Kookoo

why is @playcambria launching a token? sharing a few deep dive thoughts on the topic from my POV 🧵 Q: to start, what is cambria building? albion/RS-like persistent world w/ hyperfinancialized economy of onchain stakes (NFTs, tokens, vol). axie infinity-style eco flywheels on top of a few core risk gameplay loops we've designed around real stakes (artifact farming pvm, raids, ruined dungeons). at a high level, there's only 2 assets at the top that matter: the token (RSGP, think AXS) and charter NFT (think Axies - founding set, then controlled emission of more charters). we don't have a SLP-equivalent floating currency ingame, instead using Silver (1:1 ingame currency pegged to USDC deposited). key starting observation: the token has ultimate primacy. it directly owns the economy and the treasury. if we were ever to end the game, everything folds back into the token first before discontinuation. utility #1 with the token is an algorithmic % allocation of incoming rev from game loops going out to buybacks / bribes (think rng airdrops to holders). this is a clean, modelallable base layer that represents the first step of the flywheel. now we layer in charters, which represents the asset speculation layer of the digital economy being created by this protocol. here, players buy charters / issue new charters / stake charters to various yield venues / sell charters to actively compete in the core gameplay loop. charters is something you pick up after acquiring RSGP if you want to directly engage with the game. there's more further down: energy ($ burned in real time to earn Gold, Silver, Royal Favor, net revenue generating), game NFTs (islands, legendaries, heirlooms) that serve as early juice to reward the core energy loop, royal favor -> locked token emissions, etc. but all you really need to know is that the game takes a revenue cut from these loops into the treasury. zooming back out, the core flywheel is simple - revenue generating loop that's (unsustainably) incentivized early for big green candles / FOMO -> treasury expansion from stables -> backing for asset speculation and token -> bigger incentives budget. utility #2, #3, etc. of token all becomes downstream of this. vote-escrowed governance / proof of stake to control incentive gauges. token required to do x, y, z in the ecosystem. as the "onchain nation state" of cambria grows, it accumulates TVL, assets, network effects with players, etc. which are owned by RSGP. Q: why not launch token earlier? tbh we just haven't really needed a token, until now. it didn't make sense as a design lever for the risk-to-earn minigames we've launched before this. durable, non-incentivized onchain fee rev from these minigames has proven elusive, so the clean revenue token model of e.g. Hyperliquid isn't quite there. we're getting close w/ Dungeon Fishing, but its at like $1m of annualized rev post-airdrop incentives. a full MMO that's 24/7 online and has deep, sustainable economics is something we've been iterating on since we started Cambria. as you can imagine, its a massive endeavor. 3 playtest seasons later, we're finally reasonably confident enough to take it to mainnet. Genesis is the first thing we'll ship that actually does need a token w/ deeper liquidity than genesis nfts for the flywheel to work. it does kind of suck that the macro environment (which is also a key tailwind for the eco flywheel) is significantly degraded now vs even 2 years ago. but this is out of our control. there's been gamefi launches in the past 2 years that have achieved wins for holders (at least immediately on TGE) just because of the macro (market good, lots of people win) before the reality of product fit hit, we started building later in the cycle and never had this a slam dunk option. BUT - I do think though there's also pros to launching low in these environments. part of the reflexivity needs the massive upside NOT to be baked in at the beginning. if everyone is early to a "ponzinomics" loop, no one is, the bar to get things going gets so much higher. and at least personal motivation wise, i much prefer an outcome where we actually win here and reinvent the industry / bring a new type of "game" to the market. Q: why 25% float day 1, fully unlocked, no CEX? we have a lot of airdrop overhang from 2 years of points programs, most of which were earned in better market conditions. we explored the usual low float, "engineered" TGE with day1 speculation model, but this at the end of the day, this involved vesting/lockups that would have just been almost insurmountable sell pressure later on. given we have a probably the best shot (from a core product standpoint) of making wide scale crypto gaming work out of anyone, we're looking to play to our strengths here. if the flywheel takes off, we plan to ladder up into broader, "earned" retail CEX distribution instead of blowing all of our stables on day 1 in a market where retail day1 speculation is close to ATL. honestly, i also really just want us to be as close as possible to what our real market FDV is before we launch. as we release more info / get closer to mainnet, people can naturally speculate and gradually enter as the r/r of the trade fluctuates and we get closer to obvious PMF. I think this is natural and fun. after TGE, our new holder base will naturally evolve. Q: what's the bull case? axie infinity but without the crash. we have a sustainable, net revenue generating core loop. the speculative assets (mostly nfts) on top can 100x or -90% like macau real estate, but there's a floor of players that will always come to the casino. cambria becomes THE MMO of ethereum, with billion-dollar asset / guild treasury TVLs, war games with massive stakes, all onchain and governed by a protocol made up of its biggest players and guilds. a game where value alignment between the game as its players is enforced in code and tokenomics. stories and stakes that people actually care about, with an economy bigger than most countries. Q: what's the bear case? flywheel sputters out, macro continues to deteriorate. execution issues - hacks/security, industrial farming / edge exploitation that can't be designed around, UA doesn't scale / conversion of gamers into risk takers fails. incentives cost more than revenue brought in. high-effort gaming continues to lose to passive entertainment. crypto adoption continues to slow. Q: why an actual game? instead of a gamefi "game" thats just a web UI / idle defi wrapper #1 because I think its more interesting to build. #2 is because its a billions-or-zero bet. only an actual game can be fully immersive. actual games are also imo the only way something like this actually massively breaks out into the mainstream - you get viral footage, real interactive stories, emergent content from MMO sandbox / pvp that scales. our biggest growth inflection point will be winning over Albion Online, Runescape, WoW players who want to play actual games and enjoy the hyperfinancialized RMT-leaning edge of oldschool degen runescape or the current grey market RMT of current MMOs. imagine all of that with digital, instant money that you can layer prediction markets, perps, etc. on top. "your loot is real" / "earn massive $ by mastering the meta of this game" Q: how can I get involved? buy RSGP or put us on your watchlist. i'll share the journey / PMF signals as we go. if you want to play - get a charter NFT, join our upcoming testnet. LPing into the @aeroxyz RSGP / USDC pool early is another cool way to potentially get in w/ early incentives.

