Like others said, people are going to want to buy in to make a profit regardless of the assets being called utility tokens. But I think you also gave the answer to my question on this page, that is, with non-fungibles, in the same way collectibles are not securities but can become valuable.
If the land is limited or some is located in a more favorable location to attract people than it will surely grow on value.
Like others said, people are going to want to buy in to make a profit regardless of the assets being called utility tokens. But I think you also gave the answer to my question on this page, that is, with non-fungibles, in the same way collectibles are not securities but can become valuable.
If the land is limited or some is located in a more favorable location to attract people than it will surely grow on value.
It depends on the amount of players, if many 3D worlds will be existing in some years, it also can be, that only a few players live in every world and the price remains stable.
Location will probably play a big part in the virtual metaverse, thats also the reason why we give first the ico participants their land. This way they get rewarded for their support.
Well yea but not many 3D worlds will exist with support of the blockchain this will give us a big advantage if you ask us. There is always competition if there is not than probably its not
that great idea or you are really the first one creating it.
Burning tokens doesn't guarantee the value to go up, that's for sure, supply can be of one token but if it has no real value I don't see its valuation can go up (like the Aurora token, it's worth nothing despite the supply)
Of course not, especially now that the ICO market is in bad condition and prices dont go up once tokens are on exchange but its still the better option for what to do with unsold tokens.
This question has been answered recently. They will burn the unsold tokens which I think is fair to investors.
Yea this is the most fair solution and also the most common one.