Crypto marcianitos: a player scores 70x while game tokens hit 100x

Crypto marcianitos: the real 70x and the promised 3000x

The token-based video game sector has stopped being a promise and become a fever with a name of its own: the crypto marcianitos. The thesis running through the conversations is that bitcoin is dead and nobody told anyone, and that the money is no longer in mining or holding, but in breeding digital creatures, delivering virtual pizzas and betting on NFT animal farms. Amid a sunken global economy, the promise is clear: making a 3000x from the living room at home. The reality documented is more modest but just as striking: some have managed a 70x in fifteen days by buying a game token at $0.40 and selling it at $4.

What a crypto marcianito is and why it has become the new casino

The initial approach is ambitious: blockchain games are the new era of gaming and their economy increasingly resembles that of Ready Player One. A scenario is described in which millions of people, in a precarious economy, spend twelve-hour days breeding digital creatures to earn an income. Agenda 2030 appears in the narrative as the backdrop to that dystopia, and the underlying diagnosis is that today not only is nothing produced, but people pay to destroy production. What drives the market, it is argued, is pure and simple speculation.

The catalogue handled is broad and organised by genre. In browser role-playing there are Dungeon Swap, Arena Swap, CryptoBlades and Rune. In action role-playing, Mist, The Sandbox, Decentraland and Ember Sword. In the creature-collecting category, Axie, My Defi Pet, Binomon, Mobox, Zoo Crypto and Revomon. For football, Sorare. And on the triple-A horizon, Mirandus is cited as the Minecraft or World of Warcraft of blockchain. The warning that accompanies the list is as important as the list: this is going to fill up with frauds, it is worth comparing the whitepapers and distrusting everything that shines.

One player's 70x and the 100x of the comedoritos coins

The most concrete testimony of profitability comes from a participant who admits having gone from 5,000 to a peak of 20,000 euros in April, then falling to 8,000 and deciding to put 6,000 into farming and 2,000 into play-to-earn games. His great success was buying a token at 0.40 and selling it at 4 dollars: a 70x in fifteen days. He then reinvested everything in another project, of which he says it has the best team and the greatest potential of all those he has read about, and he keeps hoping that if it reaches 2 dollars he will live comfortably for a good while. His only regret is not having put the full 8,000 euros into the first token, because it seemed too much for a simple game.

The other figure circulating is more ironic: the comedoritos coins, referring to game tokens, have done a 100x in a week. The comment sums up the general tone: astonishment and mockery in equal parts. Some boast of having put in 400 euros "for a laugh", having put a third into staking and having multiplied by seven in a day. And some respond with the most sensible calculation: if the total supply and marketcap are already high, it is obvious that the party has been arrived at late.

Constant rotation: from one token to another in a matter of hours

The dynamic described by the material is that of permanent rotation. A project is bought, sold the next day, bought again when it rises and abandoned when it falls. There is talk of leaving one token to enter another, of diversifying with a third and of leaving a fourth "to see what it does". Names appear that come to market with hours of life and marketcaps of six million dollars in three minutes, "n"-shaped charts that anticipate the collapse and warnings that the website does not load. The rule repeated is that of the prudent investor: sell half on hitting 2x to recover what was invested and let the rest run.

The underlying problem is that most of these projects do not attract players no matter how much marketcap they have. A game can have an enormous capitalisation and a non-existent community. The warning is made explicit: you have to look at the whitepapers, compare the age of the project, the number of holders and distrust presales that start already inflated. The wild west, it is said, works like this: the same person who sells a $52,000 package buys another of $42,000 beforehand to inflate the price.

The cycle runs out: when the market corrects, NFT games fall

The euphoria has an expiry date. At one point in the cycle, the reaction of both bitcoin and many altcoins drags down NFT games, and most register significant drops. One token falls almost to half its peak price after having risen more than 8,000% in a month. Another, with a monthly rise of 800%, also retreats. The alpha version of a game comes to market and its token has been falling for days. The pattern repeats: vertical rises trinc by severe corrections.

The investor profile that appears in the material is that of someone who admits to being hooked. "The MOFO for other shitcoins and the FUD get the better of me", it is said, and it is admitted that you need the emotional control of a master or to be a show-off who gets lucky once in a while. The personal conclusion is that this is no life and that activities will have to be found to avoid the FUD. The pandemic appears as an excuse not to do so. The analysis gets stuck exactly there: in the difficulty of looking at the market once a week when the market looks at the investor every minute.

---

Key facts about the phenomenon

• An investor went from 5,000 euros in January to a peak of 20,000 in April and to 8,000 fifteen days before his intervention.
• The 70x was achieved by buying at 0.40 dollars and selling at 4 dollars in fifteen days.
• Game coins did a 100x in a week according to the most repeated comment.
• A token rose more than 8,000% in a month before falling almost to half its peak.
• Another project had accumulated a monthly rise of 800% before correcting.