SIP-13: NFT Evolution: Crafting & NFT Drops

🎯 SIP: Finished Rejected/Quorum not reached
21

Interviewed @CryptoDiplo about SIP-13 and published it to YT, Spotify, RSS. What might not be obvious to the reader is that Diplo intends for this SIP to enable market trading activity of the crafted NFTs and NFT drops.

For example, take Runescape. You go to an iron rock and mine ore, which then goes into your inventory. In Diplo’s SIP, this iron ore becomes an NFT, which can then be traded, bought, sold.

OR! You can take that iron ore, put it in an furnace, and smelt it into iron bars. Those irons bars become an NFT, which can then be traded, bought, sold.

OR! You can then take those iron bars to a blacksmith, who then smiths it into an iron sword. That too is an NFT, which can be traded, bought, or sold.

This SIP is intended to start a full player economy on the blockchain. Am I close, Diplo? :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes
22

Yep, dead on. Thanks for the summary.

23

Absolute necessity. Local in game economics will greatly help with user retention and fun.

3 Likes
24

Good concept :+1:t2: :+1:t2: :+1:t2: :+1:t2: :+1:t2:

1 Like
25

This idea seems exciting at first glance, but I’d like to play devil’s advocate and dive deeper into a few concerns:

  1. Utility of NFTs: Right now, all the NFTs in the Sandbox ecosystem are purely cosmetic. While this proposal adds NFT rewards for in-game activities, it doesn’t fundamentally change the lack of real utility for these NFTs. You’re essentially replacing temporary in-game rewards with NFTs, but the key question remains: Who will buy these NFTs? Why should these new NFTs have more value than the current ones? Without a clear market or demand, it’s difficult to see how this would boost their value.

I believe we should focus on making the games themselves more valuable and replayable. Right now, most Sandbox games are a one-time experience—after players finish them, there’s little reason to return. Instead of relying solely on NFTs, what if we introduced a saving or progress-tracking system within the game? Players could feel more invested in their in-game assets, even if those aren’t NFTs. This could drive long-term engagement without the need for constant NFT rewards.

  1. Balancing Fun and Economics: While the proposal aims to boost player retention by integrating NFTs, it risks overemphasizing the economics at the expense of the actual fun. Games like Minecraft and Roblox are successful because they are genuinely enjoyable to play, not because of complex economies. Focusing too much on crafting and trading NFTs might distract from the gameplay, which should be the primary reason players return. :video_game:

  2. User Experience and Friction: The current NFT experience in games involves switching between the browser, wallet, and game, which creates unnecessary friction. Until seamless in-game NFT transactions are possible, this clunky process will frustrate players. The majority of Web3 games have struggled because their players don’t necessarily care about the blockchain or Web3 elements—they just want fun games. Adding more complexity through NFT mechanics might move us further away from user-friendly experiences, which is one of the biggest pain points in the Web3 ecosystem today. Instead of simplifying gameplay, we could be making it even more confusing. :gear:

  3. Sustainability of the Game Economy: The proposal assumes that players will stay engaged in the game by continuously crafting and earning NFTs, but what happens when the novelty wears off? If the in-game economy experiences inflation (too many NFTs or assets being created), the whole model could become unsustainable. Players might lose interest in grinding for NFTs, especially if those NFTs lose their value. What’s the plan if the economic side of the game collapses? :money_with_wings:

Despite that, I like the idea and I’m a fan of such a thing, but I think there are hundreds of more important infrastructures that we need to focus on right now. This idea might be great for the next 3-4 years, but I’m against it for now.

You might argue that the dev team can agree with it now and implement it over the next few years, but I believe the market conditions and Blockchain Gaming landscape will undergo huge changes during that time. For this reason, I believe it’s better to set this idea aside and revisit it later, with more details and stronger reasoning.

2 Likes
26

I agree. Its a nice option which can be used by some creators but not by everyone. There are so many gaps to close which are relevant for everyone. Regarding NFTs/assets I think the main problem is just missing demand. You can already mint resources nfts and check them on playerjoined everytime and add depending on nft eg. 1000 wood or 10.000 iron. Yeah its far away from what you described and you need to do a lot of stuff automatically but it works.

