Interview with Big Time: The New Economic Model of GameFi 2.0
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with Big Time: The New Economic Model of GameFi 2.0
This article will delve into blockchain-based gaming, the future of creator economies, and the economicization of digital games.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsThis is a transcript from Circle's podcast series "The Money Movement," featuring a conversation between Circle founder Jeremy and Ari Meilich and Thor Alexander of Big Time Studios, delving deeply into blockchain-based gaming, the future of creator economies, and the economicization of digital games.
DeepTide TechFlow has been authorized by Circle to compile and republish this content.
Transcript
Jeremy: Today we're joined by Ari Meilich, co-founder of Big Time Studios and co-founder of Decentraland.
We’ll be discussing Big Time Studios—what they’re building. But I think we'll also explore some broader topics that are drawing significant attention.
In the crypto economy, what does the market model of metaverse NFT gaming mean for creators? You’ve clearly thought about this, given your extensive work in the space. I'm excited to dive into these themes with you. Welcome, and thank you for joining us.
Ari: Thank you for having us here.
Jeremy: Great. I think there’s a lot to unpack. Let’s go back to when you first entered the cryptocurrency space—your origin story, how you got to where you are today. And of course, we should touch on Decentraland, which has seen extraordinary growth.
Ari: Yes. This project (Big Time) actually began incubating just as Thor and I, along with other members of the Decentraland team, were preparing to launch Decentraland. We anticipated structural changes toward full decentralization once the product went public.
That meant dissolving the original development company, establishing a new independent foundation, and forming a DAO. As this process unfolded and the legal entity disappeared, it was natural for us to step down from management roles. At that point, Thor and I had strong feelings—we wanted to take a different path and consider shortcuts to accelerate adoption.
When we launched Decentraland, perhaps only 20,000 to 50,000 players were engaging with so-called blockchain games—it was still very early days, and we lived through that period firsthand. Despite numerous barriers, regular users were trying to play these games. Back then, gamers looked down on blockchain games—and maybe they still do.
Blockchain games were like free-to-play games back when most games were paid-upfront. That’s why I decided to keep building in this space. We foresaw that blockchain technology would become an integral part of the gaming landscape.
So we decided to start a new company focused on AAA-quality or hardcore games—the kind serious gamers love. While we wanted lower entry barriers, our goal was to build a game for people who genuinely enjoy playing, one they could spend hours on—not because of financial speculation or wealth, but simply because they loved the gameplay.
Thor: Two key lessons we learned from Decentraland:
-
1. One now widely recognized insight: massive demand for NFTs, especially within gaming.
-
2. The second, less understood issue: blockchain games remain too difficult for average users to access.
One of Big Time’s core visions is to reverse this—to break down all those barriers. It aims to be a mass-market product, enabling easier access without requiring users to set up a crypto wallet or transact via exchanges.
Jeremy: Yes. We've recently disclosed that Circle and Circle Ventures are investors in Big Time. We’re thrilled to support what you're doing. We’re also partners in bridging crypto infrastructure with traditional financial systems, helping integrate blockchain gaming more seamlessly.
Providing accessible pathways into this ecosystem is crucial. I truly appreciate the opportunity to collaborate across multiple fronts. Thank you. Let’s rewind a bit—you know, right now there’s immense hype around the metaverse, around Anima, blockchain gaming.
It's somewhat speculative, but enough to surprise all of us—even if not you, since you've long been believers in this space. As pioneers who helped build one of the major virtual worlds, what do you see as the biggest current trend? How should people engage with it?
People often oversimplify these narratives. As long-time practitioners, I’d love to hear your expanded perspective—without puns, just deep insight.
Thor: Well, I believe we're seeing the convergence of three major trends that are transforming how everything works.
-
1. The first is ownership—something blockchain excels at—enabling individuals and businesses to truly own their assets.
-
2. The second follows naturally: owning your identity instead of letting Facebook own it for you—which makes them quite upset.
-
3. The third and most exciting trend is interoperability across worlds. The first two trends lay the groundwork for this. This is ultimately where we’re headed—and not just in science fiction novels.
There, you’ll have a virtual identity that lets you move freely across digital worlds. You’ll own virtual assets—like companies or databases—and be able to bring them wherever you go. This is just the beginning, and everyone is excited about it. It’s cool.
