[8note]

This does a good job of answering what kinds of transactions you don't care about, but not why you want them to be on a block chain.

The usecase given agregating those assets by the wallet has two problems: 1. You can have many wallets 2. Not everything associated with the wallet has to have it's transactions tracked on a block chain

All you need is one more column in the wow database, and you can pull up your wow assets with your wallet without them being on the L1 or L2 chain

[sophrocyne]

I suppose that’s fair. You could theoretically argue for some “integration” between an off-chain centralized database and on-chain wallet - but unless it were just an untrusted pointer, there would need to be some asset managed from a contract to serve as a “proof” of sorts.

If you’re questioning why people would prefer on-chain vs off-chain games, I wager there’s something appealing about the “decentralized” nature of the system that attracts people to on-chain games - and I put decentralized in quotes because it’s not always certain that’s a promise always delivered on, but it’s where the appeal is derived from.

Regarding your other notes - 1. Same theory applies though. One wallet is often seen as a primary wallet (hot) that manages public facing assets - e.g., registered ENS domain, an NFT, etc. 2. It’s certainly not required that all associations live on chain, but if you want core services and verification of ownership, it’s mostly on/chain or bust.