The Biggest NFT Video Game’s Economy Is Collapsing Because NFT Games Don’t Work


image0

The biggest NFT game currently in the marketplace is Axie Infinity, a game—similar to Pokémon—in which players collect and battle monsters which resemble axolotl salamanders.

The business model for Axie Infinity and nearly all other nonfungible token (NFT) games is called “play to earn.” In these games, all players must start by purchasing NFT characters on a marketplace. In-game assets and currencies are traded on crypto exchanges, so everything in the game is worth money. The often-high upfront cost of buying into the game is theoretically justified by the opportunity to earn money by playing.

Web3 investors are really excited about the prospects of games like this. Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, who is an investor in Axie Infinity, believes play-to-earn games will be 90 percent of the gaming market in five years. And Sky Mavis, the developer that makes Axie Infinity, had the good fortune to be years ahead of the competition. Their NFT game launched in 2018, and they were live and operational when NFTs exploded in popularity and investors decided to bet that the blockchain was the future of gaming. 

As a result of being first movers in the space, this once-tiny independent studio was able to raise $150 million in financing in October 2021 at a valuation of $3 billion. Around the same time, Sky Mavis trumpeted its game’s tremendous subscriber growth, which exploded in the third quarter of 2021 to over two million daily active users. In December, Axie Infinity Shards (ASX), the game’s governance token, had a market capitalization larger than that of the French games publisher Ubisoft, which makes the Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, and Watch Dogs games. In July, a single rare Axie monster sold for 369 ether, worth over $800,000 at time of sale. A rare plot of land in the game sold for 550 ether ($2.5 million) despite the fact that the gameplay features using in-game land are not yet available. 

However, some big problems have emerged in Axie Infinity: The value of an in-game currency called Smooth Love Potions (SLP) crashed from last summer’s high, above $0.40, to a value of around $0.01 in January 2022, lower than its price a year earlier when few people had heard of NFTs and the game itself had only about 50,000 active players. This is a big problem for Axie Infinity, because the object of the game is “playing to earn” and SLP is the currency you earn by playing. As a result of plunging values, the volume of transactions for Axie assets may have fallen as much as 70 percent from its peak in just a couple of months. The floor price of the cheapest Axie characters fell to around $30 in January 2022, which signals that users are dumping their assets, since it often costs more than that to mint one of the characters. AXS, the governance token, has lost over 40 percent of its value since Christmas, a paper loss of billions of dollars.

By looking at what’s going wrong with Axie Infinity, we can see how the play-to-earn business model has major problems with no clear solutions.

Gaming NFTs Aren’t Like Other NFTs

NFTs are unique tokens on a blockchain that are attached to digital assets, often images. In some cases, these images are works of art, and the holder of the token is considered the owner of the digital work. In other cases, the NFT serves as a key or a club membership. For example, the popular Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT collection has exclusive Discord chat groups where Ape owners can network with celebrities and crypto influencers. The Bored Ape team has airdropped new NFTs as free gifts to owners of its original NFT collection, and hosted a live Ape Fest event in New York in summer 2021 with parties only Bored Ape owners could attend.

Whether these perks justify the eye-popping prices these NFTs trade at is subject to dispute, but there is an argument that the prices of the most coveted NFTs are justified by the possibility of valuable airdrops or other benefits. These are speculative investments and the people buying them have theories about why they might be more valuable at some future date than they are today. The Apes were looking smart in January 2022, as the floor price for the cheapest assets in the collection continued to climb while the broader crypto sector hemorrhaged more than $1 trillion dollars

But play-to-earn gaming NFTs are seeming a lot dumber. They’re not works of art. They’re not club memberships. They’re not status symbols. They are items in a video game, and the video game is about money. The NFT characters are valuable because they can earn you money. So, the value of the NFT is based on its ability to produce video game resources that also have monetary value: How much can it earn you in the pay-to-earn game? How fast can your initial investment pay for itself and start earning you profits through gameplay? And what happens to your investment if your expectations about these things are wrong?

Here’s how it’s supposed to work.

The Axie Economy

The resources in Axie Infinity as it currently exists are: Axie monsters; AXS cryptocurrency, some of which is awarded as a prize to the top handful of competitive players, but which all other players can only acquire by purchasing it; and SLP, which is an in-game reward currency also traded on crypto exchanges. The way players are supposed to earn money in the game is by selling their extra SLP for cash.

An Axie monster is kind of like a Pokémon, and Axie battles are similar to Pokémon battles, but each monster is connected to a token and can be sold on crypto exchanges. To play the game, you need at least three of them, and you have to start by buying your monsters for real money from other players—there’s no Pokémon professor to give you a starter monster, and you can’t catch anything in the game.

New Axies are only produced by “breeding” existing Axies. When two Axies are bred, they produce an egg which will hatch after 5 days into a new NFT monster with a mix of characteristics inherited from the parents, and possibly some random mutations. Breeding Axies costs a fee that must be paid in AXS tokens as well as a variable amount of SLP depending on how many times the parent Axies have produced offspring previously. 

So, in order to produce a new NFT character, you have to pay a fee that is usually between $30 and $80 in crypto, depending on the current price of AXS, as well an amount of SLP representing hours of time spent playing and worth what has, at certain points, been a significant amount of real money. Producing the offspring also depreciates the value of the parent Axies, because the SLP cost of breeding an Axie rises each time it is bred, and after breeding seven times, Axies can no longer produce offspring.

The most important things to know about Axie breeding is that it is a costly and risky activity, and it is the only activity in the game that removes SLP currency from circulation.

SLP is an “uncapped utility token,” which means it is a cryptocurrency that is awarded for completing tasks in the game, and there is no limit on how much of it can be produced. Nearly all the game’s rewards are paid in SLP. This is a fancy way of saying it’s an in-game currency like gold in World of Warcraft or bells in Animal Crossing. 

Players earn SLP from winning battles against other players in the game’s arena mode and for clearing levels filled with computer-controlled enemies in adventure mode. Every player can earn 100 SLP each day from adventure mode and an additional 50 SLP for completing a daily quest which requires completing some adventure levels and winning some arena games. Above that threshold, more SLP can be earned from winning arena matches, and the amount of SLP awarded for an arena win varies depending on how highly-ranked the player is. Average to decent players will get 6 to 12 SLP per win, while the top players can earn as much as 24 for each victory.

The reward for collecting powerful (and therefore expensive) Axie monsters and being in the top few percent of players is that you get more SLP for winning arena matches. Everything in the game is rewarded with SLP and the benefit of progress (or spending lots of money) is the ability to get larger amounts of SLP for time spent playing. Getting as much SLP as you can is the object of the game. So, if SLP is worthless, then so are the NFT assets which are valued because of their SLP-earning ability.

A player with a basic team of monsters, getting modest rewards from arena wins with an average ranking can earn about 220 SLP per day, playing for about three hours. A highly ranked player can earn over 800 SLP if they play for six or eight hours. At a valuation of $0.35 per SLP, the 220 SLP the casual player can earn is worth about $75. If SLP is worth $0.01, 220 SLP is worth only $2.20.

Why Did SLP Crash?

Here’s how “play to earn” works in the real world: Over 40 percent of all active Axie Infinity players are in the Philippines, where the per capita GDP is about $3,300 per year. The second highest concentration of Axie players is in Venezuela, where the economy has been in complete collapse since 2013 and the local currency has been rendered near-worthless by hyperinflation. Only about 6 percent of Axie Infinity players live in the United States. It has been difficult for games like Axie Infinity to acquire players in the developed world because many gamers despise NFTs and these games look and play like free-to-play phone or browser apps, but require players to buy hundreds of dollars worth of NFTs to get started.

Most players in the global south gain access to the game through “scholarships,” arrangements in which a manager—sometimes a player in the developed world with a large stable of extra monsters, and sometimes a crypto investor who is speculating on Axie assets—loans a player a squad of Axie monsters to play with in exchange for a cut of their SLP earnings. “Scholars” aren’t looking to amass large collections or climb the competitive ladder. They’re not really approaching Axie Infinity as gamers or investors—they’re being hired as laborers. They harvest the roughly 220 SLP a player with a relatively inexpensive team of NFT monsters can obtain each day for grinding out the daily 100 SLP from adventure mode, winning a few arena matches, and earning 50 SLP for completing the daily task. They never breed any new Axies; the currency they earn is always quickly sold off on crypto exchanges.

