L3+ chain abstraction + Token flywheel, deconstructing the triple engine of the new gaming powerhouse B3

Recently, many people have asked me what I think of the new rising star B3 in the Base ecosystem? Under the leadership of former Coinbase employees, can this L3 designed specifically for on-chain games truly solve the "island" dilemma of Web3 games? Let me discuss it in detail:

——The new concept of open game web3 The concept of "open game" proposed by B3 has a clear goal: to break the current silo state of Web3 games. The status quo is indeed the case, if you look at Axie Infinity, StepN, Parallel and other head chain games, which one is not engaged in a closed cycle in its own ecology? Users have to switch between different chains, handle different tokens, and adapt to different wallets to play different games, and the experience is a mess.

The solution of B3 is to enable various games to maintain independence while achieving interoperability through the GameChains architecture. For example, Parallel's Prime chain and Infinigods' God chain can run independently on B3, but at the underlying level, they can share liquidity and user incentives. This "both-and" idea is quite ideal; it mainly depends on whether it can be implemented.

The question arises: for GameChains to truly achieve interoperability, various game parties need to reach an agreement on technical standards, asset definitions, economic models, and other aspects. This is fundamentally not a technical issue, but a matter of profit distribution.

Fortunately, B3 has a natural advantage by being backed by the Coinbase ecosystem, with the traffic access of Base and compliance endorsement, which can indeed attract many game developers to actively integrate.

——The technical combination of L3 architecture + on-chain abstraction From a technical architecture perspective, B3 has chosen a relatively prudent yet distinctive path. As an L3 on Base, the cost of a single transaction is controlled at around $0.001, which is indeed very attractive for on-chain games.

The AnySpend technology of B3 allows users to instantly access cross-chain assets through a single account, without the need to manually switch networks or bridge tokens.

In other words, it is essentially a "sharding + cross-chain" hybrid model, where each GameChain maintains an independent state, but achieves atomic cross-chain operations through the B3 unified settlement layer, avoiding the security risks and time delays of traditional bridging solutions.

In simple terms, B3 is in the business of game operations, not the infrastructure business of selling shovels.

However, the competition in the L3 track is fierce. You have the Base ecosystem, while others have Arbitrum's Orbit and Polygon's CDK. The differentiation moat of B3 may lie in its deep understanding of game scenarios and a unified entry point.

——Tokenomics design and business model The token distribution of B3 is relatively balanced: 34.2% is allocated to the community ecosystem, with only 19% released at TGE, and the remaining part has a 4-year lock-up plan to avoid short-term selling pressure.

The application scenarios of $B3 include staking to earn GameChains rewards, funding game projects, paying transaction fees, etc., and the logic is relatively complete.

From a business model perspective, B3 adopts the "platform economy + network effect" model. Unlike traditional game publishers who take a cut of 30-70%, B3 attracts ecosystem participants through lower transaction fees (0.5%) and token incentives.

The key value flywheel is: more games integrated → more players gathered → stronger network effects → higher $B3 demand → more resources invested in the ecosystem.

What I am more concerned about is the positioning of B3 as "the main circulating token of the entire on-chain game ecosystem." Currently, most chain games have their own token economies. How can B3 persuade these projects to accept $B3 as a universal currency? From a valuation perspective, B3 is more like "the gaming version of the App Store," where its value comes not only from technical fees but also from the ecological scale effect.

Above.

The biggest attraction of the B3 project is not technological innovation, but the systematic solution to the structural problems of the Web3 game industry. From the perspective of the team's background and resource integration capabilities, Coinbase's team, Base's ecological support, and $21 million in financing are all real advantages. With 6 million active wallet users, more than 80 access games, and 300 million cumulative transactions, B3 does have a set of user acquisition and ecological construction.

The differentiation of B3 lies in its middle path of "not completely relying on a single game IP, nor purely focusing on technical infrastructure." Theoretically, this has greater imaginative space, but it also faces the risk of "not being anchored on either side."

Of course, the Web3 gaming track is still in the early exploratory stage. Whether B3 can truly realize the vision of "open games" depends crucially on its ability to continuously attract quality game content and real users. After all, no matter how good the infrastructure is, its value ultimately relies on the prosperity of the application ecosystem.