If it were possible to regulate the flow of NFTs in a closed market, this would be a different story. Interoperability will be key in the future, according to industry upstarts, and digital assets represented by NFTs will be portable from one platform to another.

Large gaming companies generate billions of dollars from microtransactions, and a key factor in their success is their ability to retain players willing to pay money for in-game items. These businesses have developed systems that entirely exclude any legitimate third-party access to certain material or digital assets because they want their player base to invest a lot of money in the game.

NFTs have the potential to be revolutionary since they open the door for broad lending of these assets in addition to allowing speculators to profit. It’s no longer necessary for a player to put a significant number of money into the game in order to fully enjoy it by enabling investors to purchase an NFT and then loan it out to someone – either for a fee or a profit-split arrangement.

How play-to-earn is implemented

A fully developed gaming ecosystem will see the emergence of two different types of stakeholders. Investors who have a sizable portfolio of in-game NFTs are less likely to play the game in exchange for a daily return of $50. Then there are gamers from all over the world, who in certain circumstances would make significantly more money than the minimum wage under a profit-sharing system for lending.

The second category, who can have less money, is more worried about the short-term volatility and low liquidity of digital assets. They are unable to take the risk of accumulating NFTs in the hopes that they will be steadily profitable and hold or increase in value.

In the gaming industry, tradeable digital assets already exist. However, the practice of putting these assets on the blockchain is expanding; this was a general trend in 2021, when NFTs earned $8.4 billion in revenue. The logical next step for this sector is video games, and since more and more of these sales are shifting to blockchain gaming, there may soon be a noticeable increase in established companies moving in-game objects, characters, and skins on-chain.

As opposed to nominally belonging to the investor or player but really being at the mercy of a centralized gaming platform that can ban the user at any time, on-chain assets are designated as unique and belonging to one true owner. It’s more decentralized and provides users a lot more room to choose their own routes, especially when it comes to lending in-game items and lowering entrance barriers.

creating the framework for play-to-earn players to borrow If NFTs result in a rapid expansion of the player base in new markets, they can be extremely advantageous for game producers. Even before one considers how digital assets might be coded to meet cross-platform use cases or be employed in metaverses, making the industry more accessible irrevocably alters the entire landscape.

The compatibility of digital resources

The idea of full cross-metaverse employment of NFTs on a single digital identity raises a host of hitherto unimagined benefits. As a result, potential value is unlocked and speculation may be brought under control in a less erratic and more stable market.

The restrictions must be adjusted and will be based on the rarity of particular assets and what you may do with them. Can they be upgraded? Can you construct on NFT land to increase its value? Should players be able to own an entire mountain, or can they only purchase plots? It will be entirely community-driven if gamers own everything, but creators should have some voice and may feel the need to impose restrictions.

It is likely that a DAO (decentralized autonomous organization) operated system, in which the entire globe is owned by members and NFT holders, is now being developed. However, it is unclear whether this will be sustainable without a rigid set of regulations.

establishing NFT financing

When you attempt to transfer an actual NFT to another user’s digital wallet, problems happen. You would want the loanee to post collateral to secure the loan because there is a danger of the loanee defaulting. This creates a capital cost that acts as a barrier to entry for a sizable number of potential players.

A preferable approach would be one in which the NFT’s utility, or “wrapped,” is the sole thing rented out. An NFT holder can put the asset in a smart contract, specify the loan terms, post it for rent on the market, and let the free market function as it should.

The wrapped NFT is a newly created copy that has the same metadata, URLs, and other characteristics as the original and can be programmed to expire after a specific date. By doing so, the human-trust layer is removed, and the remarkable security that blockchains offer is provided. In essence, this wrapped NFT is only useful and cannot be spent.

It expires, returns to the smart contract at the maturity date, and is burnt as the result of a frictionless, risk-free, and collateral-free NFT lending system. Additionally, if the loanee improves a piece of land or gives a character a lot more playtime, the original NFT might appreciate as a result of the loan.

The blockchain will be updated with these changes as a direct result of the wrapped NFT’s experience. Most NFT projects and protocols are moving in the direction of this methodology in the wake of the infamous Axie Infinity hack, which cost $600 million.

The rumor about large developers

Popular game producers will find it more difficult to avoid presenting some sort of product if current trends continue and the NFT lending sector experiences significant expansion over the following few years.

Ubisoft and Epic Games are already testing, and it’s feasible that NFTs may follow the same trajectory as the idea of cryptocurrencies in general, where everyone will eventually use elements of distributed ledger technology. The notion is that this will become too alluring for businesses to ignore, or they may employ private chains or something similar.

The play-to-earn buzz is not something that traditional gamers like, and they frequently have a point. The overall quality of the market is now relatively low, and players just play these games to earn cryptocurrency, so there isn’t much to get excited about. This has a detrimental effect because it was once hailed as the new paradigm.

The problem of people quitting a project because the value of the rewards has declined due to a token price fall is still there.

Some time may pass before those seeking a better future in NFT gaming. The profitability of large developers’ existing strategies won’t be simply abandoned in favor of a more decentralized NFT-based economy because doing so would undermine their economic model. However, seasoned creators may begin experimenting with already-existing in-game assets as NFTs, and they may profit greatly in this fashion.

Unless their bottom line is in danger or a highly lucrative opportunity arises, multibillion-dollar corporations often adapt slowly. Maybe both of these elements will be crucial in bringing about a change in how we handle digital assets.