Every Web3 game economy that failed did so for the same reason: more value leaving the economy than entering it.
The Axie Infinity economy collapse, the Stepn decline and dozens of smaller P2E failures shared one root cause: token emission rates that exceeded the organic demand for the token from new players. When token price falls, player earnings fall. When earnings fall, players leave. When players leave, the game economy shrinks. When the economy shrinks, token price falls further. This death spiral is not inevitable — it is a design failure. PROPELOO designs Web3 game economies with explicit value sinks (token burns from gameplay, consumables, upgrades), controlled emission rates tied to active player count, and sustainable monetisation that does not depend on an ever-growing player base to maintain token price.
Frequently Asked Questions
What caused the collapse of most P2E games?
Token emission rates that outpaced demand. Every P2E game emits tokens as player rewards. If new player capital entering the game (buying tokens or NFTs) is less than the value of tokens being emitted to existing players, token price falls. When token price falls, APY falls. When APY falls, players leave. When players leave, new player capital falls further. The collapse is a hyperinflation event. Prevention requires: emission rates tied to active player count, strong value sinks that absorb emitted tokens, and a fun game that players want to play regardless of token economics.
What is a dual-token model?
A dual-token model separates the governance/investment token from the in-game spending currency. Example: AXS (governance, limited supply, investment vehicle) + SLP (in-game currency, high emission, used for breeding). This allows the in-game economy to inflate the spending currency without directly inflating the investment token. The failure mode: if the in-game currency has no sink and inflates infinitely, it eventually pressures the governance token anyway. Both tokens need well-designed economics.
How do we make the game accessible to non-crypto players?
ERC-4337 account abstraction allows email/social login that creates a wallet under the hood. The game sponsor gas on the player's behalf. Players never see MetaMask or need to buy ETH. Assets are owned as NFTs but the player experience feels like a normal mobile game. When players want to trade or withdraw assets, the wallet is ready. This is the correct architecture for Web3 games targeting mainstream audiences.
What is ImmutableX and when should we use it?
ImmutableX is an Ethereum Layer 2 purpose-built for gaming — built on StarkWare ZK-rollup technology. It provides gas-free NFT minting and trading (developer pays minting costs, players trade for free), Ethereum-level security, a gaming-focused marketplace (Immutable Marketplace) and an SDK designed for game developers. It is the correct chain for games with high NFT transaction volume targeting the Ethereum ecosystem. Trade-off: less DeFi composability than general-purpose L2s like Arbitrum or Base.
How do we design value sinks in a game economy?
Value sinks are mechanisms that remove tokens from circulation: crafting/upgrade costs (burn tokens to improve NFTs), consumable items (potions, ammunition that must be purchased), tournament entry fees (tokens burned or distributed as prizes), breeding fees (cost to create new NFTs), cosmetic purchases, premium features and governance staking lock-ups. The sink rate must be modelled against the emission rate at expected player counts. If emission > sink at all realistic player counts, the economy will inflate.
Can we add Web3 to an existing traditional game?
Yes, but the integration depth varies significantly. Adding NFT cosmetics (skins, avatars) to an existing game is relatively straightforward — mint NFTs for in-game items, add wallet connection to the game client, display NFT ownership in the game. Adding a play-to-earn economy to an existing game is much more complex — it requires re-designing the reward system, adding token economics and potentially rebalancing the entire game economy. Retrofitting play-to-earn onto a game designed without it often produces incoherent economics.
