The biggest sign that blockchains may be possible is what they have already done so far. In 2021, total blockchain transaction volume will exceed $16 trillion, more than five times the combined transaction volume of digital payment giants PayPal, Venmo, Nopity, and Stripe. In the fourth quarter, the business processed by Ethereum surpassed Visdo, the world's largest payment network and the twelfth largest market capitalization.
It is certainly a miracle that all of this is possible without a central control, managing partner or even headquarters, and all through independent contributors. What's more, these payment transactions are done through dozens of different "wallets" (rather than confined to a tightly controlled network), and payments can be made at any time, and completed in seconds or minutes , both the sender and receiver can confirm the success or failure of the transaction (no additional fees are required). Additionally, none of these transactions require having a bank account. Nor does any business enter into a long-term agreement, let alone negotiate, with any particular blockchain, blockchain processor, or blockchain wallet provider. As we will see, blockchain wallets can also be programmed to automatically debit, credit, refund, and more.
Although blockchain-related transactions are mostly generated by investments and transactions against cryptocurrencies, rather than payments, it is also supported by the wellspring of development based on cryptocurrencies. The simplest example is an NFT collectible. Developers and individual users will put the ownership of an item (such as a photo) on a blockchain. This process is called "minting", and then the ownership of the picture can be managed. Manage any cryptocurrency transaction as you would. The difference is that this is a kind of management right for NFT, or a token that is different from Bitcoin or USD, which is unique, and there are many Bitcoins or USD, and they are completely compatible with each other. replace each other.
Proponents of blockchain argue that this structure increases the value of these virtual goods because they provide buyers with a more realistic sense of " ownership . " Think about the old adage: "Personal possession wins nine." Under the centralized server model, users can never actually take ownership of virtual goods. Instead, they can only access other people's possessions (i.e., servers) via digital records. ). Even if the user downloads the data from the server and puts it on his own hard drive, this is not enough. Why? Because the leaders in the world need to recognize the data and reach an agreement on its use rights. Blockchain by design can do this.
This sense of possession is also reinforced by another key property right: the right to unrestricted resale . When a user purchases an NFT from a game, the "trustless" and "permissionless" nature of the blockchain means that game developers cannot block the sale of NFTs at any time. They weren't even told about it, even though the transaction was recorded on a public ledger. For related reasons, it is impossible for developers to "lock" blockchain-based assets into their virtual worlds. If game A sells NFT, game B, game C, game D, etc. can merge it, provided that the owner’s consent is obtained—the ownership data of the blockchain is permissionless, and the token is controlled by the owner . Furthermore, the digital currency structure means that even if someone mints a duplicate version of this virtual item, the original item remains unique and "original", just like the difference between a signed and dated version and an unsigned and dated version.
Perhaps the most important benefit comes from enabling NFT interoperability. While members of the blockchain community often say that blockchain NFTs are inherently interoperable, this is not the case. As mentioned earlier, enabling a virtual good requires both access to its data and code to understand it, yet most blockchain experiences and games do not have such code. In fact, most NFTs today put the rights to the virtual goods on the blockchain rather than the data, and the data for the virtual goods is still stored on a central server. Therefore, the owner of the NFT cannot export the item's data into other experiences unless it obtains permission from the central server where the data is stored. For similar reasons, few blockchain-based experiences are truly decentralized, even those that issue NFTs.
From the fact that "decentralized" assets have "centralized" dependencies, we can draw two main conclusions. The first conclusion is that NFTs are useless, and that comes with fraud, speculation, and misunderstanding . The second conclusion is the importance of the blockchain to the Metaverse . For example, blockchains do more than establish a common and independent registry for virtual goods, they also offer a potential technical solution to the biggest obstacle to virtual goods interoperability - revenue leakage.
Many players are willing to use their assets in different games and exercise corresponding rights. However, many game developers make the majority of their income by selling items to players that can only be used in their games. The ability for players to "buy elsewhere, use here" jeopardizes game developers' business models. For example, players may have accumulated so many virtual goods that they see no need to buy them anymore. Alternatively, a player might buy all the skins in game A, but then only use them in game B, which would result in the party paying the most cost not necessarily being the party gaining the most. In fact, since sellers of virtual goods in this case do not need to recoup the initial development or operating costs of the game, they are likely to significantly lower the price of in-game items. Many developers worry that the value created by the open project economy may far exceed their own benefits.
Of course, the overall economic impact has been very positive, but the transactions behind it have been a messy process. There are always losers along the way. However, a combination of taxes and duties can facilitate interoperability to some extent (as is the case in the real world). For example, developers can program the system to automatically draw and pay commissions to their original creators when most NFTs are traded or resold. We could establish a similar system when paying for imported goods or for the use of "foreign" goods. Other observers suggest programmatic downgrading of virtual goods, attaching an implicit "cost" to "usage", thereby slowly reducing the value of the item and driving buybacks. Proof leakage cannot be prevented by programming in the blockchain alone, as effective prevention requires “perfect” systems and incentives. Moreover, the current state of globalization tells us that this is impossible. But because of blockchain's "trustless," "permissionless," and "automatic compensation" model, many believe it can still lead to a more interoperable virtual world.