FAQs

Axie Infinity’s SLP token had uncapped supply and no meaningful sinks; it went from $0.40 to under $0.002 once new player inflow slowed—a textbook case of the greater-fool problem dressed up as gameplay. StepN repeated the pattern with GMT/GST dual-token inflation. Both projects confused user acquisition subsidies with sustainable economics. Tiledom rejects that model entirely: every token entering circulation is matched against explicit, structurally necessary sinks (crafting fees, land maintenance, capital depreciation, loan interest burns), and issuance adapts to real velocity data rather than following a fixed drip schedule.

You shouldn’t trust—you should verify. Our whitepaper publishes the full supply identity S(t+1) = S(t) + I(t) − B(t) with concrete parameterization, not vague promises. We run agent-based stress tests with adversarial bot populations before any parameter goes live. Vesting schedules are locked in on-chain contracts: 6-month cliff plus 18-month linear for the team, 3-month cliff plus 15-month linear for seed investors. Treasury lending is capped at 30% of reserves with 50% LTV maximums. These aren’t marketing bullet points; they’re auditable constraints.

It is a game first. The core loop—check tiles, allocate workers, plant crops, craft tools, trade on the market—is designed for 5–10 minute mobile sessions. But unlike most casual games, the economy underneath is modeled to the same standard you’d expect from a macro simulation or a money-market prototype. We believe those two things aren’t in tension: the best economic simulations (from SimCity to EVE Online) succeed precisely because the underlying systems are internally consistent.

Each land tile is a unique NFT with immutable base attributes: extractable resource capacities (bronze, stone, nutrients), fertility coefficients, and four configurable building slots. Resource extraction permanently depletes capacity—there is no magical respawn. This creates real Ricardian rent dynamics: high-endowment tiles command premium prices and rents, while depleted tiles must reinvest in capital improvements to remain productive. It’s the same logic that drives farmland valuation and urban zoning in the real world, formalized on-chain.

We explicitly model this problem, which economists call the ‘first-mover extraction trap.’ Land is released in discrete generations (epochs)—new continents with fresh resource distributions—so the economy expands over time rather than being a single land grab. Existing tiles degrade without maintenance investment, and downstream production (toolmaking, housing, labor services) becomes increasingly valuable as raw resources deplete. Late entrants can specialize, rent productive land, or provide labor—just as in a real developing economy where not everyone needs to be a landowner to participate.

Because we parameterize before we ship. Before any economic variable goes on-chain, it is tested in agent-based simulations with populations of casual gamers, economy optimizers, speculators, and adversarial bots—each following distinct behavioral strategies. We track token velocity, price stability (±30% bands), resource price ratios, Gini coefficients of wealth distribution, and 7/30/90-day retention across hundreds of simulated days. This is standard practice in computational economics and operations research; it is almost unheard of in GameFi.

The protocol treasury functions as a simplified, rules-based central bank. Like the Fed, it monitors velocity and adjusts issuance—but unlike the Fed, every rule is public, deterministic, and encoded in code rather than decided behind closed doors. When token velocity drops below 0.3 (stagnation), rewards increase 20% and crafting costs drop 10%. When velocity exceeds 0.7 (speculative overheating), rewards decrease and sink rates rise. There is no discretionary intervention and no political mandate—just transparent, data-driven adjustment. Think of it as a Taylor Rule for a game economy.

The Axie death spiral refers to the feedback loop where falling SLP prices reduce player earnings, causing player exit, which further reduces demand, which crashes prices further. The root cause was that SLP issuance was tied to player count (more players → more minting) with almost no structural burn. Tiledom breaks this loop in three ways: (1) issuance adapts downward automatically when activity metrics fall, (2) sinks are tied to productive actions that players perform regardless of token price (maintenance, crafting, feeding workers), and (3) the treasury can absorb excess supply through lending operations and liquidity management rather than relying on perpetual new-user inflow.

