Yeah I got that. My point is there are plenty of people living in USA who are US citizens and who might also be tempted to pull this kind of scam (for want a better term).
Which side is which? As someone not on twitter I’m constantly bombarded with anti-crypto stuff while almost never organically see pro-crypto pieces. I’m assuming you see the opposite? Gotta love algorithmic echo chambers.
A more interesting example would be From software issuing a “moonlight sword” nft (maybe for an achievement like 100% elden ring) and various indie devs creating souls-like games choosing to honor it within their game.
I would like to be polite to you here, but it's going to be hard, because this take is wrong at every single level, and it feels like you haven't tried any sort of critical thinking whatsoever:
1) NFTs are the most expensive, least efficient way to implement the least interesting part of this technology. Even if you accept the dubious premise that they do even that job well.
2) You have explicitly described a system in which every single agreement between devs would require special testing. Is the moonlight sword balanced in the other game? Don't I still have to describe literally every aspecet of the moonlight sword other than who owns it in the second game?
3) Skins and other microtransactions are per game, by an absolute law of their design. That is the point. A game developer has no interest in honoring a microtransaction that I can prove that I paid some other game developer for. I would want my cut.
4) The condition upon which you have proposed that people can acquire the moonlight sword is... for beating Elden Ring? So it's a sign of status. Except that it's a sign of status that I can sell, so it's actually just a signal of wealth or status, maybe? Maybe I can't sell it. But wait, why did I make it an NFT then. So I must be able to sell it, but then it is presumed to have a dollar value, so why wouldn't Fromsoft sell it in the first place. Sounds a lot like a regular microtransaction.
Which brings me to my final point.
5) The market for microtransactions is already very optimized. Videogames are already very good at extracting every penny that people are willing to pay for bullshit cosmetics and play to win garbage. You can't even make money hucking this shit.
Also one final point, if 10 mutually independent devs share an NFT blockchain so the moonlight sword can be transferred between games... what stops me from minting my own moonlight sword? Or super moonlight sword? Or unauthorized micky mouse hats?
But again, not only is that trustful (after all, the "moonlight sword" name, image, etc, are subject to copyright and trademark) if From decides to allow that they can just open an API.
“Is thing in wallet” strikes me as much easier to implement then n^2 api integrations across companies. It’d be easier to do the api method via drm platforms like steam at the cost of lock-in to those platforms; cross pc/console access to any item would be far from guaranteed. Outsourcing all of that logic to a centralized (ex google blockchain) or decentralized blockchain and wallet just seems like a more scalable (num of actors not tps) approach with a low barrier for entry for each individual actor.
Your comment about “trust” has little to do with the technology. It’s a cross between legal gray areas (which would need to be solved/accepted if this becomes the norm) and dogma surrounding web3. I tend to agree that this isn’t likely to happen unless from software essentially abandoned their ip for some reason. But if that happened, it’d be a cool way for the legacy to live in future games in a way that pays homage to the original creators. It’s a use case that makes much more sense then just copying a random gun from one game to another because there are years of history in the item.
> Outsourcing all of that logic to a centralized (ex google blockchain) or decentralized blockchain and wallet just seems like a more scalable (num of actors not tps) approach with a low barrier for entry for each individual actor.
I do think for this to make sense you'd have to have, you know, one blockchain everyone used otherwise you still have the "10 app stores" problem, no?
One could argue stimulus inflates the bubble even more especially if it just goes to wealthy people. The worry there is that it seems to be the only way to prevent a crash; so if there’s another pandemic, war, series of natural disasters fueled by climate change, drought/famine they just print more money and inflate it even more. Just keep pulling the lever until it breaks.
Or maybe it never breaks and we should just pull the lever a bunch today and buy our way out of all the worlds problems.
If salary rises along with inflation there is no problem. There is a mass resignation crisis right now as part of that correction, employers who raise pay will do well and the rest won't. People are also finding income outside of traditional employment.
My opinion is, bubbles burst when people panic and people panic due to lack of communication. In the past, you wouldn't see places like /r/antiwork or /r/wallstreetbets grab wallstreet's attention for example. The rich keep getting richer but they are also now better informed so that they know just how much carrot to hang on the stick for the poor. inflation is normal, hence so are bubbles. Bubbles bursting means failure of the system to sustain itself.
I’d disagree that the only reason people would panic is lack of communication. If you have enough of the events I listed happen I close each other such that the government can’t adequately respond to them, there would be a panic.
I guess my point is maybe that we’re in a fragile system rather then a bubble. It’s self sustainable in the steady state (to your point) but if it breaks it’s going to completely collapse and we just have to hope that we never reach the point where it could break. It’s a Similar line of thinking to controlled burns to manage forest fire before they get uncontrollably big. But in the USA at least, the safety net isn’t there to allow for controlled burns in the economy.
The affluent are invested in companies. Maybe I’m wrong but I’m going to guess American companies have multiple orders of magnitude more debt then the bottom 50% you’re referring to; just not nearly as much relevant to their greater assets. Some percentage of each company value is linked to their ability to take cheap debt, use that for further investments/acquisitions, and have inflation mitigate the damage (directly) or risk (indirectly via bailouts).
None of the above conflicts with your point about wealth but they seem like completely different metrics that aren’t inherently related.
What is important is how much debt you have that cost you less than inflation.
Governments and wealthy individuals have tons of 2% interest (or less) debt. Inflation at 4% erodes that debt pretty fast.
The poor and middleclass have debt at 10-30% and inflation at 4% is doing not much to erode it.
That's not true. Regardless of the interest rate, all loans' principle is inflated at the same rate. You can argue that the poor are more likely to have their principle grow due to underpayment, but that's a separate point.
You say that but if your debt is on credit cards at 20%, believe me, you don’t feel like inflation is your best friend. If you’re the government, it’s a very different scenario.
Whats your idea of underpayment? If a student loan takes 20 years to pay off at allowed monthly payments, that's not underpayment, but lord that is a weight on your neck.
What’s that quote? It’s something along the lines of “the way to get good people to accept or do evil things is to convince them that the end justifies the means”
I think that's a good general principle, but I think the magnitude of the climate change threat and its timelines are exceptional. This principle doesn't generalize to it in my mind, but I'd be happy to hear how we can apply this principle and save the planet.