We already have many ideas about how to achieve this, but it’s a long-term vision. Right now, we don’t want to get ahead of ourselves—we aim to keep things simple and build in the right order.
Ari: Beyond what Thor mentioned, there are other shifts happening—particularly in consumer behavior. In traditional games, players can buy in-game assets, but have little control over them. In the real world, you can lend books to friends, resell albums, or transfer anything you own. Only recently has true ownership within a closed virtual environment become possible.
With blockchain, virtual items are more secure. Their attributes are transparent. There’s a shared standard for exchanging and transferring them.
Now, when people buy digital assets, they’re buying something with real value. And going forward, regardless of whether developers want to allow it, users will be able to transfer these assets. This builds confidence in purchasing. People may invest far more time than in traditional games because this isn’t sunk cost—they know these assets stay with them.
Jeremy: Exactly. Digital ownership is a huge component—as you said, it existed before, but not in an open, interoperable, liquid way. Clearly, ownership is a foundational shift.
Then there’s the broader phenomenon: earning money through games. Real-world economies, both public and private, are finding their paths. You’re building a blockchain game. At what point will blockchain gaming become a place where people can make a living?
Beyond personal enjoyment and speculation—obviously entertainment is central—but where’s the boundary? Where do you think it should be? Many seem to chase this idea. Hotspots have emerged, and others want to replicate the model.
It might make sense to approach this from a gaming perspective—I’m particularly interested in that.
Ari: Traditionally, game items are issued by publishers or developers to players. With freely transferable assets, economic benefits emerge, enabling innovation in cash flows.
You get active peer-to-peer trading—exchanging items for real money, or time for money. Eventually, money won’t just flow from players to developers. More people will invest time and money into a game, while others—players not affiliated with the developer—will receive funds.
There’s a super-trend online: growing numbers of people making a living on the internet. If you look closely, perhaps 50 million influencers already earn income by creating content on social media.
For kids, teens, and gamers, this is becoming one of the most desirable careers. I think there’s massive pent-up demand. A small elite—eSports athletes—already earn through competition. When 3–4 billion people play online games and seek livelihoods, the demand becomes enormous. More people are choosing internet-based careers.
I’m not saying the future of gaming is merging games with work—I’m saying this overlap will grow. Because so many want to spend significant time in games, it becomes natural to hire people online or outsource tasks.
Jeremy: The scale of this economy and volume of activity is massive. It’s fascinating. This is a perfect entry point—I’ll share a data point: this morning, U.S. labor participation data showed job gains.
Another headline: 200,000 new jobs created. LinkedIn’s chief economist said on TV she thinks that misses the mark—because it only captures hiring activity and new entity creation.
Every sector is launching startups at record speed, but these aren’t reflected in traditional W-2 wage reports. It’s like parts of the real economy—people are earning livelihoods, but not getting W-2 paychecks from online games. They’re making a living in the crypto economy.
This phenomenon will become increasingly visible—this digital lifestyle you described. Perhaps it connects directly to what you’re building. The concept of AAA, high-value games could serve as the foundation for your platform.
Maybe talk about it as a platform—for other creators. What does game interoperability look like in your vision? How far off is an interoperable marketplace? And feel free to share your business roadmap.
Ari: We launched Big Time Studios at a time when most blockchain companies wanted to build platform games but lacked successful examples.
Back in 2018–2019, everyone sought the killer blockchain app—but things shifted. The blockchain gaming space saw many shell projects, with people sending “funds” to non-existent game studios. We realized success hinges on building actual content. When we started talking to traditional game studios, they echoed this—we wanted to support their games.
We realized that by becoming first-party content creators, we’d face all the challenges head-on. Soon, we’d encounter the same issues other studios face—and we’d have solutions ready. So we’ve focused on building large-scale and indie games. Even as we develop tools and processes useful for external partners, our priority remains clear.
But worst of all, we still must focus on the game itself. The game launches in April. As an early access launch, it will initially open to holders of early access passes—around 12,000 people. We’ve also been in constant dialogue with various game studios.
Over the past six months, ACCE exploded, becoming a giant. Audiobooks, in a way, reflect this too—traditional game developers are now viewing blockchain gaming more positively, recognizing the massive opportunity.
So timing feels perfect. We’ve developed for over 18 months, and we’re less than half a year from launch. Now we’re ready to invite other developers, offering them tools, expertise, and market liquidity.
