We knew it had to be addressed by the IRS. A rate higher than conventional long-term investments (28% vs 20%) should put a damper on the desirability of NFTs. The prospect for NFT collectibles now seem less favorable than comic books and baseball cards.
But it stated that NFTs like land plots don't fall into the category, which means gaming NFTs fall outside of that category.
Not exactly.
Its said that since a right to DEVELOP or USE a virtual land plot isn't currently taxable, then neither would be an NFT that records the right to DEVELOP and USE a virtual land plot.
That is different from OWNING it. Which is what the NFT ideas I see bandied about in games would be. That you would OWN your +5 sword of Vorpal Slaying. And that virtual item has value. And that would then be considered a collectible. That's my understanding.
You can't develop the land without owning it. Owning it isn't a collectible, but it actually makes more sense to tax the landowner rather than the players that built NFTs from the land, which also would be outside of the purview of taxation as a collectible and only taxation of revenue upon sale.
It has value as an in game item that gets sold or traded, usually for a currency that corresponds to a crypto currency that then corresponds to a fiat currency. It's not a collectible.
It would be like asking someone to pay tax on a pokemon card because of its rarity.
But the sale of the item especially in excess of a particular amount of fiat would still be taxable. But because the crypto market is volatile, subjecting people to a particular number based on a perceptual value isn't possible.
For example, minting a sword that someone buys for 2000 monkey bucks which translates to let's say 100 IMX which translates to 120USD could be correct, or, tomorrow that could be 90USD when they cash out. Or 20 USD next week.
That means there's no real perceptible price of an asset unless sold, or unless a price has been provided, and attempting to base it as a collectible isn't possible, you would base everything off of GFE's and there would be no way to prove it otherwise.
Of course you can develop the land without owning it. Thats what all (or most) so called housing is in an MMO.
And for the second part, yes thats my issue. Especially when they talk about taxing "unrealized gains".
So if they want to tax me for the Sword of Doom on the day I find it. I pay x% tax on that. Maybe its a great time of year and the associated currency is worth 200 bucks. I don't want to pay 40 bucks for the thing simply because I found it in game. Just like if I win money at a casino, the IRS gets a tax form and wants their payment.
Its a total mess and it's literally the main reason I want nothing to do with this in my games. I want to play a game to have fun, not make money (and certainly not to pay the IRS). Ill invest directly in a cryptocurrency (and have) if I wish to do so.
Well in most blockchain games, when you're a landowner, you hold the land, and you *can* lease the land. But it really depends on the game. Many blockchain games are meant to have a landowner develop the land to entice players to play on it. They then get a kickback from whatever NFT materials are traded from their land, or, whatever is sold on their land.
Some games dish out funds based on a percentage per all landowners. But for the purpose of this conversation we're just talking about developing the land. Take something like The Sandbox, and stuff like that, the landowners are all buying up the land and creating content on it, or leasing it out to other players to create content on. They can do a lot of stuff with it, even going so far as charging admission.
You can not own land, but lease the land from someone, and imo the landowner should be taxed on those earnings depending on how the payout is structured, but... the landowner is still technically in charge of developing the land, even if someone else is renting it from him and doing it. For example if the land was abandoned, it doesn't just default to someone else, it's just that, an abandoned piece of undeveloped land.
Which is also a big sticking point in NFT games where land sales translate into content. If a landowner buys land but doesn't do anything with it, then that's just a piece of land wasted.
We knew it had to be addressed by the IRS. A rate higher than conventional long-term investments (28% vs 20%) should put a damper on the desirability of NFTs. The prospect for NFT collectibles now seem less favorable than comic books and baseball cards.
But it stated that NFTs like land plots don't fall into the category, which means gaming NFTs fall outside of that category.
Not exactly.
Its said that since a right to DEVELOP or USE a virtual land plot isn't currently taxable, then neither would be an NFT that records the right to DEVELOP and USE a virtual land plot.
That is different from OWNING it. Which is what the NFT ideas I see bandied about in games would be. That you would OWN your +5 sword of Vorpal Slaying. And that virtual item has value. And that would then be considered a collectible. That's my understanding.
You can't develop the land without owning it. Owning it isn't a collectible, but it actually makes more sense to tax the landowner rather than the players that built NFTs from the land, which also would be outside of the purview of taxation as a collectible and only taxation of revenue upon sale.
