Does crypto really need more blockchains?

This is a segment from The Drop newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe.

You’ve probably heard about superhero fatigue — the oft-written-about concern that moviegoing audiences are burnt out on superhero movies as a genre because studios like Marvel and Warner Bros. have been churning out so many for over a decade now. 

Some believe superhero fatigue has occurred in part because the quality of said movies and shows has declined overall over time. The movies start to blend together; a few gain loyal fans, while many others are quickly forgotten. 

Sound familiar?

I can’t help but feel like this is also how many in crypto must be feeling about blockchains, too. 

I’ll be honest: I think I have both superhero fatigue and new-blockchain fatigue. 

Every time a new one is announced, I ask myself — how is this one actually different? Why does this one actually matter more than the last one that came before it?

And especially, when it comes to gaming: Is yet another gaming-focused blockchain really the answer to crypto gaming’s longstanding core issue of failing to appeal to game studios and gamers more broadly? 

But maybe I’m asking the wrong questions. Crypto is magic internet money, after all. If creating a new blockchain generates cash, people will keep creating them. But that’s more a strategy for creating a flash in the pan — and less so for creating long-term viability.

You could argue that the teams behind these new blockchains don’t have to justify their creations. Maybe you believe in platitudes like a “the more, the merrier” philosophy, where “a rising tide will lift all boats.” The more chains to choose from, the higher chances of “mass adoption.”

Maybe you believe crypto will entirely replace the traditional financial system soon enough, so you believe that crypto’s TAM is massive and global. Its potential audience is everyone, because everyone uses money, so why not launch yet another chain? 

And there are billions of gamers globally, so why not launch yet another gaming chain?

Or maybe, like me, you’re a bit more skeptical that more chains are really needed. New “consumer” chains appear to be more focused on finding devs to build with them than on actually appealing to consumers. 

Blockchain teams focus on touting technical advantages and offering grants to game projects, while everyday consumers see very little actually being marketed to them to get them on board with the promised crypto gaming revolution. 

Consider the “XRPL Gamechain,” built on the XRPL EVM sidechain the B3 team announced last week with XRPL Commons. It effectively brings B3’s Open App Layer to the XRP blockchain because XRPL Gamechain transactions will settle on XRP. 

But the name is quite the mouthful. 

“XRPL Gamechain” is not a consumer-friendly name at all. In fact, it’s more a name for developers. It speaks to what it is technically.

Then there’s the “Xcade,” which launched on the XRPL Gamechain testnet with some browser-based minigames that look like we’ve traveled back in time to the early 2000s MiniClip era of Adobe Flash Player gaming:

A look at Xcade’s game library, intended to have a mobile-first focus.

B3 says Xcade “eliminates onboarding friction and creates a low barrier to entry into the XRP ecosystem, making it easier than ever to become an active participant.”

NPC Labs’ Daryl Xu says the Xcade is intended to “jumpstart a thriving consumer ecosystem built around XRP.”

But I’m not so sold on the idea that the “Xcade” is really going to bring new people to crypto. It’s more likely another addition to the GameFi trenches. 

Overall, I think it’s worth asking ourselves: What does crypto gaming’s growth look like? Where might growth come from, especially if traders are still busy launching memecoins? 

Are we really getting anyone new onboarded with new gaming-focused blockchains — or are we just preaching a slightly different sermon to the same degen choir?

Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters: