Will ServerFi be the "lifeline" for GameFi?

Author: Wenser, Odaily Planet Daily

On August 12, a paper allegedly published by a "Yale University professor" proposed the concept of "ServerFi," claiming it "emphasizes privatization through asset synthesis, as well as a model focused on providing continuous rewards for high-retention players." Furthermore, "the research results indicate 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 later verified by Jack, the founder of 0xUClub, that this paper is likely a "skin content" published under the name of Yale University, users who have some expectations in the GameFi field still raised questions: Could ServerFi be the "lifeline" for future GameFi games?

This article briefly outlines different viewpoints and analyzes this question.

Market Viewpoints: Mixed Opinions, Overall Optimistic

After the emergence of the ServerFi concept, a significant discussion arose in the market. For details on the concept, refer to the article "Yale University: ServerFi, a New Symbiotic Relationship Between Games and Players."

Overall, the positive viewpoints from KOLs and practitioners in the Chinese community are predominant. Even the Web3 MMORPG game MetaCene directly changed its X platform account suffix to "ServerFi" and stated, "We are pleased to launch the world's first ServerFi product," explicitly saying, "Let the server belong to you (referring to players)." Here are some representative opinions:

Aiko, an investor at Folio Ventures and a member of the Myshell team, stated, "In my opinion, the characteristics of ServerFi include:

• Trade and taxation between different servers
• Diverse server cultures: high competition and peace
• New production and consumption curves
• Addressing resource depletion and death spirals caused by overdevelopment in a single environment
• Providing honor and income for server managers (distributors, agents, etc.)

If an economic system is unsustainable, it is because it is not complex or diverse enough. Just like a tropical rainforest. When it has a vast environment (or map) and diverse species, it naturally tends toward balance."

Cryptocurrency researcher and Chinese KOL Haotian expressed, "The new operational framework of ServerFi includes three characteristics: 1) Focus on long-term participation and value creation; 2) Reduce Ponzi structural risks and minimize speculative behavior; 3) Driven by the decentralized community spirit of Web3."

Crypto KOL Dr. Jinglee commented on this topic, "As an academic article, there are some questions regarding the 'entropy increase' theory used in the article and the process of demonstrating it through simulation experiments, including unclear definitions of how players' 'contributions' to the server are defined."

Cryp to V (Crypto V), partner at AC Capital and head of Open-Rug, stated, "This model is not fundamentally different from play-to-earn; it just changes the assumption from 'participating in the game will earn money' to 'the game itself can generate money.' Essentially, both are profit-sharing schemes for players."

Leslie, co-founder of Eureka Guild and a researcher in the GameFi field, believes, "ServerFi indeed proposes some useful logic, but it should not be a concept to be FOMOed. For Web3 games to succeed, they must meet conditions in terms of gameplay, competitiveness, and economic adaptability. How to accumulate core players and balance new and old players is a critical issue that a game needs to focus on."

It is evident that regarding the implementation of ServerFi, discussions currently revolve more around "server ownership" and "the distribution of interests between game projects and players," making it difficult to delve into topics such as "economic models," "game lifecycles," and "specific resource exchanges." The original ServerFi text also leans more towards mathematical fitting and deduction rather than actual project comparisons.

Player contribution value data in two economic models

ServerFi: Establishing an "Imaginary Community of Interests"

Upon closer examination, the core proposition of ServerFi mainly revolves around the following three aspects:

Three Core Propositions: Player Count, Server Value, Contribution-Return Ratio

First, the player count is a prerequisite for the establishment of ServerFi. If the number of players in a game cannot meet a certain scale, the conditions for ServerFi remain unfulfilled: without enough players, there are no relatively "old players" and "new players," and no creation chain for "in-game assets." This is precisely a significant "challenge" in the current GameFi field—insufficient gameplay and a relatively small number of players.

Second, server value is central to the operation of ServerFi. As the layered system of game players gradually establishes and the in-game economic system improves, the trading circulation of internal currencies, items, and other "assets" gives the server a corresponding "quantifiable value"—usually linked to fiat currency systems. In other words, the core of ServerFi's operation lies in a "server" that generates value through accumulation, which is also why many people continue to spend heavily on building and playing private servers—big R players enjoy the thrill of one-hit kills, and private server providers offer corresponding service scenarios and experiences. If the "value" of this server cannot be accumulated or monetized, then ServerFi cannot operate either.

Finally, the contribution-return ratio is a parameter that can be adjusted in ServerFi. If the "numerical parameters" that can be adjusted in traditional GameFi games like Axie Infinity and STEPN are the production speed of items and the output rate of tokens, then ServerFi can be said to have achieved "parameter fuzziness and dimensional elevation": acquiring in-game assets and synthesizing them is merely the first step in making contributions; the amount and speed of returns depend more on "the operation and management of the game server" and "trading between servers." Previous GameFi games were limited to the dimensions of "player PVP" and "player system PVE," with project parties exercising the role of "God" from a "God's perspective." Now, players, servers, and project parties need to form a "community of interests," thereby stimulating the enthusiasm of different role subjects for investing, maintaining, and expanding the core medium of "servers."

ServerFi: An Alternative "Anti-Ponzi Solution" in Imagination

Based on the above core propositions, we can further deduce that the next steps for ServerFi-type GameFi games need to involve "clearing to suppress Ponzi" or "clearing to inhibit Ponzi":

The emotional and entertainment value of the game is something that the ServerFi model cannot resolve and must rely on the GameFi game's own product offerings, which can include "item collections," "card draws," "social rankings," and "real-world feedback." It's okay to have a little less, but it cannot be absent; otherwise, no one will "enter the game."

The ownership of servers, the conditions for synthesizing in-game assets, and the clarity between the two are issues that need to be considered in stages at the design inception of the ServerFi model. This involves the distribution of interests among "project parties, big R players, small R players, and free players," as well as the economic model design of "in-game assets and external server."

Introducing a "forfeiture mechanism" or "punishment mechanism" similar to multi-signature agreements ensures that the adjustment of the "contribution-return ratio" can remain in a state of dynamic balance or consensus among all parties. This is precisely what current GameFi games lack or are powerless to achieve, as the major costs fall on the project parties. To achieve "quick harvesting" and "short-term profits," regardless of the level of success, project parties find it difficult to resist temptation and extend the return cycle; conversely, players also struggle to maintain "long-termism" after investing time, energy, and funds.

Therefore, the true implementation of ServerFi is unlikely to be completed overnight.

Conclusion: Expanding the Scope of Servers May Change the "Game Rules"

Countless GameFi project parties and players hold Dream of the West in high regard, as it found a "wobbly yet steady" "tightrope walking" approach between specific historical contexts and different gaming demographics, achieving a dual adaptation of gameplay and economics. However, similar cases are difficult to become a model.

In contrast, ServerFi represents a "new perspective," especially after expanding the different "server types." Although the following illustration is not closely related to the GameFi gaming industry, it offers some insights: if the existing concept of "game servers" is generalized, then different servers can also be viewed as "player factions," enabling broader fluid exchanges and continuously elevating the construction of GameFi games.

After all, in other words, isn't the entire Earth also a massive "server"?