The appeal of this arrangement for both investors and “scholars” is clear when SLP is worth a lot of money: If playing the game generates $70 worth of SLP per day and the investor takes 30 percent of the proceeds and pays 70 percent to the “scholar,” then the investor gets a $147 weekly return on about a team of NFT characters that might have cost around $800 when the assets were near their peak, and the “scholar” makes $343 per week in a country where the minimum wage is around $7 per day. Players in the Philippines who got into the game when it was booming over the summer of 2021 were able to buy houses with the proceeds of their gaming.

But game economies don’t work like real economies where payments in currency come from a circulating, finite money supply. Instead, in-game currencies are created whenever someone earns a reward—in the case of Axie Infinity, clearing adventure levels, winning arena matches, or completing their daily quests, and game currency is deleted when it is spent on a “sink,”—some activity which induces players to pay the currency back to the game. In Axie’s case, the sink for SLP is breeding new monsters. 

Far more SLP is being generated than is being spent on breeding. Only 5 percent of players have ever bred Axies, and only 5 percent of players who have bred Axies do so again in consecutive months. A large percentage of the player base is creating SLP through their gameplay and then shoveling it into the marketplace, while a much smaller sliver of the player base is consuming SLP by breeding Axies. About 250 million SLP are produced each day, while only 50 million are used for breeding. This creates a monthly surplus of 6 billion SLP, a recipe for massive inflation. For a while, speculative investors were snapping up the currency, perceiving it as a cheap way to invest in the future of NFT gaming. But as workers in the developing world learned of the windfalls they could reap from the game and started farming for SLP, the volume of SLP being produced skyrocketed, these investors saw their holdings devalued by the flood of currency pouring into the marketplace. 

Even though the game’s player base seemed to boom last fall, the growth was driven almost entirely by new “scholars” in the developing world joining the game to grind SLP to sell on crypto marketplaces, and each of those players was contributing to the oversupply of the currency and driving down its price. Since these players weren’t trying to build large collections, they weren’t creating much demand for new Axies, so there wasn’t incentive for players to breed them. Sky Mavis has attempted to regulate the game economy by increasing the SLP cost to breed while reducing the ASX fee, but it hasn’t been enough to bring supply and demand into equilibrium.

The game’s explosive user growth in 2021 was almost entirely driven by laborers in the developing world using borrowed NFT assets to grind for currency to sell to investors who were investing in the game because they were excited about the user growth. It was a house of cards. And, as the value of SLP produced from completing daily tasks has plunged below the minimum wage in the Philippines, many of those players have stopped logging in.

The Problem With ‘Play To Earn’

For its part, Sky Mavis is touting a number of upcoming features the developers believe will continue to drive growth. They’re preparing a major update to the battle system, a game mode designed around the in-game land assets, and a system for upgrading Axie monsters. All these features will likely provide new in-game uses for SLP currency, thereby increasing demand for it. Sky Mavis co-founder Jeff “JiHo” Zirlin said on Discord that an “experimental sink” for surplus resources will be coming sooner than the major update, and in January Sky Mavis announced a special event allowing players to “release” Axies—permanently deleting their NFT characters—in exchange for cosmetic items that are also tied to NFTs, which players will be able to place on their in-game land in the not-yet-released land gameplay mode. This only briefly propped up the floor price for the least desirable monsters. Statements from the developers have framed the volatility of Axie’s markets as a function of the game’s rapid growth and runaway success.

Additionally, Sky Mavis is planning a revamped experience for new players that lets them use non-blockchain “starter” Axie monsters so players can try the game without having to buy NFT characters, which the developers hope will help attract more new players. In other words, Sky Mavis is dealing with the fact that its current model is unsustainable by turning Axie Infinity into a substantially different game. 

The developer’s willingness to make big changes to their game to try to address structural problems has earned plaudits from crypto industry analysts, and Sky Mavis has an enormous war chest of cash from its stakers and investors. When transaction volume was high, Sky Mavis was earning millions of dollars each day from the 4.25 percent of each NFT transaction it collects, so it has the capacity to hire lots of experienced game designers, economists, and other experts to try to solve the problems with its game and build compelling new features. 

But with SLP selling below $0.01 and the new game features months away, players are looking at other NFT games in hopes of finding a better return on investment. Some players have been shifting to a horse racing game called PegaXY, which has an economy similar to Axie Infinity’s, with an uncapped in-game currency used to mint new NFT characters. Its main innovation is that it formalizes the “scholarship” arrangements between investors and developing-world players and supports them with “safe” or “trustless” systems that make it easier for players to rent out their extra NFT characters. Since investors’ return under this system is not contingent on the workers being trustworthy or reliable, the terms of “scholarship” arrangements in this game are more favorable to investors. Instead of trying to realign the incentives of the game economy to discourage such behavior, newer NFT games seem to accept that this is how play-to-earn will work, and are trying to make it more lucrative for investors at the expense of laborers. 

As the sector evolves toward supporting this kind of play, the optimum strategy for these games is not “playing to earn” and does not even involve playing the games at all. Rather, investors in rich countries will speculate on in-game currencies and assets while outsourcing the actual playing of the game to workers in the developing world who are paid less than $1 per hour to grind for currency until massive inflation caused by oversupply renders the currency worthless, at which point everybody migrates to another game to repeat the cycle and people who are overinvested in the old game’s NFT assets lose a lot of money.

No NFT game developer has yet presented anything that seems likely to solve the fundamental problem of the play-to-earn model: Any time the currency in a video game rises in price so that it has substantial real-money value—whether because of hype surrounding a new game, or investor interest in a title, or because of new features in an existing game like the ones Sky Mavis hopes will reverse the fortunes of Axie Infinity—the demand for the resource creates an incentive for laborers in developing countries to surge into the game in large numbers to farm the currency until the available supply swamps demand and the price tanks again. The market for any currency that is generated as a function of players’ time spent grinding in a game will only reach equilibrium when the price of the currency is valued based on the price of time for the players whose labor is the cheapest, and for players in the developing world, that’s pennies per hour. 

And developers can’t control the supply of currency by taking measures to punish the gameplay patterns typical of players in the developing world, because the bulk of the game’s user base would instantly disappear if the developers got rid of them. Such measures would also deter new players from joining the game, because cutting off rewards for people who play like “scholars” would make it difficult or impossible for any player joining the game with a modest collection to earn back their initial investment or expand their collections through playing.

Further, play-to-earn models require constant user growth. The real money economy of a game like Axie Infinity is zero sum—no money is produced inside the game, so the only money anyone can take out of the game is money somebody else has put into it. Everybody’s goal in the game is to make money; they’re all “playing to earn,” but the only players investing more money into the game than they expect to take out of it are new players who have to buy stuff to get started. When there are not enough people buying more than they’re selling, the game economy collapses.

It may be possible to devise a play-to-earn model that rewards casual or less-invested players without creating economic incentives for people to play in ways that inevitably tank the value of the reward currency. But the biggest publishers in gaming have previously tried and failed to figure out sustainable ways to introduce real money into the player-to-player economies of video games, and blockchain technology does nothing to address the reasons previous efforts have failed. NFT game developers and their investors may be underestimating the problems inherent to this business model. The entire “play-to-earn” concept is built on the premise that video game currencies can be stores of real-money value, so if developers like Sky Mavis can’t figure out how to prevent what happened to SLP from continuing to happen to reward currencies, then “play to earn” isn’t going to work.

The post The Biggest NFT Video Game's Economy Is Collapsing Because NFT Games Don't Work appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/NUjYucoLC
via IFTTT

The Biggest NFT Video Game’s Economy Is Collapsing Because NFT Games Don’t Work


image0

The biggest NFT game currently in the marketplace is Axie Infinity, a game—similar to Pokémon—in which players collect and battle monsters which resemble axolotl salamanders.

