D E X O R A

Budu k vám přímo. Poprvé, co jsem zkusil copy trading na Binance, jsem si vybral lídra s nejvyšším ROI. Ten chlap měl něco jako 800% za dva týdny. Myslel jsem, že jsem našel zlatou žílu. Tři dny poté byla polovina mých peněz pryč. Vsadil jednu obrovskou páku, šlo to špatně a všichni, kdo ho kopírovali, byli zničeni.
To byla levná lekce ve srovnání s tím, co někteří lidé platí. A naučilo mě to něco důležitého — copy trading a obchodní roboti jsou skutečné nástroje, které vám mohou skutečně vydělat peníze. Ale jen pokud pochopíte, jak fungují pod kapotou. Většina lidí to nechápe. Vidí velká zelená čísla na žebříčku a hází peníze na první jméno, které vidí. To je hazard, ne obchodování.

There’s an open secret in blockchain gaming that’s become increasingly impossible to ignore: the people writing the biggest checks have never seriously played video games and have no intention of starting. These investors are allocating hundreds of millions into gaming without understanding games, gaming culture, or what makes games succeed. The results are exactly as disastrous as you’d expect.
I’ve sat in pitch meetings where investors asked questions revealing they had no concept of basic gaming mechanics, player psychology, or industry fundamentals. They’re investing based on token models and NFT strategies and blockchain architecture while being utterly clueless about the actual product being built. It’s like funding restaurants without ever having eaten at one.

Let me show you what this investor ignorance looks like in practice and why it’s destroying value systematically.
Investment partners at major crypto funds evaluating gaming deals can’t name the last game they played. When asked directly they might mention something from childhood or a mobile game they tried once. They have no recent gaming experience, no understanding of current gaming trends, no feel for what players actually want.
These are people deciding which gaming studios get funded and which don’t. They’re making multi-million dollar bets on games they’ll never play for audiences they don’t understand. Their evaluation framework is completely disconnected from gaming reality.
The questions they ask in diligence reveal the knowledge gap. They obsess over token supply curves and NFT minting mechanics and play-to-earn sustainability. These are important for crypto projects but they’re not what determines gaming success. They rarely ask about core gameplay loops or content pipeline or retention mechanics or any of the factors that actually predict whether games succeed.
When studios present gameplay, investors’ eyes glaze over. They don’t understand what they’re seeing and don’t realize they should care. They perk up when the presentation shifts to tokenomics because that’s familiar territory. The evaluation becomes about assessing a crypto project that happens to have gaming elements rather than assessing a game that happens to use blockchain.
This creates perverse incentives for studios raising money. They learn quickly that investors don’t care about gameplay quality. Investors care about token mechanics and NFT strategies and economic models. Studios adapt their pitches accordingly, emphasizing blockchain sophistication over game quality.
Teams that would normally spend pitch time explaining why their game is fun and what makes it unique instead spend that time on token utility and marketplace dynamics. The actual game becomes footnote in presentations dominated by financial engineering. This is rational response to investor priorities but it’s backwards for building successful games.
Worse, the feedback studios receive from investors reinforces wrong priorities. Investors push for more aggressive monetization, more token integration, more NFT features. They question why blockchain isn’t more prominent. They suggest adding economic mechanics that would harm gameplay. All because they don’t understand that good games prioritize fun over financial extraction.
Studios that resist this pressure and insist on games-first approach struggle to raise capital. Investors interpret their reluctance to maximize tokenization as not understanding blockchain gaming’s potential. The studios that get funded are the ones willing to prioritize blockchain features investors understand over gameplay quality investors don’t.
This selection pressure systematically funds the wrong projects. Games optimized for investor pitches rather than player enjoyment get millions. Games with solid gameplay but modest blockchain integration can’t raise money because they don’t excite investors who evaluate based on token mechanics not fun.
The capital allocation becomes actively harmful to blockchain gaming’s success. Hundreds of millions go to projects designed to impress crypto investors rather than attract gamers. The projects most likely to achieve mainstream gaming adoption can’t get funded because they don’t emphasize blockchain enough to satisfy investor ideology.
You see this in portfolio construction at crypto funds. They’ll fund ten blockchain games with sophisticated token economies and minimal gameplay rather than one great game with simple blockchain integration. The portfolio reflects investor knowledge about crypto not investor understanding of gaming.
Traditional gaming investors are completely different. They understand games because they play them. They know what makes games work because they’ve experienced good and bad games. They can evaluate gameplay quality because they’re themselves the target audience. Their investment decisions are informed by actual product knowledge.

