Original｜Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)
Author: Wenser (@wenser2010)
On August 12, a paper said to be published by a "Yale University professor" proposed the concept of "ServerFi", saying that it "emphasizes privatization through asset synthesis and a model that focuses on providing continuous rewards to high-retention players", and "research results show that ServerFi is particularly effective in maintaining player engagement and ensuring the long-term viability of the gaming ecosystem, providing a promising direction for the future development of blockchain games." Although it was later verified by 0xUClub founder Jack that this article was most likely a "skinned content" published in the name of Yale University, users who have more or less expectations in the GameFi field still questioned this: Will ServerFi be the "life-saving straw" for subsequent GameFi games?
Odaily Planet Daily will briefly sort out different viewpoints in this article and provide analytical answers to this question.
Market view: mixed reviews, overall optimistic
After the emergence of the ServerFi concept, there was a lot of discussion in the market. For more details on the concept, please refer to the article "Yale University: ServerFi, a new symbiotic relationship between games and players".
In general, the opinions of KOLs and practitioners in the Chinese area are mostly positive. Even the Web3 MMORPG game MetaCene directly changed the suffix of the X platform account to "ServerFi" and posted a message saying: "We are very happy to launch the world's first ServerFi product" and bluntly said "Let the server belong to you (referring to the players)". The following are some representative opinions:
Aiko, an investor at Folius Ventures and a member of the Myshell team, said, “In my opinion, ServerFi’s features include:
- Trade and taxation between different servers
- Different server cultures: highly competitive and peaceful
- New production and consumption curves
- Solve the resource depletion and death spiral caused by over-exploitation in a single environment
- Provide honor and income to server managers (distributors, agents, etc.)
If an economic system is unsustainable, it’s because it’s not complex or diverse enough. Just like a rainforest. When it has a wide range of environments (or maps) and a variety of species, it naturally tends toward equilibrium.”
Crypto researcher and Chinese KOL Haotian wrote, "ServerFi's new operating framework includes 3 features: 1) Focus on long-term participation and value creation; 2) Reduce Ponzi structural risks and reduce speculative behavior; 3) Driven by the decentralized community spirit of web3."
Crypto KOL Dr. Jinglee said on this topic, "As an academic article, there are some doubts about the theory of 'entropy increase' used in the article and the process of proving it in the form of simulation experiments, including the definition of how players 'contribute' to the server. There are also some unclear points."
CryptoV, partner of AC Capital and founder of Open-Rug, said, "This model is essentially the same as play to earn. It just changes the assumption that 'you can make money by participating in the game' to 'the game itself can make money'. In essence, it is a dividend-sharing scheme (for players to share profits)."
Leslie, co-founder of Eureka Guild and researcher in the GameFi field, believes that "ServerFi does put forward some useful logic, but it itself should not be a concept that is fomo'ed. To be successful, Web3 games must meet the conditions of gameplay, gameability, economic adaptation, etc. How to accumulate core players and balance new and old players is an issue that a game needs to focus on."
It can be seen that for the implementation of ServerFi, people can only discuss it from the perspectives of "server ownership" and "benefit distribution between game projects and players", but it is difficult to discuss in depth topics such as "economic model", "game life cycle" and "specific resource exchange". The original text of ServerFi is also more inclined to mathematical fitting and deduction rather than actual project comparison.
Player contribution value data in 2 economic models
ServerFi: Establishing an “Imagined Community of Interests”
Upon closer examination, the core propositions of ServerFi are mainly in the following three aspects:
3 core propositions: number of players, server value, contribution return ratio
First of all, the number of gamers is the premise for the establishment of ServerFi. Because if the number of gamers cannot meet a certain level, the conditions of ServerFi still do not hold: there are not enough players, there are no relatively "old players" and "new players", and there is no "in-game asset" creation link. And this is precisely a major "difficulty" of games in the current GameFi field - insufficient playability and a relatively small number of gamers.
Secondly, the value of the server is the core of ServerFi's operation. When the stratification system of game players is gradually established and the in-game economic system is gradually improved, because of the trading and circulation of "assets" such as internal currencies and props, the server has the corresponding "quantifiable value" - usually it can be linked to the legal currency system. In other words, the core of ServerFi's operation lies in a "Server" that generates value through accumulation. This is also the reason why many people are still spending a lot of money on the construction and playing of legendary private servers - big R players like the feeling of 999 with one knife, and private server manufacturers provide them with corresponding service scenarios and service experiences; if the "value" of this server cannot be accumulated or monetized, then ServerFi will not be able to operate either.
Finally, the contribution-return ratio is an adjustable parameter of ServerFi. If the "numerical parameters" that can be adjusted in traditional GameFi games such as Axie Infinity and STEPN are the production speed of props and the output rate of tokens, then ServerFi can be said to have achieved "the fuzzification and dimensionalization of parameters": game players obtaining in-game assets and synthesizing them is only the first step in making contributions, and the amount and speed of rewards depends more on the "operation and operation of the game server" and "transactions between servers". In the past, the level of GameFi games was limited to the dimensions of "player PVP" and "player system PVE". The game project party exercised the role authority of "God" from a "God's perspective", but now, players, servers, and project parties need to form a "community of interests", thereby stimulating the enthusiasm of different role subjects to invest, maintain and expand the core medium of "server".
ServerFi: A proposed alternative to the Ponzi scheme
Based on the above core propositions, we can continue to deduce that the next step for ServerFi-type GameFi games is to "use the clear to support the side" or "use the clear to suppress the side":
The emotional value and entertainment value of the game cannot be solved by the ServerFi model and must be provided by GameFi's own products. These can be "prop collection", "card lottery", "social ranking", "real feedback". It doesn't matter if there are less of them, but they cannot be absent, otherwise no one will "join the game".
The ownership of the server, the conditions for synthesizing in-game assets, and the clarification between the two are issues that need to be considered in stages at the beginning of the design of the ServerFi model. This involves the distribution of interests between "project parties, big R players, small R players, and free players", as well as the "economic model design of in-game assets and out-of-game servers."
Introduce a "forfeiture mechanism" or "punishment mechanism" similar to a multi-signature agreement to ensure that the adjustment of the "contribution return ratio" can be in a dynamic balance or a state of unanimous agreement among all parties. This is exactly what GameFi games lack or are powerless to do today. After all, the bulk of the cost is on the project side. In order to achieve "quick harvest" and "short-term profit", no matter how successful it is, it is difficult for the project side to resist the temptation and prolong the return cycle; on the contrary, it is also difficult for players to achieve "long-termism" after investing time, energy, funds and other costs.
Therefore, the actual implementation of ServerFi is unlikely to be accomplished overnight.
Summary: Expanding the scope of servers may change the rules of the game
Countless GameFi project parties and players have highly praised Fantasy Westward Journey because it has found a "wobbly but stable tightrope walk" between a specific historical background and different gaming groups, thereby achieving dual adaptation of gameplay and economy, but similar cases are unlikely to become a model.
Compared with this, ServerFi is a "new perspective", especially after expanding different "server types". Although the following diagram has little to do with the GameFi gaming industry, there are also parts that can be used as reference, that is, if the existing concept of "game server" is generalized, different servers can also be regarded as "player gangs", thereby achieving liquidity exchange in a larger range, and thus continuously upgrading the construction of GameFi games.
After all, isn’t the entire Earth also a giant “server”, in other words?
Different Server Classifications in the Computing Industry
