Critical evaluation

The research on Ashes of Mankind's Play-to-Earn ecosystem is detailed but exhibits significant gaps in key areas, particularly in long-term economic projections and the integration of NFTs, staking, and liquidity mechanisms into the broader economic model. The analysis provides a solid overview of the game's reward systems and economic incentives but falls short in addressing critical aspects of sustainability and fairness. Based on the rubric, the research can be classified as **Average**, as it addresses the main Play-to-Earn aspects but lacks depth in areas crucial for long-term viability.

• The research lacks detailed information on the long-term economic sustainability of the game's Play-to-Earn model.
  • There is no discussion of how the game plans to address potential inflation or deflation of in-game assets like $ASH tokens and Credits.
  • The report does not provide data on how the economic model scales with a growing player base, which is critical for assessing long-term viability.
• The integration of NFTs, staking, and liquidity mechanisms is described but not critically evaluated in terms of their impact on the game's fairness and economic balance.
  • While the NFT ecosystem is detailed, there is no analysis of how it prevents market manipulation or ensures equitable access to high-value assets.
  • The staking system is explained, but its potential for centralizing power among wealthy players (whales) is not addressed.
• The research does not provide concrete data on the return on investment (ROI) for players, which is a critical component of Play-to-Earn evaluation.
  • There is no discussion of the typical ROI for different player activities, such as battles, trading, or crafting, which limits the ability to assess the game's economic fairness.
  • Initial costs for participation, such as land purchases and corporate deeds, are mentioned, but their affordability and accessibility to all player segments are not analyzed.

Follow-up questions

How does Ashes of Mankind's economic model address potential inflation or deflation of key assets like $ASH tokens and Credits?

• Without understanding the game's mechanisms to control asset values, stakeholders cannot evaluate the long-term economic stability of the Play-to-Earn model or its resilience to market fluctuations.

What measures are in place to prevent market manipulation or whale dominance in the NFT and staking ecosystems?

• This question is critical for assessing fairness, as the absence of such measures could lead to economic imbalances and reduce the appeal of the game for average players.

What is the typical ROI for different player activities, and how does it vary between casual and dedicated players?

• This information is essential for evaluating the game's economic fairness and attractiveness, as disparities in ROI could discourage certain player segments and undermine long-term engagement.

How does the game ensure affordability and accessibility of initial investments, such as land purchases and corporate deeds, for all player segments?

• Without addressing this question, stakeholders cannot assess whether the game’s economic model is inclusive or whether it creates barriers to entry for lower-income players.