I wanted to write a post this morning offering some honest thoughts on the whole "Pump fun is the enemy" discourse I've been seeing across the timeline. As someone who has been here full-time since late 2020, this isn't my first rodeo when it comes to watching CT collectively turn against the very infrastructure that defined a previous market cycle. In fact, I'd argue this is an almost predictable phenomenon that occurs at every major paradigm shift in crypto, particularly when we transition away from a dominant speculative asset class and towards whatever comes next. The platform that facilitated the previous meta inevitably becomes the focal point of frustration when the economics underpinning that meta begin to deteriorate. Most of you probably haven't been around long enough to remember, but we witnessed an almost identical situation with OpenSea during the transition away from NFTs in 2022–23. At that point, there was virtually nothing OpenSea could have done to satiate its existing user base. The NFT boom that it had largely facilitated was over, liquidity was evaporating, and the core participants who had previously made substantial amounts of money trading NFTs were suddenly finding it increasingly difficult to generate returns. Predictably, people started to get pissed off. OpenSea was suddenly extractive. OpenSea wasn't innovating. OpenSea wasn't doing enough for its users. OpenSea was responsible for the deterioration of the very market it had helped popularise. And while there were certainly legitimate criticisms to be made regarding its business model the broader reality was that NFTs were simply no longer the dominant speculative asset class. With the benefit of hindsight, it's difficult to imagine any realistic set of decisions OpenSea could have made that would have fundamentally reversed that trajectory. The writing was already on the wall. Yet, to this day, you'll still encounter people who genuinely believe OpenSea somehow "killed NFTs". Which, to me, is an absurd interpretation of how speculative markets function. No emerging asset class gets to enjoy an indefinite period of extraordinary returns, particularly once the opportunities that initially made it attractive become widely understood, commoditised and increasingly competitive. And I believe we're now witnessing an almost identical phenomenon with pump fun. Call it the OpenSea-ification of the trenches. We're experiencing the gradual exhaustion of capital-M memecoins as the de facto speculative asset class of this cycle, and the platform most closely associated with their proliferation has become the natural target for everyone's frustration. The uncomfortable reality is that most people, outside of a relatively small subset of sophisticated participants, simply aren't making meaningful money trading memes anymore. There are numerous reasons for this, but without getting lost in the weeds, the underlying dynamics are relatively straightforward. Liquidity is considerably more fragmented, the number of competing tokens and narratives has expanded dramatically, and the capital required to sustain the valuations we witnessed during the height of the mania simply isn't circulating through the market in the same way. At the same time, the average participant is competing against an increasingly sophisticated group of traders who have spent years refining their strategies, infrastructure and understanding of the trenches. This is an important point that I don't think gets nearly enough attention. Every speculative asset class eventually becomes a more solved game. The inefficiencies that initially created extraordinary opportunities are gradually arbitraged away. As more participants figure out how to play the game, the edge that once existed begins to disappear, and making money becomes increasingly difficult for the average trader. Consequently, the risk/reward profile deteriorates for the average participant. What was once an environment where relatively unsophisticated traders could generate extraordinary returns becomes one where those same participants are effectively competing against professionals. This isn't a unique failure of memecoins. It's how financial markets function. It happened with NFTs, and it's happening with memes. Which brings