It has value as an in game item that gets sold or traded, usually for a currency that corresponds to a crypto currency that then corresponds to a fiat currency. It's not a collectible.
It would be like asking someone to pay tax on a pokemon card because of its rarity.
But the sale of the item especially in excess of a particular amount of fiat would still be taxable. But because the crypto market is volatile, subjecting people to a particular number based on a perceptual value isn't possible.
For example, minting a sword that someone buys for 2000 monkey bucks which translates to let's say 100 IMX which translates to 120USD could be correct, or, tomorrow that could be 90USD when they cash out. Or 20 USD next week.
That means there's no real perceptible price of an asset unless sold, or unless a price has been provided, and attempting to base it as a collectible isn't possible, you would base everything off of GFE's and there would be no way to prove it otherwise.
Of course you can develop the land without owning it. Thats what all (or most) so called housing is in an MMO.
And for the second part, yes thats my issue. Especially when they talk about taxing "unrealized gains".
So if they want to tax me for the Sword of Doom on the day I find it. I pay x% tax on that. Maybe its a great time of year and the associated currency is worth 200 bucks. I don't want to pay 40 bucks for the thing simply because I found it in game. Just like if I win money at a casino, the IRS gets a tax form and wants their payment.
Its a total mess and it's literally the main reason I want nothing to do with this in my games. I want to play a game to have fun, not make money (and certainly not to pay the IRS). Ill invest directly in a cryptocurrency (and have) if I wish to do so.
Well in most blockchain games, when you're a landowner, you hold the land, and you *can* lease the land. But it really depends on the game. Many blockchain games are meant to have a landowner develop the land to entice players to play on it. They then get a kickback from whatever NFT materials are traded from their land, or, whatever is sold on their land.
Some games dish out funds based on a percentage per all landowners. But for the purpose of this conversation we're just talking about developing the land. Take something like The Sandbox, and stuff like that, the landowners are all buying up the land and creating content on it, or leasing it out to other players to create content on. They can do a lot of stuff with it, even going so far as charging admission.
You can not own land, but lease the land from someone, and imo the landowner should be taxed on those earnings depending on how the payout is structured, but... the landowner is still technically in charge of developing the land, even if someone else is renting it from him and doing it. For example if the land was abandoned, it doesn't just default to someone else, it's just that, an abandoned piece of undeveloped land.
Which is also a big sticking point in NFT games where land sales translate into content. If a landowner buys land but doesn't do anything with it, then that's just a piece of land wasted.
Yes that is my understanding of how it will work. If you "Lease" the land from someone and get an NFT allowing you to "work" that land then the NFT is not a collectible. Its just like a license that lets you do something. The owner of the land, would be taxed on the value of that land as well as any income derived from the leasing of it.
None of this is in any way something I want in my game. I just want to play a game. And if I am playing as a Baron or something I do not want to pay a tax because my serfs are farming my land
PS: But keep in mind that once the door opens it won't shut again. Maybe the NFT collectible tax is the start but I assure you that eventually they will come for the value of whatever the player leasing the land is making there.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
None of this is in any way something I want in my game.
Calling these manipulative, get-rich-quick schemes "gaming" is a stretch in the first place. They are nothing but gaming facades developed for reasons other than gaming.
I don't even know why gaming sites cover this pseudo-gaming shit or why we even bother discussing them as if we were talking about real games.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
None of this is in any way something I want in my game.
Calling these manipulative, get-rich-quick schemes "gaming" is a stretch in the first place. They are nothing but gaming facades developed for reasons other than gaming.
I don't even know why gaming sites cover this pseudo-gaming shit or why we even bother discussing them as if we were talking about real games.
None of this is in any way something I want in my game.
Calling these manipulative, get-rich-quick schemes "gaming" is a stretch in the first place. They are nothing but gaming facades developed for reasons other than gaming.
I don't even know why gaming sites cover this pseudo-gaming shit or why we even bother discussing them as if we were talking about real games.
Casinos call what they do "gaming" as well.
That's because a lot of what is done there IS gaming. People have neem playing cards for fun at home for centuries.
Calling slot machines gaming is a bit of a stretch too though and that's what NFT "games" most closely resemble: one-arm bandits and pachinko.