The business model for Axie Infinity and nearly all other nonfungible token (NFT) games is called “play to earn.” In these games, all players must start by purchasing NFT characters on a marketplace. In-game assets and currencies are traded on crypto exchanges, so everything in the game is worth money. The often-high upfront cost of buying into the game is theoretically justified by the opportunity to earn money by playing.

Web3 investors are really excited about the prospects of games like this. Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, who is an investor in Axie Infinity, believes play-to-earn games will be 90 percent of the gaming market in five years. And Sky Mavis, the developer that makes Axie Infinity, had the good fortune to be years ahead of the competition. Their NFT game launched in 2018, and they were live and operational when NFTs exploded in popularity and investors decided to bet that the blockchain was the future of gaming. 

As a result of being first movers in the space, this once-tiny independent studio was able to raise $150 million in financing in October 2021 at a valuation of $3 billion. Around the same time, Sky Mavis trumpeted its game’s tremendous subscriber growth, which exploded in the third quarter of 2021 to over two million daily active users. In December, Axie Infinity Shards (ASX), the game’s governance token, had a market capitalization larger than that of the French games publisher Ubisoft, which makes the Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry, and Watch Dogs games. In July, a single rare Axie monster sold for 369 ether, worth over $800,000 at time of sale. A rare plot of land in the game sold for 550 ether ($2.5 million) despite the fact that the gameplay features using in-game land are not yet available. 

However, some big problems have emerged in Axie Infinity: The value of an in-game currency called Smooth Love Potions (SLP) crashed from last summer’s high, above $0.40, to a value of around $0.01 in January 2022, lower than its price a year earlier when few people had heard of NFTs and the game itself had only about 50,000 active players. This is a big problem for Axie Infinity, because the object of the game is “playing to earn” and SLP is the currency you earn by playing. As a result of plunging values, the volume of transactions for Axie assets may have fallen as much as 70 percent from its peak in just a couple of months. The floor price of the cheapest Axie characters fell to around $30 in January 2022, which signals that users are dumping their assets, since it often costs more than that to mint one of the characters. AXS, the governance token, has lost over 40 percent of its value since Christmas, a paper loss of billions of dollars.

By looking at what’s going wrong with Axie Infinity, we can see how the play-to-earn business model has major problems with no clear solutions.

Gaming NFTs Aren’t Like Other NFTs

NFTs are unique tokens on a blockchain that are attached to digital assets, often images. In some cases, these images are works of art, and the holder of the token is considered the owner of the digital work. In other cases, the NFT serves as a key or a club membership. For example, the popular Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT collection has exclusive Discord chat groups where Ape owners can network with celebrities and crypto influencers. The Bored Ape team has airdropped new NFTs as free gifts to owners of its original NFT collection, and hosted a live Ape Fest event in New York in summer 2021 with parties only Bored Ape owners could attend.

Whether these perks justify the eye-popping prices these NFTs trade at is subject to dispute, but there is an argument that the prices of the most coveted NFTs are justified by the possibility of valuable airdrops or other benefits. These are speculative investments and the people buying them have theories about why they might be more valuable at some future date than they are today. The Apes were looking smart in January 2022, as the floor price for the cheapest assets in the collection continued to climb while the broader crypto sector hemorrhaged more than $1 trillion dollars

But play-to-earn gaming NFTs are seeming a lot dumber. They’re not works of art. They’re not club memberships. They’re not status symbols. They are items in a video game, and the video game is about money. The NFT characters are valuable because they can earn you money. So, the value of the NFT is based on its ability to produce video game resources that also have monetary value: How much can it earn you in the pay-to-earn game? How fast can your initial investment pay for itself and start earning you profits through gameplay? And what happens to your investment if your expectations about these things are wrong?

Here’s how it’s supposed to work.

The Axie Economy

The resources in Axie Infinity as it currently exists are: Axie monsters; AXS cryptocurrency, some of which is awarded as a prize to the top handful of competitive players, but which all other players can only acquire by purchasing it; and SLP, which is an in-game reward currency also traded on crypto exchanges. The way players are supposed to earn money in the game is by selling their extra SLP for cash.

An Axie monster is kind of like a Pokémon, and Axie battles are similar to Pokémon battles, but each monster is connected to a token and can be sold on crypto exchanges. To play the game, you need at least three of them, and you have to start by buying your monsters for real money from other players—there’s no Pokémon professor to give you a starter monster, and you can’t catch anything in the game.

New Axies are only produced by “breeding” existing Axies. When two Axies are bred, they produce an egg which will hatch after 5 days into a new NFT monster with a mix of characteristics inherited from the parents, and possibly some random mutations. Breeding Axies costs a fee that must be paid in AXS tokens as well as a variable amount of SLP depending on how many times the parent Axies have produced offspring previously. 

So, in order to produce a new NFT character, you have to pay a fee that is usually between $30 and $80 in crypto, depending on the current price of AXS, as well an amount of SLP representing hours of time spent playing and worth what has, at certain points, been a significant amount of real money. Producing the offspring also depreciates the value of the parent Axies, because the SLP cost of breeding an Axie rises each time it is bred, and after breeding seven times, Axies can no longer produce offspring.

The most important things to know about Axie breeding is that it is a costly and risky activity, and it is the only activity in the game that removes SLP currency from circulation.

SLP is an “uncapped utility token,” which means it is a cryptocurrency that is awarded for completing tasks in the game, and there is no limit on how much of it can be produced. Nearly all the game’s rewards are paid in SLP. This is a fancy way of saying it’s an in-game currency like gold in World of Warcraft or bells in Animal Crossing. 

Players earn SLP from winning battles against other players in the game’s arena mode and for clearing levels filled with computer-controlled enemies in adventure mode. Every player can earn 100 SLP each day from adventure mode and an additional 50 SLP for completing a daily quest which requires completing some adventure levels and winning some arena games. Above that threshold, more SLP can be earned from winning arena matches, and the amount of SLP awarded for an arena win varies depending on how highly-ranked the player is. Average to decent players will get 6 to 12 SLP per win, while the top players can earn as much as 24 for each victory.

The reward for collecting powerful (and therefore expensive) Axie monsters and being in the top few percent of players is that you get more SLP for winning arena matches. Everything in the game is rewarded with SLP and the benefit of progress (or spending lots of money) is the ability to get larger amounts of SLP for time spent playing. Getting as much SLP as you can is the object of the game. So, if SLP is worthless, then so are the NFT assets which are valued because of their SLP-earning ability.

A player with a basic team of monsters, getting modest rewards from arena wins with an average ranking can earn about 220 SLP per day, playing for about three hours. A highly ranked player can earn over 800 SLP if they play for six or eight hours. At a valuation of $0.35 per SLP, the 220 SLP the casual player can earn is worth about $75. If SLP is worth $0.01, 220 SLP is worth only $2.20.

Why Did SLP Crash?

Here’s how “play to earn” works in the real world: Over 40 percent of all active Axie Infinity players are in the Philippines, where the per capita GDP is about $3,300 per year. The second highest concentration of Axie players is in Venezuela, where the economy has been in complete collapse since 2013 and the local currency has been rendered near-worthless by hyperinflation. Only about 6 percent of Axie Infinity players live in the United States. It has been difficult for games like Axie Infinity to acquire players in the developed world because many gamers despise NFTs and these games look and play like free-to-play phone or browser apps, but require players to buy hundreds of dollars worth of NFTs to get started.

Most players in the global south gain access to the game through “scholarships,” arrangements in which a manager—sometimes a player in the developed world with a large stable of extra monsters, and sometimes a crypto investor who is speculating on Axie assets—loans a player a squad of Axie monsters to play with in exchange for a cut of their SLP earnings. “Scholars” aren’t looking to amass large collections or climb the competitive ladder. They’re not really approaching Axie Infinity as gamers or investors—they’re being hired as laborers. They harvest the roughly 220 SLP a player with a relatively inexpensive team of NFT monsters can obtain each day for grinding out the daily 100 SLP from adventure mode, winning a few arena matches, and earning 50 SLP for completing the daily task. They never breed any new Axies; the currency they earn is always quickly sold off on crypto exchanges.