1 Like
27

I agree with @arashselective: “We have many urgent issues to address first.”

:one: One of them is the situation regarding an One NFT per Experience that is still pending clarification from TSB.
:two: Another is the applicability of Gems in Props, which also awaits clarification from TSB.

Other important matters are the educational and guidance aspects of this context, such as, for example, the situation with Catalysts.

:three:There has been no clarification on the new methodology for Catalysts being sold for 1 SAND. Within this context, there is no video or direct approach on the use of the Marketplace, how mint, how buy, guidelines, etc. It’s not that there is no demand, necessarily, but most of the community either doesn’t know how to use it or is too traumatized by the situation with Catalysts launch.

:four: How will the methodology for Lazy Minting work? Will TSB bring this up for discussion or will they just present it to the community when it’s launched?

:five: The development of project and artist pages. We need to actively promote the Marketplace, and this is only possible by focusing on the Individuals and Projects.

This discussion we’re having here will only be effective if we first address the urgent needs. There’s no point in thinking about 1000wood or 1M gold tokens if we still have a Marketplace under development, waiting for definitions on guidelines and from the tech department as well.

I’d love to hear @cryptodiplo opinions on the five points raised.

So,

:question: About the NFT Evolution proposal itself:
From my perspective, a solution for this, with scale is not simple and easy!
I believe the strategic solution is to think of an alternative to Polygon, such as Robin, to manage the Crafting Tokens in a different way from the current MINT method.

Thank you!

1 Like
28

Hey dankoyy. I wanted to help you with some of your questions you had.

  1. It has always been the case that you will need to own 1 NFT per experience you wish to use. so if you own 10 lets say cat NFTs. you can use them multiple times in 10 different experiences. Any assets in your workspace you do not need to be minted. any minted assets (NFTs) you will need to own 1 copy per experience you wish to have published. If you unpublish an experience that NFT then becomes available again.
    e.g you own only 1 chair NFT, you can place that chair 100’s of times in 1 experience. You cannot place it again in a second experience as you only own 1 copy. If it helps think of it in a similar way that when you publish an experience its like wrapping the NFTs to that 1 land. so you need to unpublish to use that NFT again, but if you own multiple copies you can use it in as many experiences as copies you have or if its your own asset in your workspace then you can use it as much as you like with no limit

  2. Since moving to Layer 2 and opening up to UGC, only equipment are utilising the “Gems” now called behaviours. When you go into the workspace you will see that although you can assign a higher catalyst tier you do not have any attributes you can add. Right now only equipment have the attributes you can assign.

  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2OSQWWY00Y This video by TSB shows how to mint assets. How to use catalysts etc. Yes the video doesn’t go into load of details on each aspect but it gives users the knowledge about the process of minting. I do agree that we should have a video describing more about minting equipment compared to props. I will make sure one is created over the next few weeks as this seems important. We do mention on our streams though the difference between minting and feel free to hop on over to the official streams and ask theses questions for answers if needed.

The other topics I can’t really add additional information on, Although I’m very much behind artists having an “artists page” or just “store pages” will be great for creators both artists and Game Builders to promote themselves

2 Likes
29

Hey!

several points concern me,

  • starting with the 1sand catalysts, because even if I like the idea, with the investments that I have made on the catalysts in foresight of the future, I would have, on the one hand , the impression of being a loser and on the other hand the random side is too… random, which can pose a problem depending on the economic model of the game in question. (to be put into perspective because perhaps the secondary market could balance things out)

  • Then, regarding the usefulness of nfts, I believe that it is mainly the creators who must bring added value to it, TSB is there to provide us with the most advanced tools possible but the content/value is imputed to us, it is It is our responsibility to make useful nfts. Creating nfts for the sake of creating nfts makes no sense.
    If I take the example of a Jamiroquai nft that I have just acquired (just because I am a fan and degen), nothing prevented the company “Jamiroquai” from providing authorization to play Jamiroquai Music in experiences having and exposing this nft.
    The big problem remains the web2 vision in a web3 world, in my opinion.

