fully disaggregated infrastructure). of compliance requirements under Why would somebody build a game securities laws (see above). this way? True ownership by players P2E models that allow for the of in-game assets (such as tools, exchange of in-game assets for skins, or land); censorship resistance; real-world value (or where such interoperability between games; assets represent contractual community engagement; and, rights) could fall under AML crucially, innovative monetisation regulations, requiring platforms (including play-to-earn (P2E) models). to implement KYC procedures Many Web3 games rose to (see above). prominence through offering a P2E The self-executing nature of smart model whereby players are rewarded contracts used in P2E models can for taking part in a game by receiving also lead to disputes, especially payment in cryptocurrency. This when outcomes don’t align with raises legal issues (especially given player expectations. the above context – ie, where there’s no responsible control authority): Lack of control authority Depending on the mechanism While not specific to video games, of earning within the game, P2E the absence of a central control models could be scrutinised authority in a network raises difficult under gambling regulations. If legal challenges. If an app runs in-game rewards or earnings have across decentralised servers real-world value, regulators may without a corporate body in control classify these activities as betting, of its code, who is ultimately especially where elements of responsible for: chance influence outcomes. the performance of contracts Tokens or NFTs earned through P2E dispute resolution, or models could, where they attach governance rights, be viewed as regulatory obligations? securities and may trigger a range 78