The appeal of this arrangement for both investors and “scholars” is clear when SLP is worth a lot of money: If playing the game generates $70 worth of SLP per day and the investor takes 30 percent of the proceeds and pays 70 percent to the “scholar,” then the investor gets a $147 weekly return on about a team of NFT characters that might have cost around $800 when the assets were near their peak, and the “scholar” makes $343 per week in a country where the minimum wage is around $7 per day. Players in the Philippines who got into the game when it was booming over the summer of 2021 were able to buy houses with the proceeds of their gaming.

But game economies don’t work like real economies where payments in currency come from a circulating, finite money supply. Instead, in-game currencies are created whenever someone earns a reward—in the case of Axie Infinity, clearing adventure levels, winning arena matches, or completing their daily quests, and game currency is deleted when it is spent on a “sink,”—some activity which induces players to pay the currency back to the game. In Axie’s case, the sink for SLP is breeding new monsters. 

Far more SLP is being generated than is being spent on breeding. Only 5 percent of players have ever bred Axies, and only 5 percent of players who have bred Axies do so again in consecutive months. A large percentage of the player base is creating SLP through their gameplay and then shoveling it into the marketplace, while a much smaller sliver of the player base is consuming SLP by breeding Axies. About 250 million SLP are produced each day, while only 50 million are used for breeding. This creates a monthly surplus of 6 billion SLP, a recipe for massive inflation. For a while, speculative investors were snapping up the currency, perceiving it as a cheap way to invest in the future of NFT gaming. But as workers in the developing world learned of the windfalls they could reap from the game and started farming for SLP, the volume of SLP being produced skyrocketed, these investors saw their holdings devalued by the flood of currency pouring into the marketplace. 

Even though the game’s player base seemed to boom last fall, the growth was driven almost entirely by new “scholars” in the developing world joining the game to grind SLP to sell on crypto marketplaces, and each of those players was contributing to the oversupply of the currency and driving down its price. Since these players weren’t trying to build large collections, they weren’t creating much demand for new Axies, so there wasn’t incentive for players to breed them. Sky Mavis has attempted to regulate the game economy by increasing the SLP cost to breed while reducing the ASX fee, but it hasn’t been enough to bring supply and demand into equilibrium.

The game’s explosive user growth in 2021 was almost entirely driven by laborers in the developing world using borrowed NFT assets to grind for currency to sell to investors who were investing in the game because they were excited about the user growth. It was a house of cards. And, as the value of SLP produced from completing daily tasks has plunged below the minimum wage in the Philippines, many of those players have stopped logging in.

The Problem With ‘Play To Earn’

For its part, Sky Mavis is touting a number of upcoming features the developers believe will continue to drive growth. They’re preparing a major update to the battle system, a game mode designed around the in-game land assets, and a system for upgrading Axie monsters. All these features will likely provide new in-game uses for SLP currency, thereby increasing demand for it. Sky Mavis co-founder Jeff “JiHo” Zirlin said on Discord that an “experimental sink” for surplus resources will be coming sooner than the major update, and in January Sky Mavis announced a special event allowing players to “release” Axies—permanently deleting their NFT characters—in exchange for cosmetic items that are also tied to NFTs, which players will be able to place on their in-game land in the not-yet-released land gameplay mode. This only briefly propped up the floor price for the least desirable monsters. Statements from the developers have framed the volatility of Axie’s markets as a function of the game’s rapid growth and runaway success.

Additionally, Sky Mavis is planning a revamped experience for new players that lets them use non-blockchain “starter” Axie monsters so players can try the game without having to buy NFT characters, which the developers hope will help attract more new players. In other words, Sky Mavis is dealing with the fact that its current model is unsustainable by turning Axie Infinity into a substantially different game. 

The developer’s willingness to make big changes to their game to try to address structural problems has earned plaudits from crypto industry analysts, and Sky Mavis has an enormous war chest of cash from its stakers and investors. When transaction volume was high, Sky Mavis was earning millions of dollars each day from the 4.25 percent of each NFT transaction it collects, so it has the capacity to hire lots of experienced game designers, economists, and other experts to try to solve the problems with its game and build compelling new features. 

But with SLP selling below $0.01 and the new game features months away, players are looking at other NFT games in hopes of finding a better return on investment. Some players have been shifting to a horse racing game called PegaXY, which has an economy similar to Axie Infinity’s, with an uncapped in-game currency used to mint new NFT characters. Its main innovation is that it formalizes the “scholarship” arrangements between investors and developing-world players and supports them with “safe” or “trustless” systems that make it easier for players to rent out their extra NFT characters. Since investors’ return under this system is not contingent on the workers being trustworthy or reliable, the terms of “scholarship” arrangements in this game are more favorable to investors. Instead of trying to realign the incentives of the game economy to discourage such behavior, newer NFT games seem to accept that this is how play-to-earn will work, and are trying to make it more lucrative for investors at the expense of laborers. 

As the sector evolves toward supporting this kind of play, the optimum strategy for these games is not “playing to earn” and does not even involve playing the games at all. Rather, investors in rich countries will speculate on in-game currencies and assets while outsourcing the actual playing of the game to workers in the developing world who are paid less than $1 per hour to grind for currency until massive inflation caused by oversupply renders the currency worthless, at which point everybody migrates to another game to repeat the cycle and people who are overinvested in the old game’s NFT assets lose a lot of money.

No NFT game developer has yet presented anything that seems likely to solve the fundamental problem of the play-to-earn model: Any time the currency in a video game rises in price so that it has substantial real-money value—whether because of hype surrounding a new game, or investor interest in a title, or because of new features in an existing game like the ones Sky Mavis hopes will reverse the fortunes of Axie Infinity—the demand for the resource creates an incentive for laborers in developing countries to surge into the game in large numbers to farm the currency until the available supply swamps demand and the price tanks again. The market for any currency that is generated as a function of players’ time spent grinding in a game will only reach equilibrium when the price of the currency is valued based on the price of time for the players whose labor is the cheapest, and for players in the developing world, that’s pennies per hour. 

And developers can’t control the supply of currency by taking measures to punish the gameplay patterns typical of players in the developing world, because the bulk of the game’s user base would instantly disappear if the developers got rid of them. Such measures would also deter new players from joining the game, because cutting off rewards for people who play like “scholars” would make it difficult or impossible for any player joining the game with a modest collection to earn back their initial investment or expand their collections through playing.

Further, play-to-earn models require constant user growth. The real money economy of a game like Axie Infinity is zero sum—no money is produced inside the game, so the only money anyone can take out of the game is money somebody else has put into it. Everybody’s goal in the game is to make money; they’re all “playing to earn,” but the only players investing more money into the game than they expect to take out of it are new players who have to buy stuff to get started. When there are not enough people buying more than they’re selling, the game economy collapses.

It may be possible to devise a play-to-earn model that rewards casual or less-invested players without creating economic incentives for people to play in ways that inevitably tank the value of the reward currency. But the biggest publishers in gaming have previously tried and failed to figure out sustainable ways to introduce real money into the player-to-player economies of video games, and blockchain technology does nothing to address the reasons previous efforts have failed. NFT game developers and their investors may be underestimating the problems inherent to this business model. The entire “play-to-earn” concept is built on the premise that video game currencies can be stores of real-money value, so if developers like Sky Mavis can’t figure out how to prevent what happened to SLP from continuing to happen to reward currencies, then “play to earn” isn’t going to work.

The post The Biggest NFT Video Game's Economy Is Collapsing Because NFT Games Don't Work appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/NUjYucoLC
via IFTTT

Pennsylvania’s Fuel Tax Is Supposed To Fund Bridge Repair. Billions Went to Cops Instead.


zumaamericasthirtythree582602

Pittsburgh’s Fern Hollow Bridge, which collapsed on Friday morning just hours before President Joe Biden visited the city to tout the passage of a $1.2 trillion federal funding package, provides an apt lesson about the real problem stalking America’s infrastructure.