  • Having an evolving system is very interesting but an nft is supposed to be frozen in time and although I understand the why and how it remains paradoxical in my opinion (I am perhaps already an old conservative resistant to the world of nfts ).
    Transform a common nft into a rare should be done via the creation of a new nft.

  • Concerning the pleasure of playing, I actually agree 1000% with the idea that the pleasure of playing is more important than the lure of winning. Yes, a player must receive rewards, must see his character, his equipment evolve, this is the principle of the game and the reward but orienting everything around a monetary aspect is suicidal.
    I watch my son (10 years old) play Roblox, of course he talks to me about Robux but what seems to me to be above all else is the fun, the search for skins, special attacks, combos, everything lots of things directly related to gameplay.
    (when he talks to me about minecraft it’s the same, I’ve never heard him talk to me about playing to earn money)

  • Another point, unintended in reaction to @Pandapops 's post about the gear mint. It’s true that there are things that I didn’t understand when I mined equipment, for example I mined a rare asset (1 copy) and sent it to a player but the rare remained in my wallet and it’s an uncommon (that I hadn’t mined) which is gone, or an asset minted in a single copy, sent and received by the owner but which is still available in my equipment list ( the player nevertheless received it well). a few examples to say that indeed, a video detailing more precisely the differences between prop mint and equipment mint would really be a good thing.

(also i speak to much, i need to watch the Lanzer podcast to have a better understanding)

30

I’ve been talking about situations related to an “One NFT per experience” multiple times on the Creator Forum and also DAO since I discovered this in may. Without a proper response.

It’s much more of a issue and demand from the buyers than from the creators. It seems to me that The Sandbox doesn’t understand this.

The situation is very delicate because, although you (TSB) repeatedly say that this was known for long time, in reality, it caught many creators and buyers by surprise, and many, who have never even Mint or buy NFTs, don’t know about it. It’s a unkown and hidden rule!

So it’s more a matter of you seeing how much this is a hands-on issue and taking action, or waiting ten months again, as was the case with Catalyst.

It really depends on you (TSB) having the insight to understand the need to use NFTs as assets to promote experiences and publications, instead of creating a scarcity system where it doesn’t belong, unnecessary and overly greedy.

So, without real use cases for NFTs as Assets, I, as a buyer and customer, cannot do anything with them while this rule is being applied as it is.

So, you’ve already created a challenge with the individual Catalysts, and now you’re creating another difficulty regarding NFTs use.

It’s like @KamiSawZe post on Twitter— “It’s a license”.
It’s like you’re not really the owner of your NFT; you only have a license to use a copy in a single Experience.

Also all the management problems and issues in using the NFTs as a buyer, etc.

So, basically, I’ve gone through this from various angles, and I don’t know how else I can technically and thoroughly explain the TSB ecosystem for TSB, not only to carefully look at this situation but also to study solutions for it, because the problem related to this is very, very, very serious.

31

I’m discovering this now, I’ve never been faced with this problem because most of the time I create my assets, that said it doesn’t seem strange to me that you have to own an asset through experience, otherwise the value itself of the asset would be devalued. It wouldn’t really make sense to be able to duplicate an asset infinitely.
Imagine, in the example I give with the Jamiroquai asset, if they had granted a right to broadcast the music, then you could play the music in 1000 experiences, what would be the value of that, 0 for the creator as for the user, in my opinion
we’re owner of 1 nft not of the whole serie.

32

Yes. Creators who own their Assets do not undestand the NTF buyer pespective. And thats why the “feelance Artist work” to create Asset is way more usual than buying NFT in the TSB ecossystem, becouse Asset you can use freely.

It’s a long discussion and, in reality, if you don’t have the buyer’s perspective, it’s very difficult. I’ve made several posts about the subject.

For me there’s a depreciation in the Asset’s value if I can’t use it in multiple experiences as NTF.

