“Does Ownership Really Matter?” A Community Discussion

This week, we had the amazing opportunity to host a Twitter space with many community thought-leaders.

Joining us this week as guests were Cryptofolk, the founder of Safrootics, and GaspodeWD, a Web3 content creator.

This article will act as a summary and highlight some key points made during our conversation “Does Ownership Really Matter?”, where we were joined by a number of other speakers.

Monetization

One key theme that emerged was the ability to monetize your assets as an extension of having “true” ownership (having full access to use and resell an asset as opposed to having it stored in a profile). Monetization strategies could include selling the NFTs on platforms such as OpenSea, renting the assets out for others to use, or even fractionalizing the NFTs and selling individual components.

The latter, done through platforms such as fractional.art, allow individuals to divide and re-sell fractions of an NFT in order to make a profit.

Indeed, these strategies can often be beneficial for a community, as they increase accessibility and reduce entry costs, while rewarding the original NFT holder.

Community-Driven Growth

Many Web3 games and platforms are currently using NFT ownership as a way to reward holders (such as through airdrops), allow exclusive access or facilitate community feedback to ensure that supporters of the project can shape its direction.

While this may match some Web2 notions such as crowdfunding or owning shares of a company, the unique element is that the Web3 communities are a community of users, and are not (at least, not all) purely having their say in an attempt to make more money — they are passionate about building a great product.

“Unlike Web2, Web3 is the community” — Safrootics

Does Enabling Ownership Facilitate “Pay to Win?”

An interesting counterpoint to the benefits of digital ownership is that it facilitates a “pay-to-win” community within the gaming sector, where it is easier for users to purchase the “best” assets, leading to those who can invest more being more successful in the game. This is in contrast to games which rely purely on cosmetics, which often don’t have any in-game utility as a business model.

However, there were a few counterpoints to this notion:

First, in many games, having experience and a deep understanding of the game can lead to more success than someone with limited experience but more valuable assets. This can be due to nuances within games which can put a more experienced player in a situation to win.

Second, one of the largest value-drivers of Web3 in many industries is royalties. In many “Web2’’ contexts, creators are unable to earn from a secondary sale (such as DVDs, video games, clothing, etc.). However, attaching royalty fees to digital assets allows creators (including game creators, musicians and more) to earn trailing royalties which would make secondary sales desirable.

Finally, this ability to resell assets enables a different type of user apart from gamers, collectors and whales — “flippers”. Flippers can find ways to make gains by buying and reselling assets, which are often critical in many “Web2” games such as Trading Card Games (TCGs). The combination of these users and royalties can support the growth of many Web3 projects by facilitating additional revenues.

“If it’s done right, you could have something great. If it’s done poorly, it’s not going to be adopted”. — AllInAllGaming

Is “Ownership” the Next “P2E”?

Prior to the beginning of the bear market, P2E, or Play-To-Earn, was one of the most popular buzzwords in the Web3 space. Since then, it has seen a number of changes, such as “Play-And-Earn” or “Play-And-Own”, to match current market trends and be the new ‘solution’ to onboarding Web2 gamers.

Gaspode went on to acknowledge that “ownership” could just be the next buzzword which would eventually fade away into obscurity.

Web3 Taking the…