It’s not a lack of money; it’s too much politics.

That’s not the lesson Biden offered, of course. Speaking later on Friday near the collapsed bridge, Biden said it was all about the money. “This is the first time in the country’s history we dedicated a national program to repair and upgrade bridges—and it’s about time,” Biden said, before promising that the recently passed bipartisan infrastructure package would provide enough funding to fix all of America’s 43,000 structurally deficient bridges. “We’re sending the money,” he said.

That’s somewhat dubious—the Fern Hollow Bridge had been rated in “poor condition” for years, but it was not on the list of projects due to be funded by the new infrastructure bill.

But the more serious issue here has nothing to do with the size of Biden’s infrastructure package. It has to do with poor budgeting and decision making by state and local governments, which are responsible for most roads and bridges in America.

Pennsylvania is a perfect example. Drivers in the state pay the nation’s third-highest gasoline tax (a tad over $0.58 cents per gallon), yet Pennsylvania’s roads are notorious for being in terrible shape and the state has the second-most structurally deficient bridges in the country.

How is that possible? Probably because state officials have done a poor job of setting priorities. A 2019 audit found that $4.2 billion in gas tax revenue which could have been used to repair roads and bridges had been siphoned off over six years to fund the state police.

“There’s an inherent deal,” state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale told WHYY, a Philadelphia-based public radio station, at the time. “You’re going to have this high gas tax, but it’s going to go to fund roads and bridges. And now when they find out it’s not happening, I think that gets people upset.”

That’s a lot of money that wasn’t used in the intended manner. The New York Times reported this week that fixing all the structural issues with bridges in Pittsburgh would cost an estimated $458 million—a big price tag, but only about one-tenth of what the state redirected toward the state police in the years before DePasquale’s audit.

The city of Pittsburgh is guilty too. As Randal O’Toole points out in his Antiplanner blog, the city’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure has spent about $6 million annually on bridge repair and maintenance projects over the past five years. But it has spent, on average, more than $8 million annually on so-called “complete streets” projects—like bike lanes, sidewalks, beautification projects, and the like.

“The 2017 inspection of the Fern Hollow bridge estimated that restoring the bridge to good condition would cost $1.5 million,” O’Toole notes. “Instead of fixing it, the city spent more than $1.3 million in bike-sharing last year.”

But you won’t hear that from the infrastructure experts and politicians being quoted in the aftermath of another preventable near-tragedy. For them, it’s always about needing more money. “Ultimately, it’s a resource problem,” Kent Harries, an engineering professor at the University of Pittsburgh, told TribLive. “I hope it’s a wake-up call to the nation that we need to make these infrastructure investments,” Lt. Gov. John Fetterman told a local radio station from the scene of the collapse.

Ultimately, the federal infrastructure package suffers from the same sort of misplaced priorities. Yes, there is $40 billion for bridge projects. But Biden’s much-ballyhooed spending plan will direct $156 billion to mass transit agencies, $40 billion for green energy grants (think Solyndra), and $48 billion to subsidize public broadband to compete with existing internet providers, and $7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging stations. As nice as items like that might be, every dollar spent on them is a dollar that can’t be used to prevent the next bridge collapse.

As always, effective governance is mostly a matter of budgeting well—and budgeting is really nothing more than priority setting, given that public resources are not unlimited. Pennsylvania has done a poor job of setting priorities, as the sorry state of the state’s roads and bridges can attest. More federal money for infrastructure won’t address that underlying problem.

The post Pennsylvania's Fuel Tax Is Supposed To Fund Bridge Repair. Billions Went to Cops Instead. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/cLvWXs4m0
via IFTTT

AOC Takes Break From Twitter After Mean Tweets Trigger Anxiety

AOC Takes Break From Twitter After Mean Tweets Trigger Anxiety

Say it ain’t so!

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced on Monday that she’s taking a break from Twitter due to the amount of “negativity” on the platform.

When asked on Monday night when she’ll come back, the 32-year-old Rep. responded via Instagram – saying she had turned off all her devices and wasn’t active on social media while recovering from Covid-19 earlier this month.

“…I found that when I went to open Twitter up again, it just like wasn’t making me feel. So I mean literally I would go to open the app and almost felt like anxious,” she said, adding “People kinda fight and gossip and all sort of stuff so much. And there is a lot of negativity on there.”

Screenshot via the Independent

That said, AOC won’t be gone forever!

But I’ll be back, don’t worry. Just feel like a break,” she told her nearly 9 million followers.

The Democrat announced earlier on 16 January that she had contracted Covid-19 has experienced debilitating symptoms even given the added protection provided by her vaccine.

“Welp, so it happened. Got COVID, probably omicron. As of today I am thankfully recovered and wrapping up quarantine, but COVID was no joke,” she had written.

Since then her response on her own Twitter account has been sparse and was last seen retweeting her interview with MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan on 27 January. -Independent

Hopefully we won’t have to wait long for more entertainment, AOC style. In December, AOC interpreted criticism of hypocritical photos of her maskless in Miami as Republicans expressing their ‘sexual frustrations.’

 Hilarious!

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 11:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/xErYSCNmK Tyler Durden

Pennsylvania’s Fuel Tax Is Supposed To Fund Bridge Repair. Billions Went to Cops Instead.


zumaamericasthirtythree582602

Pittsburgh’s Fern Hollow Bridge, which collapsed on Friday morning just hours before President Joe Biden visited the city to tout the passage of a $1.2 trillion federal funding package, provides an apt lesson about the real problem stalking America’s infrastructure.

It’s not a lack of money; it’s too much politics.

That’s not the lesson Biden offered, of course. Speaking later on Friday near the collapsed bridge, Biden said it was all about the money. “This is the first time in the country’s history we dedicated a national program to repair and upgrade bridges—and it’s about time,” Biden said, before promising that the recently passed bipartisan infrastructure package would provide enough funding to fix all of America’s 43,000 structurally deficient bridges. “We’re sending the money,” he said.

That’s somewhat dubious—the Fern Hollow Bridge had been rated in “poor condition” for years, but it was not on the list of projects due to be funded by the new infrastructure bill.

But the more serious issue here has nothing to do with the size of Biden’s infrastructure package. It has to do with poor budgeting and decision making by state and local governments, which are responsible for most roads and bridges in America.

Pennsylvania is a perfect example. Drivers in the state pay the nation’s third-highest gasoline tax (a tad over $0.58 cents per gallon), yet Pennsylvania’s roads are notorious for being in terrible shape and the state has the second-most structurally deficient bridges in the country.

How is that possible? Probably because state officials have done a poor job of setting priorities. A 2019 audit found that $4.2 billion in gas tax revenue which could have been used to repair roads and bridges had been siphoned off over six years to fund the state police.

“There’s an inherent deal,” state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale told WHYY, a Philadelphia-based public radio station, at the time. “You’re going to have this high gas tax, but it’s going to go to fund roads and bridges. And now when they find out it’s not happening, I think that gets people upset.”

That’s a lot of money that wasn’t used in the intended manner. The New York Times reported this week that fixing all the structural issues with bridges in Pittsburgh would cost an estimated $458 million—a big price tag, but only about one-tenth of what the state redirected toward the state police in the years before DePasquale’s audit.

The city of Pittsburgh is guilty too. As Randal O’Toole points out in his Antiplanner blog, the city’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure has spent about $6 million annually on bridge repair and maintenance projects over the past five years. But it has spent, on average, more than $8 million annually on so-called “complete streets” projects—like bike lanes, sidewalks, beautification projects, and the like.

“The 2017 inspection of the Fern Hollow bridge estimated that restoring the bridge to good condition would cost $1.5 million,” O’Toole notes. “Instead of fixing it, the city spent more than $1.3 million in bike-sharing last year.”