It’s only the buyer’s perspective and the empathy between value and use that are applied.

1 Like
33

This is great discussion here. Will address the main topics I think are being covered:

We should do this later, it’s not a priority right now - I sympathize with this, so here is the pitch for why someone should vote yes on this SIP:

  • This is meant as a long term project, there are no deadlines, it’s merely to begin exploring this idea in the short term and to get the community steering in this direction. Note the SIP itself is simply for a feasibility study, not a full scale implementation immediately. (My initial SIP put in 1 year as the estimated timeline)
  • Most of the work required for this project is on the website and blockchain development teams, so it won’t distract the team from making the GameMaker better.
  • @arashselective The progress-tracking system you mentioned was actually in my original SIP, but they noted that they are already working on that so there was no need to include. Progress-tracking should 100% come before this SIP in all regards.

Economics - It seems like everyone here has taken my point about creating economies to mean a focus on money; that is not what I meant. My point is focusing on in-game economies, because those are what have proven successful for crypto games. The reason they are successful is because they are simple, don’t require hardcore graphics or complex physics engines, and they are still very fun and rewarding. Think of just ‘minecraft’ as an economy, where you forage for wood and rocks crafting more complex things until you eventually have a diamond armor set. The fun of the economy style game is what will drive interest and marketplace volume.

3 Likes
34

I just looked at quorum…8.8M of 30M with 5 days left. I’m getting a little worried. Has Sandbox responded to you if they will vote? Are you having difficulty contacting SandFam to get votes?

1 Like
35

On my side I would be concerned if TSB do not vote to allow quorum like they did for the 2 last SIPs at the last minute. If they do not this will mean that they use the quorum as a way to vote against SIPs they do not want to see passing.

3 Likes
36

Your remark is more than relevant.
(i just edit this 1 sentence answer and put my reflexion here, 1h30 later , after watching the full podcast)

so my opinion now:

I abstain because although I appreciate the reflection on the subject, I do not agree with the fact that the nfts have a purely aesthetic role, moreover I admit that I do not really understand where this comes from observation.

  • There are quite a few things that seem to me to already exist or that can be done via nfts and game logic.
    For example special attacks, nothing prevents you from having an NFT which credits the player with a specific number of special attacks and possibly adding a way to recharge this special attack credit in the game. (Or I didn’t understand)

  • The downside for me is offering modifiable nfts, that’s unthinkable for me.

  • You’ll probably be chocked by that but I admit that the advice of the council also weighs in my choice, I want to see what priorities are mentioned to justify the negative recommendation on this sip.

  • I watched the podcast and tried to understand everything but it didn’t convince me.
    I apologize if I failed to understand the value of the proposition.

  • Regarding the negative recommendation, although it is frustrating, the fact that you are involved and proposing things makes you involved and I think that is something truly remarkable. Thanks for that.

Thank you @lanzer for taking the time to delve deeper in the topics and @cryptodiplo for your time and energy on this SIP.

Despite my vote I still think that this subject remains important, particularly in the automation of certain functionalities in order to streamline the gaming experience.
(it’s google translation, i hope it make sens to you, when i read it it doesn’t make sens to me :sweat_smile: , i’m talking about “user experience/fluidity” when i write “streamline” )

1 Like
37

Thanks @sebga. Understand the perspective and appreciate the commentary, very helpful to know how people are thinking about it. To address a few points for other people reading though:

  • There is no way to do any sort of crafting with NFTs or NFT drops in the game. Not sure what you mean by the special attack piece. Crafting is just trading NFTs with specific recipes.
  • There is no modification of NFTs in my proposal, there is only trading, minting, and burning, all of which you can already do with your nfts if you want to, this just makes it easier.
1 Like
38

You betcha @sebga !! :slightly_smiling_face: I’m happy to

1 Like
39

@Geraldine Please direct the sandbox to vote abstain on this proposal to reach quorum

40

@Geraldine Do you know if the Sandbox plans to vote or if they are using their vote to withhold quorum?

1 Like