The CrowdControl Gaming Chain aims to revolutionize the gaming industry by providing a robust, blockchain-based infrastructure that supports self-developing games. Leveraging the Cosmos technology stack, our platform offers game developers seamless integration with blockchain features, eliminating the need for them to become blockchain experts. This whitepaper details the market landscape, core technology, tokenomics, gameplay mechanics, and governance structures that underpin our innovative ecosystem.
+The gaming industry has witnessed exponential growth, but it faces several challenges, such as centralized control, lack of player agency, and limited economic opportunities within games. CrowdControl addresses these issues by introducing a decentralized gaming chain that empowers both developers and players. Our mission is to create a vibrant, self-sustaining gaming ecosystem where game development and player engagement drive mutual growth and innovation.
+ +The global gaming market is expanding rapidly, driven by increasing mobile gaming penetration, advancements in technology, and a growing demand for interactive entertainment. However, traditional gaming platforms often suffer from centralized control, restricting player ownership and creativity. Blockchain technology offers a solution by enabling decentralized game development, true ownership of in-game assets, and player-driven economies. CrowdControl aims to capitalize on these opportunities by providing a versatile and developer-friendly blockchain platform.
Currently, many blockchain gaming platforms are being built with the general narrative focusing on NFTs representing game assets. This approach gives ownership to players through these NFTs and enables the trading of these game assets. The main narrative promoting this concept suggests that it allows the movement of these game assets between chains and games. However, we believe this narrative of NFTs being transferable between games is greatly exaggerated. Transferring game items between games was possible in the past and was not widely adopted for valid reasons.
Moving items between games can be appealing to players, as it provides a head start in a new game, motivating them to try it out. However, players are primarily motivated by the great experiences they had in previous games, which encourage them to try sequels. In contrast, the downsides of transferable items are numerous. The mentioned head start can also be a drawback, as it resembles cheat codes that typically shorten the game experience and remove much of the thrill. Additionally, the game mechanics of two games must be identical. Imagine moving an item from one of the four Diablo games to another; it just does not make sense and cannot work. Even though players perform similar actions in all four games, the game mechanics differ, so a sword has different properties in each game. This can only be resolved if the game mechanics of sequels remain unchanged or if the items have no relevance to game mechanics, such as cosmetic skins. Maintaining identical game mechanics is not an option since evolution in gaming is desired and can only occur by improving game mechanics. Major brands have always adapted to new technology and new trends in player behavior. Understanding these points leads us to conclude that the transfer of game items between games will only work for skins and not meaningful items. For items that have properties affecting game mechanics, we will refer to them as meaningful items from now on. Another reason why game developers might resist this feature is that players who bring their previous items into a game will not buy from the developer. This might be acceptable if the developer is the same for both games, but if a game studio is to be convinced to move their game onto a gaming chain, it can be a significant drawback if their economy is undermined by an already existing economy.
Technology is always about enabling solutions that were impossible in the past. This makes us believe that blockchain should also enable new approaches in games that were not possible before but become possible now. If Bitcoin was just money transferable with less friction, it would not have been a real innovation. The real innovation of Bitcoin is consensus without central entities. This is the core of blockchain technology, and we should identify how this applies to games. So, how do we use blockchain technology and decentralization for gaming in a meaningful and valuable way?
It can be observed that all modern Web2 video games only stay popular and successful as long as new content is provided. Many examples exist, such as League of Legends, Minecraft, Warcraft, Factorio, Sims, or Hearthstone. All these games provide new content and game assets even decades after being released. Moreover, the most popular games mentioned above have a live player base contributing an infinite stream of user-generated custom content. One of the most impressive examples might be Warcraft III, from which the Tower-Defense genre emerged, as well as the MOBA genre, which led to League of Legends, one of the most successful games on the market. A very clever and sustainable approach would be to integrate user-generated content into games officially. This can happen in different forms and aligns with the Web2 concept of user-generated content.