But you won’t hear that from the infrastructure experts and politicians being quoted in the aftermath of another preventable near-tragedy. For them, it’s always about needing more money. “Ultimately, it’s a resource problem,” Kent Harries, an engineering professor at the University of Pittsburgh, told TribLive. “I hope it’s a wake-up call to the nation that we need to make these infrastructure investments,” Lt. Gov. John Fetterman told a local radio station from the scene of the collapse.

Ultimately, the federal infrastructure package suffers from the same sort of misplaced priorities. Yes, there is $40 billion for bridge projects. But Biden’s much-ballyhooed spending plan will direct $156 billion to mass transit agencies, $40 billion for green energy grants (think Solyndra), and $48 billion to subsidize public broadband to compete with existing internet providers, and $7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging stations. As nice as items like that might be, every dollar spent on them is a dollar that can’t be used to prevent the next bridge collapse.

As always, effective governance is mostly a matter of budgeting well—and budgeting is really nothing more than priority setting, given that public resources are not unlimited. Pennsylvania has done a poor job of setting priorities, as the sorry state of the state’s roads and bridges can attest. More federal money for infrastructure won’t address that underlying problem.

The post Pennsylvania's Fuel Tax Is Supposed To Fund Bridge Repair. Billions Went to Cops Instead. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/cLvWXs4m0
via IFTTT

AOC Takes Break From Twitter After Mean Tweets Trigger Anxiety

AOC Takes Break From Twitter After Mean Tweets Trigger Anxiety

Say it ain’t so!

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced on Monday that she’s taking a break from Twitter due to the amount of “negativity” on the platform.

When asked on Monday night when she’ll come back, the 32-year-old Rep. responded via Instagram – saying she had turned off all her devices and wasn’t active on social media while recovering from Covid-19 earlier this month.

“…I found that when I went to open Twitter up again, it just like wasn’t making me feel. So I mean literally I would go to open the app and almost felt like anxious,” she said, adding “People kinda fight and gossip and all sort of stuff so much. And there is a lot of negativity on there.”

Screenshot via the Independent

That said, AOC won’t be gone forever!

But I’ll be back, don’t worry. Just feel like a break,” she told her nearly 9 million followers.

The Democrat announced earlier on 16 January that she had contracted Covid-19 has experienced debilitating symptoms even given the added protection provided by her vaccine.

“Welp, so it happened. Got COVID, probably omicron. As of today I am thankfully recovered and wrapping up quarantine, but COVID was no joke,” she had written.

Since then her response on her own Twitter account has been sparse and was last seen retweeting her interview with MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan on 27 January. -Independent

Hopefully we won’t have to wait long for more entertainment, AOC style. In December, AOC interpreted criticism of hypocritical photos of her maskless in Miami as Republicans expressing their ‘sexual frustrations.’

 Hilarious!

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 11:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/xErYSCNmK Tyler Durden

Grading The Governors: Who Locked Down And Who Opened?

Grading The Governors: Who Locked Down And Who Opened?

Authored by Michael Betrus via The Brownstone Institute,

Closing schools worked. Closing restaurants worked. Wearing masks worked. We know they worked because the governors that ordered them said so. The CDC said so. The NIH said so. 

We were granted the greatest scientific experiment COVID-19 could offer (except for the cruise ships, which provided the original scientific experiment and was ignored). Many states had (and have) wildly different policies during the pandemic. The question we need to ask and data we need to study is, if the tight restrictions worked, did they result in fewer COVID-19 and moreover total excess deaths? 

Comparing one state to another, cherry-picking low-impacted Vermont to high-impacted Mississippi is dumb; they are unlike one another in geography and demographics, and importantly, obesity. Those two states are as far apart in COVID-19 death ranking as they are in obesity ranking. Mississippi is first right now in COVID-19 deaths per capita and has the highest obesity in the country. Vermont is ranked 50th in COVID-19 deaths per capita and 46th in obesity. Correlated? 

Below are the highest and lowest states in COVID-19 deaths per capita and their obesity ranking.

Do you see a correlation? New Jersey was hit hard early on and many fell victim to healthcare providers learning to treat COVID-19 patients and their nursing home policy. Arizona is an outlier, in part buoyed by foreign nationals sick with COVID-19 and dying in Arizona hospitals (similar results were seen in Texas and southern California). All the lower impacted COVID-19 states are low in obesity. (Is anyone surprised Alaska is not one of the lowest obesity states?)

The least restricted states throughout the pandemic include (no cherry picking here, these are the least) include the Dakotas, Florida, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. Not one of those states are in the top fifteen in COVID-19 deaths per capita.

The takeaway from all of this is that tight restrictions had no measurable impact on COVID-19 deaths. We need to understand that key messaging to those at risk (the elderly and obese; if these alone were removed from the COVID-19 deaths, there was no pandemic, a mathematical term requiring 7.4% of all deaths attributed to a new illness), protecting and advising them to be extra cautious while the population at large continues to function.

Below is an excerpt from a chapter called “The Burden of Proof” from the book COVID-19: The Science vs. The Lockdowns. This compilation is all original data compiled like this for the first time. The data analysis runs from the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 through April 2021, fourteen months of data to accommodate for seasonality and ensure a long and large sampling. Since this list, some states shifted: for example, the southeastern states moved up in deaths per capita, and the Dakotas went from the top six to outside the top twenty in deaths per capita.

The data around COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths had wild margins of error, up to 40% inaccuracies in some places. A White House data advisor told me it was up to 50%. The working number in this research is 30%. The inaccuracies spawned from mostly two things: the inclusion of untested probable hospitalizations and deaths; including those who died after testing positive within weeks or months but died of something else. Yes, the stories you heard about the gun or car accident victim counted as a COVID-19 death are outliers. What aren’t outliers are the tens of thousands of people that died from real health issues, including issues like cardiac arrests, cancer deaths – things that had nothing to do with COVID-19 but were counted as such. 

The other consequence discussed here is lockdown deaths. There is no doubt that tens or hundreds of thousands of people died prematurely from untreated ailments, avoidance of healthcare out of fear of getting COVID-19, and to a lesser degree things like overdoses and suicides. Because of all the looseness in reporting, the highest integrity data point measuring the pandemic and lockdown impacts is looking at how many people in total died against expectations. If three million people died annually from 2015-2019 and then 3.5 million people died in 2020 and 2021, the increase is obvious. This is how we measure the pandemic and interventions holistically. 

If California had fewer COVID-19 deaths per capita than South Dakota, but 3% more total excess deaths during the pandemic from all causes amidst the strictest lockdowns, was it worth it? Well, that’s a no-brainer. A better comparison may be Idaho and neighboring Oregon and Washington. Idaho was much less restricted, kids were mostly in class if they wanted, whereas the two states to their west were almost California-tight. Idaho had about 14% excess deaths compared to about 8% in Oregon and Washington. Were the mitigations worth it? That’s for you to decide. Here we will show many comparisons that suggest hard locking down produced no better results than doing little more than protecting the vulnerable and letting the populations practice personal responsibility without government mandates.

The burden was not on open states like South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Oklahoma or Florida to do better. The burden was on states mandating a bunch of restrictions to do better. If lockdown measures work, their results should be a lot better. Then we can analyze if certain mitigations are worth it. Hypothetically, if open schools resulted in a 10% increase in pediatric deaths, we have a cause and effect to weigh. Then you decide, are open schools worth 10,000 more kids’ lives lost?  If open restaurants were known to result in 50% more deaths in a community, once again we can analyze if closing was worth it. If either of those things played out and the data proved the cause and effect, closed schools and closed indoor dining would have had a higher approval rating than eliminating taxes.

Fourteen months into the pandemic, the United States was +14% in all-cause deaths, meaning 14% more died than expected. Low-restricted South Dakota, Oklahoma, Florida, Nebraska, Florida and others should have far surpassed locked down states in all-cause deaths. South Dakota was +17% in excess deaths since the pandemic began. States doing worse than South Dakota that locked down harder included New Jersey (+27%), Arizona (+24%), New Mexico (+24%), Texas (+24%), California (+22%), New York (+20%), Maryland (+18%), and a dozen others. Locked down states should have had far fewer total lives lost than those open, and they did not. In many cases they did worse.