We already understand the challenges ahead—in technology, game design, economics, regulation. These aren’t trivial. We’re designing asset systems to ensure compliance. We’re actively collaborating with studios trying to walk the same path.
Most importantly, we believe in co-developing with players. Game development takes at least three years, sometimes longer. We’re partnering with studios whose games can stand independently—even if we were in a 2018-style bear market, nothing compares to the growth we’re seeing now.
Jeremy: Yes, exciting. Creators, traditional game developers—they’re starting to recognize it, even if only within their own businesses.
What are the critical components for a game developer building a blockchain game? What are the most common elements? What foundations do they build upon? And if interoperability is enabled, what does that unlock?
Thor: We can abstract a layer here: a playbook for successfully creating blockchain games—or better ones. Similar to what we did earlier with social games and MMOs: existing methods dominate until a disruptive force arrives. You must adapt, discovering the formula that makes games work in the new medium. Our biggest advantage comes from Decentraland and the first-gen blockchain games we pioneered.
Now we’re entering GameFi 2.0. It’s bold. We offer those joining our platform a suite of proven practices—what works, and why. These are hard-won secrets we can share to help others avoid pitfalls.
Ari: To answer your question concretely: developers need to understand how to properly sign these asset types. Game economies have changed. Before free transferability, business models were slightly different—mostly one-to-many. Now open economies are emerging.
We’ve prioritized making entry easy. Step outside the blockchain bubble—most people don’t know what a wallet is. They don’t understand MetaMask. They don’t grasp self-custody. Yet I’m an advanced user who uses it daily.
We’re working to sign on behalf of users unprepared for this. But who wants someone else holding their assets? In blockchain, that’s long been taboo.
It might violate principles—like helping your dad hold assets when you’re not censorship-resistant. Still, we’re doing related work—integrating gateways, CA, email checks—because we want to partner with payment processors.
It’s reminiscent of a turning point years ago—different barriers emerged. Also, community-building in blockchain differs. You need new ways to incentivize participants. That’s another area we focus on.
Jeremy: Yes, exactly. Incentive design and motivation operate across all network dimensions. Always fascinating.
We work with dApper Labs, who are improving digital collectibles, creating scalable models across diverse content creators. They have strong insights and FTS, but still need seamless user experiences—high-fidelity access to these markets.
Also, handling certain responsibilities—like customer due diligence and issuance—must be done compliantly to ensure real accessibility. We’re seeing similar approaches with partnerships involving major sports leagues like MLB.
So it’ll be interesting to see if gaming becomes the standard—where quality and experience become the norm, while power users retain full self-sovereignty through advanced access methods.
Ari: Centralized projects lack guardianship and broad audience reach. But we may have opportunities there.
Jeremy: Yes. But I wonder—part of the promise lies in your architecture, our blockchain, our NFTs—their core being exchangeability, interoperability, and ultimately, people’s ability to move things seamlessly.
At its heart, it’s about user experience when engaging with these systems.
I’m curious: how do you see market structures evolving? We obviously have examples like NFT marketplaces—everyone seems to be launching one. After launch, mainstreaming follows, adapting to user preferences, building massive exchanges. Then come derivatives, options, futures—meeting needs around NFTs or what users seek. Does this lean more toward content-driven experiences?
Ari: Yes, as markets mature, there will be room and demand for more specialized, vertical-specific marketplaces. Current NFT platforms mostly focus on digital art, but others are emerging for music and FTS.
This will be a major trend. Over the past year or two, we’ve seen game categories built around virtual worlds gaining popularity. That’s a completely different use case. I’m not a diehard digital art fan—I’m more into games.
As you can see, gamer populations vastly outnumber art collectors. Even if NFTs make art collecting more accessible, the gaming market and demand could be much larger—and the needs entirely different.
In our case, our architecture allows NFTs to exist inside the game or marketplace, but we also need to act as wallets. Most existing marketplaces are structured around wallets or centralized infrastructures—like OpenSea or FTX—requiring connection to a game’s backend. I’m not sure how that works unless they open APIs.
That’s why we’re building infrastructure—to make it easier for developers to understand fairness, and for users to see clearly while playing.
Jeremy: That makes sense. The relationship between specific platforms—where NFT content ties to a specific application, whether a game, artwork, or something else—is fascinating.
