2026-01-05 21:42:04

Is it more profitable for game tokens to adopt PvP competitive mechanisms or PvE cooperative modes? This is an interesting question.

Recently, I’ve been analyzing the performance of some mainstream gaming tokens and discovered a pattern — many tokens tend to start a new rise right after experiencing their worst downturns in PvP mechanisms. What does this indicate? It suggests that the market has already fully digested those aggressive competitive mechanisms and has accumulated enough bottom-positioned chips.

Perhaps the real profit lies not in choosing between PvP or PvE, but in understanding the market’s cyclical expectations for these mechanisms. Tokens that can withstand the extreme competition phases often end up winning subsequent narratives and growth opportunities. What are your thoughts?

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

StakeHouseDirector

· 01-08 14:11

Damn, this logic is pretty solid. The strategy of bottom chips really works like that. PvP coins, having survived the bloodbath phase, tend to become easier to rise. PvE ones, on the other hand, are more prone to falling into a death spiral of inflation. Your observations are quite on point. The key is to survive until the next cycle. Coins that die are useless even if they become cheaper, haha. Honestly, I’m thinking about bottom-fishing a certain PvP coin now, betting that it can survive the extreme competition period... Have you picked one yet? Getting the cycle expectations right is truly the key to making money. It’s not about choosing PvP or PvE; the core still depends on whether the team can tell a good story. In our gaming coin circle, only the coins that survive are worth talking about profit. Don’t bother with those that get淘汰掉. The bottom chips theory is good, but it also depends on when the market will truly start telling a new story. It’s still early now, right? Your analytical perspective is indeed different. Many people only look at the mechanism itself and don’t consider the cycle layer.

View OriginalReply0

FOMOSapien

· 01-06 12:23

Honestly, I was cut during that PvP wave. Now looking at the bottom chips theory, I feel a bit scared... But the cyclical pattern you mentioned does resonate with me. Wait, have those coins that endured extreme competition really survived? Or are we just seeing the survivor bias?

View OriginalReply0

OldLeekConfession

· 01-05 22:12

Wow, you make some good points. I've been burned by the bottom chip theory before.

View OriginalReply0

GasWaster69

· 01-05 22:11

To be honest, I haven't touched those PvP coins for a long time; they're just the chopped leeks fighting each other. I've heard the "bottom chips" theory too many times, but in the end, it still keeps falling. It's better to bet on a new narrative, at least psychologically it feels better.

View OriginalReply0

LowCapGemHunter

· 01-05 22:11

Wake up, it's all just cycle scams. Nothing new in the crypto world. Bottom chips, huh? You say that every time, but what’s the result? When PvP gets boring, it rises; then PvE starts hyping, taking turns to cut us retail investors. When it's truly profitable, you all don't enter the market. Talking so mysteriously, but isn't it just gambling your luck?

View OriginalReply0

FortuneTeller42

· 01-05 22:09

My view is that those PvP tokens are now rebounding from the bottom, but whether they can hold up depends on the subsequent capital support... To be honest, compared to choosing PvP or PvE, I care more about which project teams are actually doing work rather than just telling stories.

View OriginalReply0

ExpectationFarmer

· 01-05 21:54

Bottom fishing, to put it simply, is still about waiting for the coin to cry before getting on board.

View OriginalReply0