[sailingparrot]

> Here the "external" source of money for players would be the investors who don't play the game and for investors it would be players playing the game because they think it's fun

They are all part of the same system, both the investor and the players buy or get some AXS, and both hope that AXS will go higher so they can make actual $ later on. None of them are putting $ in the system that they do not want to get back later on, which is very different from someone buying an iPhone: they know Apple will never give them that money back. So it's still a 0 sum game, no matter if some people are playing and others aren't.

> Nothing about the setup fundamentally prevents people from spending real money on real games, and from the token's value to increase as a result, like any normal company.

I agree, that's the last part of my comment. But mechanisms need to be put in place for people to spend (and not invest) actual money in the ecosystem, say through advertising, or buying things (that you cannot resell later at a higher value), and the profit needs to be in part redistributed to the community. That's not happening today in Axie, maybe it will eventually, but today it is indeed a Ponzi scheme.

[adnzzzzZ]

Sorry but I just disagree. A game that is free to play and where every item is bought and can be sold later for a higher price doesn't stop being fun and engaging just because people can sell what they bought when they feel like they don't wanna play anymore. The idea that there absolutely need to be people who are buying things without the intent of ever selling them isn't what would stop from making it a "ponzi scheme". Like I said, people sharing in the success (and failure) of a company's valuation is not a ponzi scheme.

>and the profit needs to be in part redistributed to the community.

This already happens through the token's increase in value. The notion that this redistribution can ONLY happen if there are money sinks in the system is misguided and old fashioned.

[iamevn]

How is the token increasing in value outside of people speculating on it? The only money entering the system is investors and fees drain that out of the system. Without people spending, not investing, the system is doomed to hurt people who are left holding tokens when everyone else has cashed out.

[adnzzzzZ]

>The only money entering the system is investors and fees drain that out of the system

? Fees are generally extremely small. All the money that enters the system is from investors and from players. The fees are minimal and have almost no effect on this.

>Without people spending, not investing,

Those are the same thing because both players and investors can cash each other's money out. There's literally no distinction between both things.

>the system is doomed to hurt people who are left holding tokens when everyone else has cashed out.

That's the case with every stock that currently exists. When a company fails there will be bag holders who lost a lot of money. Ideally the company doesn't fail and keeps making games forever.

[iamevn]

> All the money that enters the system is from investors and from players.

> Those are the same thing because both players and investors can cash each other's money out. There's literally no distinction between both things.

So the only people putting money into the system are investors? Like I said.

> That's the case with every stock that currently exists. When a company fails there will be bag holders who lost a lot of money. Ideally the company doesn't fail and keeps making games forever.

If you hold a share of a company, you get dividends from the profits of company separate from the market. Even if nobody wants to buy your stock it still has value.

[smoldesu]

So what you're trying to tell me is that trickle-down economics works in the context of an app?