me to what I consider the fundamental misconception underpinning much of the current anti-pump discourse. There's this persistent belief that if only pump fun had implemented different incentives, distributed fees differently, worked with different KOLs, or simply never existed in the first place, we'd somehow be living in a memecoin utopia where everyone continued making money indefinitely. I find that argument deeply unconvincing. For one, it assumes pump fun exists in a vacuum, rather than within an intensely competitive market where alternative platforms would inevitably emerge to service the same underlying demand. Remove pump fun from the equation, and you don't magically remove the economic incentives that gave rise to it. You simply create an opportunity for another platform to occupy the same position. More importantly, it assumes that the structural deterioration in memecoin profitability is primarily a consequence of platform-level decisions rather than the natural maturation and saturation of the asset class itself. I don't believe that's the case. And to be clear, none of this is intended as an unconditional defence of pump fun. There are absolutely decisions worth criticising. But IMO the distinction I think people are missing is that... A platform can make suboptimal decisions without being responsible for the structural decline of the market it operates within. Even if pump fun had executed perfectly, two fundamental realities would remain unchanged. First, crypto has largely failed to attract sufficient new capital and participants to sustain the increasingly large speculative ecosystems we've built across successive cycles. Second, memecoin trading has become an increasingly competitive activity, where the average participant is now competing against a much more sophisticated and experienced subset of the market. Neither of these problems disappears because pump fun changes its fee structure or starts working with different influencers. And neither would disappear if pump fun ceased to exist tomorrow. Simply put, people are looking for a platform-level solution to what is fundamentally a market-level problem. I think that's the real source of the disconnect. When an asset class stops generating the returns people have become accustomed to, it's psychologically much easier to identify a villain than to accept that the opportunity itself has fundamentally changed. OpenSea became that villain for NFTs. Pump fun is becoming that villain for memecoins. And I suspect that when the next dominant speculative asset class eventually emerges, we'll watch this exact same cycle play out again. None of this means platforms should be immune from criticism or that participants shouldn't demand better incentives, transparency and alignment. They absolutely should. But there's a meaningful difference between holding a company accountable for its decisions and attributing the inevitable maturation of an entire speculative market to that company's existence. Until we start distinguishing between those two things, I think we're going to keep having the wrong conversation. And sure, call me a pump fun shill if you want, but many of you made life-changing gains during peak memecoin mania precisely because pump democratised launches. It's worth acknowledging that, just as it's worth recognising that the decline in liquidity and profitability isn't solely the fault of the launchpad that helped facilitate the boom. Ultimately, I think it's worth asking whether any single platform could have fundamentally changed where we find ourselves today, or whether this was always the natural trajectory of the market. Food for thought.

Halloween is live in Terrariums! 🎃 Let the Nightmares feed the Flame 👻 🗓️ Event runs October 24 to November 7 🔥 Nightmare parts and bodies: +200 Flame each, +300 per Shiny part 👁️ Nightmare accessories: up to 4x their usual Flame Terrariums’ first limited-time event puts Nightmare axies and accessories at the center of your setup. Check your collection and bring your Nightmares to the Shrine. Full announcement 👇 📜 : blog.axieinfinity.com/p/terr…

I miss @AxieInfinity :(( @Jihoz_Axie

I did a thing... 🧬 Evolved my Axie! Leveling up and stacking that Atia's Flame before the event starts.🚀 @AxieInfinity