State Comparisons

Sources: Wallethub; Covid Tracking Project; Burbio; Worldometers; USMortality.com

The states above are ranked by least stringent to most stringent restrictions as of April 6, 2021 according to Wallethub. Factoring into these rankings are face mask requirements, restaurants and bars open, schools open for in-person learning, stay-at-home orders and other restrictions. The obvious question is, did restrictions result in fewer COVID-19 deaths? That’s the tradeoff. Lockdowns were costly personally and financially, but if the correlation worked, you can make an argument that they were a reasonable strategy. Below are key takeaways from the data chart above.

Politics

The seventeen least restricted states were Republican-led, as were 22 of the first 23 states. There is no doubt restrictions correlated more to the party of the state governor than anything else. Of the 26 most restricted states, 22 were Democrat-led. Of the four most restricted Republican-led states, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maryland are strong Democrat-voting states. Five of the eight states with over 20% all-cause excess deaths were Republican-led, three Democrat-led. 

Hospitalizations

ICU and overall hospitalizations are listed relative to state capacity. The data is directional only. A threshold of 20% is set for comparative purposes only. When communities were met with their COVID-19 surge, it’s likely a handful of hospitals were at or near full ICU capacity of COVID-19 patients for three to four weeks. A hospital is supposed to run at near capacity, like a hotel, in order to sustain. During the pandemic, outside of a four-to-six-week surge, most ran closer to 70%; during the spring 2020 lockdown, nationally most were almost completely empty and going broke. Had the CARES Act not bailed them out, many would not have made it, nor would most smaller healthcare providers. The healthcare industry would have gone broke during a pandemic without government bailouts.

Only seven states out of fifty-one (including DC) ever had more than five weeks of hospital beds occupied with over 20% COVID-19 patients. None of those seven states were among the top twenty least stringent states except Arizona. Only California reached over 20% of the ten most stringent states. 

Some states did not report ICU occupation of COVID-19 patients. Of those that did, 22 exceeded ten weeks with over 20%. 34 states exceeded 20% ICU occupancy greater than five weeks, and that does not include unreported states, of which six states surely did. That means forty states had surges reach their ICUs. 

Below is a comparison of the five most and least restricted states throughout the pandemic and their hospital occupancy:

Schools Open and Closed

Only two of the top ten highest deaths-per-capita states, Mississippi and South Dakota [ranked twenty in January 2022], had over half their schools open for face-to-face learning in the fall of 2020 and early 2021. This is relevant in that open schools did not correlate with higher COVID-19 deaths per capita.

Of the twenty states with 80% of their schools open for face-to-face learning in April 2021, their average COVID-19 deaths per capita were 1,654. Of the fifteen states with 50% or less face-to-face learning, their average COVID-19 deaths per capita were 1,539. The difference was insignificant. Smaller states with closed schools in Hawaii and Maine weighted that down, to where the average would have been near identical.

There was no correlation between more in-person learning and more people getting sick in communities. Hard data shows that tight restrictions did not result in any better results than light restrictions. Closing schools didn’t matter. Closing restaurants didn’t matter. Wearing masks didn’t matter. In the end two mitigation tactics worked: those vulnerable isolating, and social distancing, a form of isolation. The rest of the mitigations seem like they should have helped, but they just did not.

Grading the Governors

Not one governor performed perfectly during the pandemic and lockdowns. With media pressure, a desire to balance their constituents, and a desire to get reelected and move on to federal positions down the road, it was an enormously difficult job for all of them. For every single one, from Governors Newsom and Cuomo to Noem and DeSantis, it was the most challenging policy-making of their careers, and for any governor in perhaps American history. All grading below, like that for kids during their year-plus of remote learning, is on a curve. On that curve, here is how governors performed during the pandemic:

The A’s

Governors Ron DeSantis (FL), Kristi Noem (SD), Pete Ricketts (NE), and Mark Gordon (WY). No governors faced more media pressure than Noem and DeSantis. Noem never locked down her state. She never state-mandated face masks. She held strong during a very difficult surge in November and December 2020. She leads a state populated comparably to a metro Dallas county, and made more headlines for her stance than anyone not named DeSantis. Still, fewer than half the South Dakotan kids were forced out of class in 2020 and local governments were permitted to put up their own restrictions.

DeSantis led the third most populated state with a higher-than-average elderly population. Early on he put in protections in long-term care facilities. He locked down last and reopened in May 2020. He removed state restrictions in September 2020, even as COVID-19 activity rose in the fall. He kept more classes open in Florida than any other large population state. And with that, Florida had no worse results than the national average. The burden was not on DeSantis and Noem to beat the street with their open states. The burden was on the lockdown states to have better results and that did not happen. You could not look at a blank chart of states’ COVID-19 performance and pick out the tightly restricted versus looser states. For that, these bold governors get an A on the curve.

Mark Gordon kept schools open all 2020-2021 and for that he deserves recognition. A brief state mask mandate and allowing Teton County to require masks and close restaurants when we went climbing there in 2020 was frustrating. Still, on the curve, Gordon gets an A. Ricketts does as well, staying under the national radar while making Nebraskans glad to be Nebraskans. 

The B’s

Governors Kim Reynolds (IA), Brian Kemp (GA), Doug Burgum (ND), Greg Abbott (TX), Kevin Stitt (OK), Henry McMaster (SC), Eric Holcomb (IN), Brad Little (ID), Mike Parson (MO), Asa Hutchinson (AR), Kate Ivey (AL), Gary Herbert (UT), and Tate Reeves (MS).

These governors all had state mandates at one point or another. Many of their kids missed school in 2020-2021 overall. Businesses were restricted and most had some mask mandates at one time or another. Still, we’re grading on a curve. These governors presided over fewer restrictions and few of their states ever broke the top ten in deaths per capita. Governor Abbott would have been a C had he not completely opened everything in Texas up without restrictions nor face masks in March 2021, leading the way back. That was the A move of any of these governors. Asa Hutchinson kept more kids in class than any governor not named DeSantis or Gordon.

The C’s

Governors Laura Kelly (KS), Bill Lee (TN), Steve Bullock (MT), Gina Raimondo (RI), and Doug Ducey (AZ). These governors at least allowed some kids to be in class throughout late 2020 and early 2021. Raimondo was surrounded with lockdown warriors keeping kids out of class and businesses closed, and she kept more kids in school than any state in the northeast or mid-Atlantic. Not enough kids, but we’re on a curve.

The D’s

Governors Jared Polis (CO), Ned Lamont (CT), Andy Beshear (KY), John Bel Edwards (LA), Mike Dunleavy (AK), Brad Little (ID), Mike DeWine (OH), and Jim Justice (WV). Few of these governors made headlines with their lockdown moves. None followed actual science, they went along with the pack and the polls. Their low grade is largely based on so few kids in class. Remember, science. [Jared Polis has since come around and made some sensible comments about the value of restrictions, he would be higher if this list was compiled months after my original work]

The F’s

Governors John Carney (DE), David Ige (HI), Janet Mills (ME), Tim Waltz (MN), Steve Sisolak (NV), Michelle Lujan (NM), Roy Cooper (NC), Kate Brown (OR), Ralph Northam (VA), Jay Inslee (WA), Tony Evers (WI), Larry Hogan (MD), Charlie Baker (MA), Chris Sununu (NH) and and Phil Scott (VT). Millions of their students were locked out of schools for over a year, thousands of businesses closed and they were defiant in opening up when it was clear where the science stood. The only salvage for Ige, Mills, Brown, Scott, Sununu and Inslee is that while they kept kids out of class and closed thousands of businesses, they did achieve low relative COVID-19 deaths and all-cause excess deaths. They likely would have anyway had they let kids get educated and let businesses function.