How does this fit into Big Time and your spring release? Will there be a token mechanism? Is it central to the gameplay? In a recent episode, Michael from Star Atlas joined us. They’ve rolled out sorting, governance tokens, then NFTs—a multi-token economy. How do you view tokens beyond NFTs in gaming context?
Ari: We designed our first game so you don’t really need crypto assets to play. Maybe it’s like a quick-start guide—then we can expand from there.
Jeremy: Why not?
Thor: The game is an action RPG, a tribute to classics like Diablo II—players kill monsters, get loot, then fight bigger monsters. At its core is a compulsive loop.
What we’ve done is enhance part of that reward cycle—dropping ultra-rare, limited-edition items. We’re addressing known issues—like tightening our auction house policies—to ensure in-game items are meaningful.
We launched a skin program, but all NFTs or skins will remain scarce. Pay-to-win scenarios won’t exist. Players can enter with wallets, but free players won’t face unfair advantages. They can join, customize characters, and look cool.
Our core idea creates arbitrage between those with more money than time, and those with more time than money. One side grinds levels; the other—busy professionals—can fast-forward. These players once loved games but now lack time due to work or family. So they can use their wallets to buy rare items normally earned through grinding—on equal footing. The market enables this—letting them obtain desired items without spending time.
That’s the essence of what we’re doing.
Beyond this core, we’ve added cool innovations—especially around token utility: putting guilt first is part of our design philosophy.
An interesting evolution: players formed guilds for a game we haven’t even launched yet, developing strategies to profit from it. This pushed us to prioritize guilds in our roadmap—an early “community-first” approach that proved valuable for early product releases.
It gave everyone a chance to participate in the earliest development stages—co-creation with gamers. They became partners, telling us, “Hey, these are the things we like! These are what we want to try!”
The pace of community growth is incredibly energizing.
Jeremy: I’d say this community-driven integration with game economy—where people invest significant time and money during creation—is compelling and astonishing.
It’s unlike anything I’ve seen. If you step back slightly, you realize you’ve evolved within the blockchain space.
As a tech expert and entrepreneur, I love thinking about convergent trends—things already happening or likely in the next few years. Which are more viable or adaptable? From your vantage point, what new things are driving interaction?
Whether VR, AR, or underlying economies—how will these markets evolve? Part of your argument centers on great gameplay and UX—what people care about. But when you consider technological shifts and surface-level changes, what might the next two, three, or four years look like?
Thor: The biggest disruptive factor is ubiquitous machine learning and advanced AI. It’s not about programming computers anymore—it’s about teaching them to think.
I think many in gaming haven’t yet grasped how this will impact the industry. It will fundamentally change how we build games—and it’s already happening. If you want better games, you need smarter computers, not just better code.
Few are talking about this. But in fact, many of these developments are already emerging at the edges. This is one of the most significant shifts.
Jeremy: Can you give examples of how this disrupts game development?
Thor: Or the experience? Let me give you a solid example: game animation. We brought keyframe animation from 2D industries like Disney, then adopted motion capture—largely replacing traditional animators.
Now we’re seeing something different—not motion capture, not hand-keyed frames, but gameplay capture. Systems learn by observing real players. Then we can say, “I want a character that moves like this”—an animation generated from real behavior.
This saves enormous costs and creative effort. Development cycles shrink. Experimentation becomes easier. We’ll see many cool innovations—especially in animation.
How do you program a character to move naturally? First, let a human perform it—then train the machine. The result feels more like playing against a real person, not scripted designer behavior.
Another point I’ve mentioned: mobile singing games accelerated this tech trend, broadening opportunities everywhere.
As I said earlier, this is proven. At times, when many lack income, they turn to internet opportunities. In reality, a massive game economy exists—people pour money into it, roughly $150 billion annually.
Previously, all money flowed straight to developers. Now, value transfer between peers or players is much easier. Going forward, more money will go to people who don’t develop games but find their niche in the digital economy.
Jeremy: That’s a fascinating concept. What is internet gaming GDP? Not something you usually think about—maybe some do. But you know it’s real. How much economic activity exists—not just payments to content, developers, or distributors?
It’s a full-fledged economy. Watching what you’re building is incredibly exciting. We’re thrilled by each incremental step and milestone you’ve reached. We’ll be watching closely—and again, deeply honored to partner with you as you build this system.
Ari: Yes, absolutely. Thank you for inviting us. We look forward to the market launch.
Jeremy: Thank you.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@circle