Fixed supply works for a store of value but creates deflationary pressure in a transactional economy—players hoard rather than spend, velocity collapses, and the in-game economy freezes. This is the same reason no functioning real-world economy operates on a hard gold standard anymore. Tiledom needs a medium of exchange with mild, controlled inflation to incentivize circulation and productive investment. The key insight from monetary economics is that the optimal money supply grows roughly in line with real economic output—and that’s exactly what our adaptive issuance targets.

Concentration risk is a real concern. We mitigate it through multiple mechanisms: treasury lending is capped at 30% of reserves so no single borrower can drain the system; land is released in generations rather than a single auction, preventing cornering; AMM liquidity pools impose natural slippage costs on large trades; and the DAO governance model (one-token-one-vote with quadratic weighting under consideration) limits plutocratic capture. We also monitor on-chain Gini coefficients and can propose parameter adjustments through governance if wealth concentration threatens economic health.

The pump.fun model releases 100% of token supply at launch with immediate deep liquidity—marketed as ‘fair’ because there’s no vesting. In practice, it produces extreme volatility, zero utility, and near-certain value destruction for latecomers. It confuses equal access with equal outcomes. Tiledom follows a ‘fair-access’ philosophy instead: controlled launch after off-chain testing, gradual liquidity unlocks paced by real utility growth, and transparent vesting for all insiders. We believe fairness means giving the economy time to develop real demand before exposing participants to full market risk.

A token is likely a security if there is (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with expectation of profits, (4) derived from the efforts of others. We design to weaken criteria 3 and 4: the token is marketed as game utility, not as an investment; value is generated by player activity, not by a centralized dev team; and governance progressively decentralizes via DAO. We also obtain formal legal opinions, implement phased KYC/AML as withdrawal volumes grow, and never use ‘APY’ or ‘guaranteed returns’ language. This doesn’t make us immune—but it puts us on the right side of the intent analysis.

Projects that call vesting ‘outdated’ are usually the ones whose insiders want to sell immediately. The empirical record is unambiguous: SAND and ILV used multi-year vesting and maintained relative price stability post-TGE; almost every fair-launch memecoin without vesting lost 90%+ within weeks. Vesting aligns time horizons—our team can’t sell for 6 months, then unlocks linearly over 18 more. That’s 24 months of skin in the game, enforced by immutable smart contracts, not promises.

EVE Online proved that player-driven economies can sustain themselves for 20+ years if the underlying simulation is deep enough—its in-house economist, Eyjólfur Guðmundsson, pioneered real-time economic dashboards and inflation monitoring inside a virtual world. Second Life demonstrated that user-created value and real-money flows can coexist, but also showed the dangers of insufficient monetary controls (Linden Dollar inflation, banking collapses). Tiledom takes the best of both: EVE’s commitment to simulation depth and transparent economic reporting, combined with on-chain enforcement of monetary rules that Second Life lacked.

We treat monetary policy as an open research program, not a black box. Issuance schedules, sink rates, treasury reserve ratios, and parameter changes are published with supporting data and rationale—similar to how the Fed publishes FOMC minutes or how the Bank of England publishes its Monetary Policy Report. On-chain rules are verifiable by anyone; off-chain parameter proposals go through DAO governance with public discussion periods. If a central bank can justify its interest rate decisions to the public, we can justify our crafting fee adjustments to our players.

We maintain an explicit ‘anti-pattern registry’ informed by post-mortems of real projects: (1) Uncapped inflationary rewards with no sinks (Axie SLP), (2) Dual-token systems where the ‘utility’ token inflates while the ‘governance’ token captures all value (StepN GMT/GST), (3) Instant full-supply launches with zero utility (pump.fun model), (4) Opaque treasury management with no reserve reporting (Terra/Luna), (5) Over-leveraged lending without adequate collateral buffers (Celsius, BlockFi). Every Tiledom design decision is checked against this list. If a proposed mechanic resembles any of these patterns, it gets reworked or rejected.

Absolutely not, and anyone who tells you otherwise about any project is lying to you. Tiledom is an economic simulation with real risks, including the possibility of losing value. What we guarantee is intellectual honesty: published models, transparent rules, staged rollouts, conservative treasury management, and the commitment to treat our players’ capital with the same rigor that a responsible financial institution would. The economy is designed to be resilient—not risk-free.