Why should CryptoFights refund the Enjin/Ethereum ‘community’?

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Kronoverse, the company behind CryptoFights recently blogged about their decision to leave the Enjin and Ethereum platforms for Bitcoin SV. This post was met with much criticism and confusion primarily because of the pre-sale of items issued backed by the Enjin coin.

Kronoverse is still honoring the items purchased by issuing them on the Bitcoin SV ledger—so what is the problem?

Examining the language used, the complaint seems to be because Kronoverse is no longer supporting the Enjin coin, or its marketplace. This move would certainly devalue the current trading value of the assets but not the actual utility of them. The items are still owned by the players, valid in the Cryptofights game and can theoretically be traded if such a marketplace emerges on Bitcoin SV. 

The complaints here seem to be because the speculative value is impacted, which indicates the owners are really complaining that this move could preclude ‘Number go up’ of their coin and items. This highlights the true nature of the cryptocurrency markets—that users do not actually want to use the coins but just want to speculate on them. Platforms issuing in-game assets have no responsibility to prop up the fiat value of assets they created—only their usage.

ORANGE COIN GOOD.
NUMBER GO UP. 📈

Via @StephanLivera Podcast collection!

VIEW FULL COLLECTION 👇https://t.co/immNt4FJX0 pic.twitter.com/DqwLAoux16

— Orange Coin Goods 🍊👍 (@OrangeCoinGoods) July 8, 2019

Different database?

The complaint that items they purchased are switching ledgers is analogous to being worried that a company switched their database from SQL to MongoDB. Customers generally are unaware of the back-end details that a platform is using so why is this an issue? Scrutinizing the statement above that CryptoFights ‘pledged to support the ERC-1155 token standard’ we can begin to understand. 

‘HODLers’ tend to look for anything that could increase the speculative value of their assets as we saw this past weekend with the usual suspects pandering and shilling BTC to J.K. Rowling on Twitter.

People are now explaining Bitcoin to me, and honestly, it’s blah blah blah collectibles (My Little Pony?) blah blah blah computers (got one of those) blah blah blah crypto (sounds creepy) blah blah blah understand the risk (I don’t, though.)

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) May 15, 2020

Thus, this move is perceived to potentially decrease the overall value of the Ethereum and Enjin coins. This is ironic as Ethereum has already demonstrated to be incapable of handling volume from the CryptoKitties incident—so surely those interested in playing the game would welcome a move to a platform that is actively proving its capability to scale?

In this writer’s opinion, Kronoverse has no obligation to refund those who bought the pre-sale game items. Companies must make necessary decisions that will benefit themselves and their customers in the long-term. This decision was made in order to deliver the utility of the game items to their customers, which could have been in jeopardy by remaining on Ethereum.

Why should Kronoverse refund their customers in exchange for providing a better service by launching on a chain that scales? Ironically, users could have had a better argument to justify a refund at some point if CryptoFights had launched on Ethereum and the platform failed again due to the high gas costs and network congestion. In fact, high listing fees are currently an issue on the EnjinX marketplace whereas on Bitcoin SV the fees can be dramatically lower.

Run and Digital Ownership

Cryptofights is built on the Run platform where users have complete ownership of the assets named ‘Jigs’. Since these are issued on the capable, low-fee Bitcoin SV ledger, owners can be assured that if the game is a success, they will be able to easily access, use and potentially sell their Jigs in the future. Contrary to the belief of those that are upset, it is quite possible that this controversial move will appreciate the utility and value of their assets rather than ‘honoring’ the issuance on a speculative altcoin.