Web2 games are a very centralized realm. The players and the developers are usually separated, with developers striving to produce engaging games and players spending their time on games they love, giving feedback with their wallets through demand. A third entity is the investors, who fund games that seem promising, trying to anticipate what players will buy. Closing the gap between players and developers is a major opportunity for gaming projects. Blockchain has already revolutionized the investor-user relationship by allowing users to become investors and fund projects they believe have real potential. In essence, consensus is being used, where governance and easy access to investing have removed the barriers of the past that separated users and investors. We think that decentralized consensus has not yet been used to revolutionize gaming. The mechanisms at play are very similar to those already outlined between investors and users. In this sense, the separation between players and developers can be drastically reduced, and we will outline here how this can be achieved.
A critical problem for user-generated content is game balance. When players are allowed to create meaningful game assets, they might break the game and prevent others from having fun. The aforementioned games with player-generated content are non-competitive, where players collaborate and play against the environment (PvE). This is why we don’t see player-generated content in League of Legends, World of Warcraft, or Hearthstone. Unsurprisingly, poor game balance is among the most criticized issues in God’s Unchained, one of the major card games in Web3. Unfortunately, poor player feedback and the vast gap between game development and game feedback exacerbate this problem, leaving these games reliant on the constant creation of new content by the developer studio. This issue was described as a Cursed Problem in game design by Alex Jaffe in his GDC talk. He described this problem as unsolved and did not present a solution during his talk.
However, we do see heaps of user-generated custom content in Factorio, Sims, and Minecraft. Solving this problem offers a disruptive advantage for the gaming industry, as games like Factorio, Minecraft, and Sims typically offer 20-40 hours of playtime provided by the game studio, but through player-generated content, this playtime extends into thousands of hours without additional work by the game studio. Making this available for competitive games as well is an opportunity that cannot be missed, and blockchain technology now enables it.
When analyzing custom content, it is clear they rely on user-to-user quality control. Solving the cursed balancing problem will unlock a revolution in game development for both players and developers. Our approach benefits game developers by significantly reducing the amount of work required in the development process while increasing player immersion, as they become part of an interactive process. Bringing consensus to game balance by connecting player feedback can solve this often-observed phenomenon. Using a voting mechanism as the key element would solve the previously described Cursed Problem for both competitive and cooperative games. For a true revolution in gaming, we must empower the players and lean into their desire to be part of game development. If only a fraction of the player base, for example, 1%, creates assets, everyone would benefit from unlimited fun and a never-ending stream of new items and other game content.
A Cursed Problem means there is no single decision that can find the sweet spot between two options without one corrupting the other. These are typical problems in game design. We recommend watching Alex Jaffe’s talk at GDC on this topic, as his explanation is excellent.
In this context, the Cursed Problem is letting players create meaningful content for a game. This is especially problematic for competitive games because players might create content that breaks the game. Players would want to create content that makes them the strongest and best player in the game. Unfortunately, this would ruin the game for themselves, and if their creation can be used in multiplayer, then potentially for everyone. To solve this Cursed Problem, we need to answer questions like:
All these questions boil down to the main question: “How do you stop creators from ruining the game?”
It may seem simplistic to reduce all these questions to a single one, but there might be only two approaches necessary to answer all of them. Let us address a very specific question: “Why would anybody put effort into this?” The answer is simple: because it is economically favorable and fun. The same question could be asked for NFTs—yet these are created either because creators want to earn from them or because it is fun to spread their creation to the world. Therefore, it is just a matter of tuning the correct parameters of the CrowdControl tokenomics. This answer can apply to other questions as well, such as “How to make authors create fair items?” or “Will authors not just mint insane amounts of their items?” Of course, there are situations where economic incentives will not be sufficient. The obvious one is, “What if someone wants to break the game?” In this case, it should be economically disincentivized; essentially, the one who wants to break the game pays the rational players for filtering and removing the bad creations. We assume the majority of users to act rationally. We do not assume everyone behaves rationally—only the majority. This means economic incentives work for this majority. We can achieve fair content creation by punishing creators for unfair creations and rewarding players for pointing out broken assets.
To be more precise, we have designed two mechanisms, one applied to asset creation and the other to existing items. The first mechanism filters out bad creations before they become part of the game, and the second mechanism balances the game in general and is ongoing. The first mechanism involves a council of five active players who must lock some credits to participate. They vote on newly created game assets to pass the council, demand a revision with a list of critique points, or deny the item draft. The vote is also a bet. After all voters have committed their vote, the majority vote is elected. If the draft is denied, the minority of positive voters lose their funds to the deniers. If a revision is requested, the item creator has time to rework the item, and then the vote happens again. If the majority confirms the item, it becomes a trial item. The item is on trial for the next two weeks, and all council members as well as the creator get a copy of the trial item.
