Where we are going

Our Vision

Millions of people play poker worldwide and now for the first time on the Polygon ecosystem those players can play in a risk-free zero-cost game while helping to build a thriving successful community. We are creating a common good: a poker club where players can win real value - playing poker and competing to win daily prizes.

Can a gaming platform be fully on chain, fully decentralized ?

or, in other words, how can the web3 revolution the world of gaming ?

Web1 games

Information flow is one-directional. You can buy the game on a CD, or download it on the internet, but the technology allows the informations to flow in one direction only. It's still the same model of the television era.
Players cannot interact, or only peer to peer connection
Feedbacks from the players come from other mediums (emails, forums)
The economic value flow is directed from the periphery (players) to the center (game creators)

Web2 games

information flow is bi-directional. This increases the possibilities of value creation, for example there is the possibility to have online multiplayer games.
Interaction among players and game creators is permissioned.
Economic value flows are directed from the periphery to the center. Technology doesn't allow the value flows to come back to the players.
If within this model a game creator wants to reward the players with a share of the company proceedings (for example, the top players getting a share of the net profits of the company, or whatever), it has to use a technology that is external from the platform (affiliation model, distributing shares, etc), and has to be compliant with very complex laws.
"Skin in the game" is not on chain, so also the game ecology and dispute resolution cannot be held within the platform, as it's impossible to align incentives while actors have their economic incentives (for example proceedings from the advertising) that are external from the game platform.

It's very interesting that in many web2 games, grey markets have started to exist. For example, trading of WoW gold, trade of Fifa accounts and teams, trade of free chips in platforms like Pokerstars.net or Zynga. Players started creating a decentralized economy, even if the platform forbid this.

Web3 games

A third iteration of online games is allowed by a technology that allows decentralized flow of informations and of value. Within this model, there isn't anymore a net border among game creators and players. This allows to build a disruptive, radically different model, capable of rewarding the value creation, with this advantages for poker game:

multiple actors can cooperate to the success of the platform with 100% transparency:
- marketing
- affiliations and referrals
- game ecology
- community building and propping
- operations
- management
- game designers
it is possible to reward the community, allowing players to co-create the game, managing the game and caring of the long term success of the ecosystem because they have skin in the game.
As the value flow happen on chain and are part of the game, the game designer doesn't have the responsibility to allow or not allow the players to trade in game assets. If they are NFTs or ERC20 tokens, they are tradable by design, and this is not something that governments can rule.

PreviousBad Beat Poker Club Wiki NextWhere we come from

Last updated 2 years ago

Our Vision

Can a gaming platform be fully on chain, fully decentralized ?

or, in other words, how can the web3 revolution the world of gaming ?

Web1 games

Information flow is one-directional. You can buy the game on a CD, or download it on the internet, but the technology allows the informations to flow in one direction only. It's still the same model of the television era.

Players cannot interact, or only peer to peer connection

Feedbacks from the players come from other mediums (emails, forums)

The economic value flow is directed from the periphery (players) to the center (game creators)

Web2 games

information flow is bi-directional. This increases the possibilities of value creation, for example there is the possibility to have online multiplayer games.

Interaction among players and game creators is permissioned.

Economic value flows are directed from the periphery to the center. Technology doesn't allow the value flows to come back to the players.

If within this model a game creator wants to reward the players with a share of the company proceedings (for example, the top players getting a share of the net profits of the company, or whatever), it has to use a technology that is external from the platform (affiliation model, distributing shares, etc), and has to be compliant with very complex laws.

"Skin in the game" is not on chain, so also the game ecology and dispute resolution cannot be held within the platform, as it's impossible to align incentives while actors have their economic incentives (for example proceedings from the advertising) that are external from the game platform.

Web3 games

multiple actors can cooperate to the success of the platform with 100% transparency:

marketing
affiliations and referrals
game ecology
community building and propping
operations
management
game designers

it is possible to reward the community, allowing players to co-create the game, managing the game and caring of the long term success of the ecosystem because they have skin in the game.

As the value flow happen on chain and are part of the game, the game designer doesn't have the responsibility to allow or not allow the players to trade in game assets. If they are NFTs or ERC20 tokens, they are tradable by design, and this is not something that governments can rule.