Crypto investors lack this product knowledge entirely. They’re investing in a category they don’t personally engage with. It’s like vegetarians investing in steakhouses based purely on financial models without understanding what makes a good steak or who steakhouse customers are.
This creates blind spots that harm portfolio performance. Investors can’t provide useful strategic guidance because they don’t understand the product. When startups need advice about player retention or monetization or content strategy, investors have nothing useful to offer. The mentorship value that good investors provide is completely absent.
Board meetings become exercises in discussing metrics investors understand rather than issues that actually matter. The conversation focuses on token prices and NFT volumes rather than player satisfaction and gameplay quality. The guidance startups receive pushes them toward optimizing crypto metrics rather than gaming metrics.
Some investors try to compensate by hiring gaming advisors but this rarely works well. The advisors provide input but the investors making final decisions still don’t understand gaming. The advice gets filtered through crypto-native thinking and loses value. Advisors become frustrated that their gaming expertise is ignored in favor of token mechanics.
The tragic part is these investors are often smart capable people successful in other contexts. They’re not incompetent generally. They’re specifically incompetent about gaming because they’ve never engaged with the category they’re investing in. This could be fixed if they’d actually play games but they won’t.
Some investors explicitly say they’re too busy to play games. They’re investing based on analysis and market research instead of product knowledge. This might work in some categories but gaming success depends heavily on intangible qualities that spreadsheets don’t capture. You need to feel what makes games work.
Others don’t want to play games because they’re not interested in gaming as entertainment. They’re interested in gaming as market opportunity. The financial upside excites them but the product itself holds no appeal. They’re investing in something they actively don’t want to engage with.
This creates fundamental misalignment between investors and their portfolio companies. The startups are trying to build great games for players. The investors want blockchain showcases that attract other crypto investors. These goals are often contradictory but the investors control the capital so their priorities win.
Fogo and infrastructure improvements don’t address this investor problem. Better technology doesn’t change that capital allocation is controlled by people who don’t understand the products being built. Infrastructure enables building what investors want funded which is often not what would actually succeed with gamers.
The path forward probably requires gaming capital coming from gaming investors rather than crypto investors. Traditional gaming VCs and publishers understand games even if they don’t fully understand blockchain. They can evaluate gameplay quality and player demand because they’re themselves players. Their investment decisions would be better informed even if they’re less excited about token mechanics.
Alternatively crypto investors need to actually play games seriously before investing in them. Spend a hundred hours playing current successful games. Understand what makes them work. Experience good and bad gameplay firsthand. Develop informed opinions about quality rather than just analyzing tokenomics.
Neither path seems likely in near term. Crypto investors are comfortable investing based on financial models and blockchain architecture. Traditional gaming investors are skeptical of blockchain gaming after watching it fail repeatedly. The capital coming into blockchain gaming remains controlled by people who don’t understand games.
This means blockchain gaming will continue being funded based on criteria that don’t predict gaming success. Projects that would appeal to gamers won’t get funded. Projects designed to impress crypto investors will get millions despite having mediocre gameplay. The capital allocation will remain misaligned with what the market actually wants.
Eventually market feedback will correct this but it’s an expensive lesson. Tens or hundreds of millions will be lost funding games that fail because they were optimized for investor pitches rather than player enjoyment. The investors will learn painfully that financial sophistication doesn’t substitute for product understanding.
Some of them will start playing games and become better gaming investors. Others will exit the category after concluding blockchain gaming doesn’t work without understanding that their own investment decisions contributed to the failure. The cycle might repeat with new investors making the same mistakes.
The blockchain gaming studios that succeed despite this investor dysfunction will be the ones that raise money by telling investors what they want to hear then build what players actually want. This requires navigating tension between investor expectations and player needs. It’s doable but exhausting and not how healthy markets should work.
Healthy markets have investors who understand the products they’re funding and can provide useful guidance to portfolio companies. Blockchain gaming has investors who don’t play games making decisions about games based on crypto knowledge that’s orthogonal to gaming success. This is suboptimal in ways that systematically destroy value and prevent blockchain gaming from achieving its potential.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
#Fogo $FOGO @fogo

Tak tady je něco zajímavého, co se stále objevuje v rozhovorech o blockchainovém hraní, ale nikdy to nedostane pozornost, kterou si zaslouží. Existuje obrovská propast mezi tradičními financemi a herními ekonomikami, kterou všichni uznávají, ale velmi málo projektů se ji skutečně snaží vyřešit. @Mira - Trust Layer of AI je jedním z mála, kteří se tomu vážně věnují, ať už uspějí nebo ne, problém, který řeší, je natolik skutečný, že stojí za to ho pochopit.
Problém, na kterém skutečně záleží