They are now eligible to play with the trial item, and their opponents are incentivized to vote on the item. Voting on an item is the second mechanism. Whenever a game is finished or a predefined time span has passed, both players can vote on the items their opponents used. Items can be marked as overpowered (OP), underpowered (UP), fair enough (FE), or inappropriate (IA). This is possible for trial items as well as permanent items, though it has different implications. For items on trial, it is necessary to be voted as fair by some players to become permanent items; in addition, the OP and IA votes must be low compared to the average rate of negative votes. If the item is marked too often as OP or IA or does not receive enough fair or UP votes, the trial item is rejected. In this case, the deniers from the council win the bet, and the approvers lose their locked funds.
If enough fair or UP marks are set, the deniers lose their locked funds, and the approvers win the bet. The votes for permanent (already approved) items work similarly. In this case, items are adjusted in their power level (balanced). Many OP votes lower the power level, and many UP votes increase it. It is up to the game designers to specify how this translates to in-game metrics. For example, in shooters, the fire rate of weapons could be adjusted, or in strategy games, the production cost of tanks could be adjusted. In the case of many IA votes, the item is suspended, meaning it is removed until the case is resolved. This is to remove inappropriate content like copyright violations, child pornography, gore, racism, etc. Once an item is marked as IA, a governance decision must be taken by the stakers to determine if this is correct. In the case of a copyright violation, it is possible to transfer the item to the rightful owner. Otherwise, it is removed entirely. Being removed like this is a significant punishment for trolls because of all the fees paid to get to this point.
For our flagship product, the collectible card game, the balancing happens through the mana cost of the cards. For other games, other metrics might make more sense. For example, in shooters, the fire rate of weapons would be adjusted, or in strategy games, the production cost of tanks would be adjusted.
CrowdControl is built on the Cosmos technology stack, leveraging its Interchain Security and IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication) protocols. This allows each game to have its own chain, connected within the largest network of blockchains. Key technologies include:
Our infrastructure ensures scalability, security, and interoperability, making it ideal for a diverse range of gaming applications.
To understand the necessary features for a gaming chain, one must have experience in game development. Our gaming chain's features emerged from our own experience building a self-developing collectible card game. The defined items, balancing mechanisms, voting process, and council are all tested and proven elements from our own game.
CrowdControl offers a suite of features designed to meet the needs of game developers and players:
With all of the above mechanisms, self-developing games become a reality. A team of game developers only needs to define the game's framework, and the players will continuously evolve the entire game.
The best solution is a Layer 1 gaming chain that provides ready-to-use, configurable blockchain solutions where game developers only need to define the interface to the blockchain without becoming blockchain programmers. This means game developers can create their game interface through a web-based GUI and upload JSON files defining the structure of their game assets. With this approach, developers can focus on building games, and the blockchain solution is available from the start with the necessary solutions for trading, crafting, buying, and minting already operational. A game can easily deploy on our blockchain, and once it becomes highly successful with many transactions, it can move onto its own app-specific sub-chain with our validator set. This approach allows a zero-fee solution while still enabling tailored changes later if needed.
Advantages of our Layer 1 solution:
Our Layer 1 blockchain is built on the Cosmos tech stack, as it has proven to be highly useful and has become a standard in the blockchain ecosystem. Even though the Cosmos hub itself does not rank in the top 10, the IBC protocol for transferring coins and NFTs between chains has become an industry standard, even for top 10 chains.
CrowdControl's tokenomics are designed to incentivize desired behaviors and ensure a sustainable gaming ecosystem. Our two main tokens are:
BPF follows the Cosmos staking model, with inflation ending over time, making staking lucrative through in-game rewards. Governance decisions are made by voting with staked BPF.
The following sections outline the in-game economics from a new player's perspective, detailing their interactions and choices over time.
New players can start a game on mobile or desktop directly with a tutorial, without needing crypto credentials. The game is explained in a guided game vs. AI, though this is open to game developers. Our wallet solution allows for immediate gameplay with blockchain access in the background. Players can later link this ad-hoc account with a real, secure account (Hardware Security Module), minimizing onboarding barriers.
