Viewpoint: Why are we not optimistic about pure Web3 game tokens?

Original author: 1mpal

Original translation: Luffy, Foresight News

I love Web3 games, and a large part of my funds are invested in game NFTs and tokens. However, I am very pessimistic about pure game tokens.

The market needs to normalize. Currently, I have no affection for game projects that have completely lost momentum since TGE.

If I were a trader, I would consider those who trade Memecoin or bet on the booming artificial intelligence sector to be smart. There is no reason to bet huge chips on game tokens at the moment, and the actual situation of the market is exactly the same. There are many reasons for this, but the main reason is that game tokens lack key factors to support the overvalued market valuation.

1. Game tokens are overvalued

Few Web3 games can match their market valuations. Even if calculated by circulating market value instead of FDV, Web3 games are overvalued. For example, CATIZEN is one of the most prominent recent games, with a current market value of about $200 million, assuming its annual revenue is $20 million.

To make it simple, you can compare tokens to stocks to assess their valuations. South Korean gaming company Shift Up recently went public with a market cap of around $2.4 billion and revenue of $140 million in 2023. The market believes it is overvalued because it has huge future potential.

Nexon has a market cap of $16.3 billion and annual revenue of $3 billion. Krafton has a market cap of $12.3 billion and annual revenue of $1.5 billion. Take-Two Interactive has a market cap of $26.3 billion and annual revenue of $5.3 billion. For most large game companies, annual profits typically account for 10-20% of their market cap.

Token economics is based on the premise that games will grow unconditionally

Let’s take CATIZEN as an example. Judging from the market value, this seems to be a very healthy project, but the problem lies in the unlocking mechanism. Mainstream game companies need financing to expand their scale, but the tokens of Web3 game projects are automatically unlocked.

In fact, it is impossible for a pure game project to achieve growth without infrastructure. Unless there are special circumstances, it is common for most games to have the highest number of users at launch and then show a slow decline. In other words, the idea of Web3 games increasing in value by themselves goes against the laws of the market.

2. Memecoin is more attractive than game tokens

The ability to spot low-cap gems in trading is a valuable talent, and the simplest and most reliable signal is volume. Low volume means the market is not very interested, which naturally leads to weak upward momentum. Who wants to trade a sector that has been falling since listing?

If you were a gambler, which coins would you bet on when liquidity comes into crypto again?

Comparing the trend charts of NEIRO, CATI, and HMSTR on Binance, we can see obvious differences. Although CATI is significantly better than traditional Web3 games in terms of game revenue and significantly better than HMSTR in terms of external social media revenue, its market performance is not ideal. On Binance, the trading volume of NEIRO and CATI differs by about 10 times.

Considering the current market sentiment and willingness of exchanges to list, this is one of the worst times for a typical game token to conduct a TGE. Games are inevitably driven by venture capital, and projects that cannot compete in the current market will quickly go through NFT sales, node sales, and TGEs, and then exit. Therefore, it is better to trade and hold memecoin than game tokens.

I believe that there are three principles that determine stock prices: expectations of the companys future value, the companys performance record, and market supply and demand fluctuations. Currently, game tokens have no performance record, supply exceeds demand, and unless they have special marketing methods, their future competitiveness as pure games is unreliable.

While it may not be entirely appropriate to compare gaming tokens to stocks, there is value in that. The key is which projects have the keys to drive the market narrative. If the future value of a company depends solely on its games, it will not survive. It needs infrastructure, it needs a technological push.

Alternatively, unlock all tokens from the start and let the market determine the price.

Final Thoughts

I believe that cryptocurrencies will see a significant rise in the first quarter of 2025. I like Web3 games like many people, but I think the FDV of pure Web3 game tokens needs to be lowered. Of course, if you have infrastructure or technical moats (such as game chains), you can get a higher valuation. But now, there are many games that have high valuations but only serve the game itself.

This may be the worst time for gaming projects, or it can be considered a normalized process. This year, I participated in several rounds of KOL financing for gaming projects, and most of them were losses. The participation of VCs has made FDV higher and higher, and the token lock-up structure violates the law of averages.

However, some gaming projects will survive this process, and we want to bet on those that can scale to platforms and infrastructure based on revenue. Remember, it is one or two giants that drive the market, and we are in a position ahead of the traders to pick the protagonists first. However, our weakness may be too obsessed with the future of gaming. Even if we love the game, we need to try to commercialize it.

Original link