You bring up a solid challenge—blockchain isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for games. Many games rely on mechanics where centralized control makes more sense, especially when it comes to things like balancing, progression, and enforcing game rules.

That said, blockchain does open up some interesting new models for PvP gaming beyond just ownership of assets. Instead of relying on inflationary token rewards (which often devalue over time), some games are shifting towards Play-to-Win, where rewards come from skill-based competition rather than endless token emissions.

We’ve been experimenting with this in Sachi, particularly with PvP battles designed around skill rather than luck or grinding. Some alternative approaches we’ve seen (and are testing) include:

PvP prize pools – Winner takes all, ensuring that rewards come from competition rather than token inflation.

NFT wagering – Players bet their own assets, making stakes real and competitive.

Hybrid models – Staking rewards based on actual participation and engagement rather than just holding tokens.

Viewer staking – Spectators can stake tokens on their favorite players, keeping engagement high and adding another layer of strategy.

Of course, this raises a big question: How much control should blockchain have over in-game mechanics? You pointed out the issue of players having veto rights over transactions—if a player can refuse a penalty, they will. But does that mean blockchain should only handle verifiable, non-negotiable actions like ownership and wagers, while leaving gameplay mechanics centralized?

Would love to hear your take—do you see a way where blockchain can fairly manage competitive gaming without creating these veto loopholes? Or is it best left as just an ownership and economy layer?