Yes – instead of games being single-purpose consumers and producers of tokens, this new architecture positions games to add value to any and all tokens.
Pay X tokens to play Game Y to earn Z.
Meanwhile, games generate revenue from “value-added contexts” like Budokan –
@provablegames is actively building other VACs too.
What is the value of a “fully onchain game” in this model? Only fully onchain games can consume and distribute tokens without any trust or counterparty risk. This is a major technical, social, and legal advantage that offchain games fundamentally cannot compete with.
Lastly, I agree - most networks shouldn’t compete for onchain gaming because their network isn’t capable of actually powering this use case. It would be like a small bird trying to swallow a moose – ngmi.
Networks that want to win this space will need, at minimum, to deliver 1T UOPS per year (~30k UOPS sustained) at an average cost of $0.001 per user operation. This will generate billions in transaction fees for the network but, more importantly, create hundreds of billions in new tokenized gaming assets, driving massive TVL and DeFi revenue/volumes. The networks that win the next cycle will be the ones capable of producing new tokens of value, in addition to attracting existing tokens of value such as BTC, stablecoins, and tokenized equities.
I and many others chose Starknet in 2023 because we saw it as the only network with a credible path to decentralization that could achieve the scale required for games. In 2023, with tx times at 5 minutes and a simple ERC-20 transfer costing $0.35 , this looked borderline foolish. Standing here in 2026 though, Starknet is a Stage 1 rollup, provides sub-second txs (preconf), and we’re battling tens of thousands of Loot Survivor Beasts onchain for an average cost of $0.002 per battle.