need. Much of The Current P2E Landscape Is Rooted In (Unhealthy) Scarcity As a result, many current P2E games are likely to scale very poorly as time goes on and adoption levels out, because the reductions in new cashflows will begin to limit the earning ceiling for players. Without new sources to draw from, other avenues must be used to secure net-new capital. This leads us right back to the current cycle, wherein advertisements and other means are used to draw in new money for the ecosystem. At their base level, P2E games are often driven by scarcity—more specifically, the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO), rather than progress. As a result, the number of potential adopters shrinks. The next logical step creates secondary economies that enable early adopters to make (partially) passive income, such as , and the games’ overall economic sustainability plummet if left unattended. Axie Scholarships How Can We Bridge The Gaps That Hold P2E Back P2E serves to fulfill a desire for progress that simply isn’t present in most modern economic structures. The gaps that P2E fills have been the niche that enabled companies like and to thrive. of the market. Those gaps form the basis for achieving satisfaction, as part of something greater than oneself. This attractive force helps to bind communities together, like glue. Twitch Youtube compensated for their time, as consumers in a cyclically consumerist/creator-centric economy. A few key gaps Gamers now expect that they will be hold P2E back from successfully fulfilling the underlying needs Without this sort of force, P2E will struggle to find support during bear markets, also known as “contraction cycles”, where the amount of money invested declines rather than increases. This relationship is highlighted by the transition from creation to consumption of content. Twitch and other streaming services have helped lay the foundation for P2E by enabling an economy wherein gamers and enthusiasts are able to make a healthy living Experience-as-a-Service--H2E Help to Earn is growing. The H2E movement is empowering people to live the life they want to, full of rich experiences, while minimizing the time they need to spend researching, seeking information on social media, or being trapped in a daze by the phone that was “supposed” to set them free to explore the world. H2E supports the P2E ecosystem by filling some of the voids between Work-to-Earn (Web2 “Jobs”) and P2E. Matthew Hairsnape, co-founder of the discusses the concept briefly : H2E movement here Web3 has surfaced with a rare opportunity. We can, for the first time in generations, fully enable people to seek out their passions and support a lifestyle that they love in doing so, where they would have otherwise been drawn into the W2E trap, grinding their life away in a job they hate. Prince Ea, a well-known creator and Forbes 30 Under 30 resident, that highlights this trend, and its impacts on people in modern society: developed a video Community as a Currency (the currency of Web3) The most successful; web3 projects are built atop communities. None of these projects just “had” a community to start, they’ve built them from the ground up. Communities enrich the project not just in terms of floor value, but in terms of livelihood and longevity. NFT communities have built opportunities for both businesses and individuals to take control of their lives and find the passions that will drive them forward. Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), Goblintown, Illuminati, Azuki, Doodles, Cryptopunks (CP), and any derivative projects are just a few of the communities that have arisen and come together as the crypto market has settled into a bear cycle, or crypto winter. These communities aren’t for merch sales, they’re for companionship and unity. Apefest 2022 (featured at NFT NYC) was a massive event, to which hundreds or thousands of BAYC, and Mutant Ape Yacht Club  (MAYC) NFT holders travelled to meet up with each other. Yuga Labs, one of the most reputable NFT development firms in the space recently acquired LarvaLabs, the developer that created CP. Others have sought to recreate their success. Few have succeeded. Help-to-Earn isn’t an attempt to recreate this success. It’s an attempt to empower creators, like those who have made the countless NFTs since CP, and the rest of the world’s population to create meaningful and pleasant experiences. Whether that experience is a shared cruise for two, a solo hike to a local mountaintop, or a club full of people that celebrate together, H2E is designed to support it. Join the Help-to-Earn movement this summer and build on these experiences for the rest of your life.

OUTPLAY

outplayhq.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

OUTPLAY

EVERGREEN INDEX #7275

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Outplay WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

OUTPLAY

outplayhq.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

OUTPLAY

EVERGREEN INDEX #7275

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT OUTPLAY

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Outplay WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!