Complete Fails

Governors Andrew Cuomo (NY), Phil Murphy (NJ), Gavin Newsom (CA), Gretchen Whitmer (MI), J.B. Pritzker (IL), and Tom Wolf (PA). There’s a special place for governors that locked kids out of classrooms for a year and a half, ordered sick COVID-19 patients back into nursing homes, did not practice their own orders, shut down tens of thousands of businesses and still couldn’t beat the U.S average in COVID-19 deaths or excess all-cause deaths.

*  *  *

Michael Betrus is the author of COVID-19: Lockdowns on Trial and the upcoming COVID-19: The Science vs. The Lockdowns.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 10:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gmyP10GQ Tyler Durden

Labor Insanity: There Are Now A Record 4.6 Million More Job Openings Than Unemployed Workers

Labor Insanity: There Are Now A Record 4.6 Million More Job Openings Than Unemployed Workers

After several months of speculation that the US labor market had finally reached its absolute peak with the number of job openings drifint around 10-11 million, today the BLS restarted the debate whether we have seen the worst of the labor shortage when it reported that one month after what last month was the biggest drop since the start of the pandemic (since revised to a more modest number), in December the number of job openings once again jumped, rising by 150K to a near record 10.925 million, smashing expectations of a decline to 10.3 million and just below the July all time high of 11.1 million.

Looking at the details, job openings increased in several industries with largest increases in accommodation and food services (+133,000), information (+40,000), and nondurable goods manufacturing and state and local government education (+31,000 each). Job openings decreased in finance and insurance (-89,000) and in wholesale trade (-48,000).

What we find far more remarkable, however, is that amid the continued tightening in the labor market, the bump in job openings meant that there was a new record, or 4.6  million, more vacant jobs than unemployed workers in December, confirming that the US labor market remains woefully, perhaps irreparably cracked.

And with far more job openings than unemployed workers, this meant that in December there were again less than 1 unemployed workers – a record low 0.644 to be exact – for every job opening, down from 0.6511 in November, from 0.6689 in October and down from a record high 4.6 at the peak crisis moment last April.

Offsetting the jump in job openings in December, we saw a modest drop in hiring: according to the BLS, hiring declined by 333K to 6.263 million, with the largest number of hires declining in professional and business services (-159,000).

One last observation comes from the December quits rate: after the number of Americans quitting their job hit an all time high 4.527 million (revised down to 4.499 million), it dipped modestly in December to 4.338 million, which nonetheless was the third highest print in series history.

The quits rate of 2.9%, dipped from a record high 3.0%, with the highest rates in leisure/hospitality (5.8%), trade/transport (3.8%), and professional/business services (3.6%) while among lowest are mining/logging (1.7%), financial activities (1.5%), and government (1%). Quits decreased in health care and social assistance (-89,000), accommodation and food services (-64,000), and construction (-44,000). Quits increased in nondurable goods manufacturing (+19,000)

As a reminder, this “take this job and shove it” indicator is generally seen as a real-time proxy of how marketable employees think they are, as they tend to quit jobs and look for higher paying occupations when the job market is red hot. And since it tends to lag peaks in job openings modestly, the dip in quits – which however remained just shy of all time highs – was probably not all that surprising.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 10:29

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/shMwbQS2T Tyler Durden

Tom Brady Confirms Retirement, Snubs Patriots In Emotional Statement

Tom Brady Confirms Retirement, Snubs Patriots In Emotional Statement

In a statement that made no mention of the Patriots, any Patriots staff or fans, or even the city of Boston/state of Massachusetts, Tom Brady confirmed his plans to retire on Tuesday morning after 22 seasons in the NFL. He shared the news a lengthy statement posted to Twitter.

Brady had earlier denied reports about his impending retirement, only to turn around and confirm it on his own terms days later.

Despite not knowing “what to expect” when he moved to the Bucs, Brady thanked the team’s fans: “your support and embrace have enriched my life,” he said. But the sport of football requires a “100% commitment”, and Brady feels it’s now time for him to focus on other things, like his family, and his businesses – including a blockchain company called Autograph.io. But while he thanks everyone from his agents and managers, to the Buccaneers staff, coaches and players, Brady didn’t even thank Patriots coach Bill Belichick, with whom he reportedly shared a frosty relationship, especially toward the end of his time with the team.

“I have always believed the sport of football is an “all-in” proposition – if a 100% commitment isn’t there, you won’t succeed…there are no shortcuts to success on the field or in life.”

“I’ve done a lot of reflecting the past week and have asked myself difficult questions. And I am so proud of what we have achieved. My teammates, coaches, fellow competitors and fans deserve 100% of me, but right now, it’s best I leave the field of play to the next generation of dedicated and committed athletes.”

Read the full thread below:

Twitter responded with an outpouring of affection for Brady, and one user pointed out that Brady’s final play with the Bucs last Sunday (where the Rams eked out a victory despite some fantastic plays made by the star quarterback) must rank as one of the greatest ‘final plays’ of all time.

Brady led the NFL in yards passing (5,316), touchdowns (43), completions (485) and attempts (719), but the Buccaneers lost at home to the Los Angeles Rams last Sunday in the divisional round. As the AP notes, Brady had cited a desire to spend more time with his wife and children despite still playing at the top of his game.

Patriots fans might be miffed given the two decades of winning and half a dozen Superbowl victories they had with Brady. But Buccaneers fans are equally ecstatic to see him retire “as a Buc”.

And the NYT, clearly miffed by Brady’s decision to deny reports about his retirement, only to confirm it “on his terms” later, had this to say: “The hours that elapsed before Brady confirmed the decision on his terms reinforced the maniacal control that has governed his professional life and career.”

Still, nobody can knock Brady’s personal accomplishments on field: as a reuslt, he’s retiring with three league Most Valuable Player Awards and as the NFL career leader in touchdown passes, passing yardage and victories.

The big question now: Brady’s Republican politics have been an open secret for most of his career. Now that he’s made a home in famously conservative Florida, will we see a Senator Brady, or a governor Brady? He wouldn’t be the first professional athlete to make the transition to politics.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 10:24

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/QUYJgqs25 Tyler Durden

US Manufacturing Weakens More In Jan: Job Creation Crashes As Prices Paid Spikes

US Manufacturing Weakens More In Jan: Job Creation Crashes As Prices Paid Spikes

With US macro data serially disappointing this year so far, analysts expected both Markit PMI and ISM surveys of the manufacturing sector to show further slowing in January.

  • January Markit US Manufacturing PMI fell from 57.7 in December to 55.5 at the final print of January (very slightly higher than the flash PMI print of 55.0) – that is the weakest print since Oct 2020.

  • January ISM US Manufacturing fell from 58.8 to 57.6 (very very salightly better than the 57.5 expected) – that is the weakest since Nov 2020.

Source: Bloomberg

Output and new order growth slowed in January, amid supply and labor shortages; and in another poor sign ahead of Friday’s payrolls data, Markit notes that the rate of job creation eases to softest in 18-month sequence of growth.

That implies a contraction in manufacturing jobs in January.

Panellists also frequently mentioned that growth of employment was hampered by challenges retaining staff and labor shortages.

Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at IHS Markit said:

“The Omicron outbreak has hit manufacturing hard, exacerbating existing headwinds by subduing demand, creating further supply chain issues and causing widespread staff shortages, often through absenteeism due to the surge in COVID-19 infections. The steep downturn in the survey data are indicative of manufacturing production falling in January.

“However, the overall impact on supply chains from Omicron has been less marked than in prior covid waves, and raw material price pressures have come down as the global supply crunch appears to be improving. Hence manufacturers are upbeat about the outlook, with future output expectations rising to the highest for over a year to suggest that the current downturn may prove short-lived.”

Most notably however was the major rebound in ISM Prices Paid index – which has been closely watched for signs that he inflation wave is rolling over.

ISM Prices Paid surged from 68.2 to 76.1 (with expectations of a further small decline to 67.0), and New Orders also slowed to their weakest since June 2020.

Source: Bloomberg

That was the largest advance in Prices Paid since the end of 2020 and was probably a reflection, at least in part, of higher crude oil prices.

No room for maneuver there for The Fed.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 02/01/2022 – 10:08

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/IhtqwWvoP Tyler Durden