After some gameplay, players are prompted to connect their real wallet, either via Keplr Wallet or by creating a new wallet. The hidden wallet is then linked to the real wallet. Game developers decide which transactions are allowed with the hidden wallet. Critical transactions, like transferring items or coins, require the real wallet. Game servers report match outcomes to the blockchain. To report results, a server host must be whitelisted by a governance decision. Players confirm server reports, detecting and disabling manipulated servers. This enables decentralization without burdening game developers.
With voting rights acquired from games, players can vote on items as either overpowered (OP), underpowered (UP), fair enough (FE) or inappropriate (IA).
Players acquire voting rights from games, allowing them to vote on items as overpowered (OP), underpowered (UP), fair enough (FE), or inappropriate (IA). Voting rights are usually given after a game. Items on trial get increased incentivization, encouraging players to vote on them first. Credits are distributed to voters from a global voting pool. Votes are counted weekly, and items with significant OP or UP votes are nerfed or buffed accordingly. Game designers can adjust these parameters, and balancing can be a mix of voting and algorithmic analysis.
Item creation varies by game. For our CrowdControl collectible card game, new cards are created in a three-step process: drafting, council approval, and set inclusion. Players design the card, a council of five randomly selected players checks the balance, and if approved, the card enters a trial phase where only a few copies exist. If successful, the card becomes permanent and is included in a set. Other games might drop items when enemies are defeated or quests are fulfilled, use microtransactions, or have crafting systems. For instance, MMORPGs can use loot transactions to mint items from predefined classes, and adventure games can define crafting pathways for item creation. These mechanisms allow for diverse item creation methods tailored to different game types.
Games on the CrowdControl blockchain can combine various item creation mechanisms. For example, player-authored items approved by a council can be sold in shops, dropped in-game, or added to crafting paths. This flexibility allows games to be self-evolving to varying degrees. A game can choose to evolve only in terms of balance through algorithmic analysis and voting or allow players to create and trade items within the game.
Players can trade their items, a standard feature in blockchain games. CrowdControl enables small studios to create persistent items, even for single-player games, by leveraging blockchain for item security and trading. This feature allows games that would typically be single-player and lack trading capabilities to incorporate item trading securely.
The Council, consisting of five active players, reviews new items. Players sign up for the council by locking up collateral. Council members decide to approve, reject, or request revisions for items, using a commit-reveal scheme to prevent cheating. Approved items enter a two-week trial phase. The item’s score, based on player votes, determines its final approval. Council members and the item creator receive rewards if the item is approved. The council process ensures that knowledgeable players help maintain game balance, automating item approval and scaling with the player base.
An active player is anyone who has played the game in the last two weeks. After it starts, the five members must decide among three options:
In the case of a revision, notes must be added to indicate necessary changes. Only this option is visible to other council members, while the other choices are concealed using a commit-reveal scheme on the blockchain. The item author can upload a revised version within 24 hours if a revision is requested. The council votes again, and if the majority favors rejection, the item is discarded. If the majority favors approval or revision, the item moves to the next phase. Council members who consistently make accurate decisions are rewarded from the council treasury, which consists of member collaterals and item creation fees.
Approved items enter a two-week trial phase, where their performance is evaluated based on player votes. The score is calculated as follows:
where mUP are underpowered votes, mFE are fair enough votes, mOP are overpowered votes, and mIA are inappropriate votes. The score s must exceed 0.1 (adjustable via governance) for the item to be approved. Approved items result in council members and the item creator receiving a proportion of the council treasury. If rejected, those who voted to approve lose their fee, and those who voted to reject share the treasury.
The council mechanism rewards players who understand the game and can identify imbalanced items. It automates the approval process, scales with the player base, and decentralizes item review.
CrowdControl Gaming Chain offers a revolutionary approach to game development and player engagement through blockchain technology. Our platform empowers developers to create dynamic, player-driven games while providing robust security and scalability. Looking ahead, we plan to expand our ecosystem, enhance our technology, and foster a thriving community of developers and players.
Search for
+ +Search for
+- Gallery -
++
{{ cardList.length }} Results
-- Sort by -
-+ Gallery +
++ Sort by +
+