Also... RPG gaming sites don't cover casinos whether the analog or digital variety although they could I suppose if all they cared about was clicks and not integrity.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
We posted and debated and argued this much about F2P and Cash Shops. That didn't stop anything. Many here on this forum said they would quit MMOing before playing F2P and Cash Shop MMOs. That didn't happen as well. Not of fan of this, but if it's a good game and the proving model is fair. Most of you will play it. I know I will.
We posted and debated and argued this much about F2P and Cash Shops. That didn't stop anything. Many here on this forum said they would quit MMOing before playing F2P and Cash Shop MMOs. That didn't happen as well. Not of fan of this, but if it's a good game and the proving model is fair. Most of you will play it. I know I will.
The difference is that F2P games right from their start were legit games with appealing gaming features designed for gaming with F2P monetization added.
These things are not. They are crypto NFT collection and sales schemes with just barely a game in them almost as an afterthought.
I've seen that "but we bitched about F2P too!" argument posted here many times but that misses the point that these things are not real games.
Could a real game be developed that also happens to have NFTs? Sure, but not one has done it or is doing it because that's not what they're interested in making. They want the crypto collectibles get rich quick scheme to just resemble a game enough so they can market it easier for this incredibly gullible crowd that is gamers.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
"With key game systems developed on-chain, this new project will also leverage smart-contract blockchain technology, focusing on persistence, composability and truly open third-party development to create a new relationship between virtual worlds and players".
Explain to me the tech side and the NFT side. Oof!!!
Open third party development?
Well, now I gotta pay attention to this train wreck.
"With key game systems developed on-chain, this new project will also leverage smart-contract blockchain technology, focusing on persistence, composability and truly open third-party development to create a new relationship between virtual worlds and players".
Explain to me the tech side and the NFT side. Oof!!!
Open third party development?
Well, now I gotta pay attention to this train wreck.
There's this whole idea within the web3 and gamefi community where they give players the ability to create content, and get "paid" for it as other players interact with their content. Not all blockchain games do this, but it seems to be a really big recurring factor.
Can't say it's completely off base, because players are creating content for other players in a lot of games like roblox and minecraft and whatever. So I get it, and I think a lot of these developers think that if they're "paid" to make the content from other players when they play it, that it'll somehow work out.
But in practice, we haven't really seen it work out exactly that way. Because the developers have to build the game first, and then players have to build content afterwards... so... yeah it's not likely we'll see it pan out that way anytime soon.
There's this whole idea within the web3 and gamefi community where they give players the ability to create content, and get "paid" for it as other players interact with their content. Not all blockchain games do this, but it seems to be a really big recurring factor. <skip>
I've always thought that MMORPGs could easily provide customers to engage in content development. All that would be necessary is to have 'base' zones where connections to user-made zones would connect. These zones would share many things with the 'base' zone -- mobs, base artwork, target levels, etc. The custeveloper would upload the module (a full zone, maybe multiple zones), the company would validate the content (for content/reward appropriateness), and the company would run the zone as one of their own.
Making it a paid experience would be rather simple. The company charges $5.00 per account to activate the zone (like a micro-expansion), and $0.50 per character on zone entry (every time). The company would share these revenue with the custeveloper (at a %10 reimbursement rate).
The company could even rotate customer developed modules as desired/needed to keep things fresh and encourage community development.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
"With key game systems developed on-chain, this new project will also leverage smart-contract blockchain technology, focusing on persistence, composability and truly open third-party development to create a new relationship between virtual worlds and players".
Explain to me the tech side and the NFT side. Oof!!!
Open third party development?
Well, now I gotta pay attention to this train wreck.
There's this whole idea within the web3 and gamefi community where they give players the ability to create content, and get "paid" for it as other players interact with their content. Not all blockchain games do this, but it seems to be a really big recurring factor.
Can't say it's completely off base, because players are creating content for other players in a lot of games like roblox and minecraft and whatever. So I get it, and I think a lot of these developers think that if they're "paid" to make the content from other players when they play it, that it'll somehow work out.
But in practice, we haven't really seen it work out exactly that way. Because the developers have to build the game first, and then players have to build content afterwards... so... yeah it's not likely we'll see it pan out that way anytime soon.
Bit of a difference between open development and people creating content within an internal toolkit, too.
Open third party development in part implies the broader capacity and potential reliance on open source development of game content beyond the "key game systems", which not only lends to issues developing the base game itself, but also open the game to being copy-pasted for a bunch of variants that leaves the original's model/design languishing.
I just don't see the tactic as they phrased it being particularly technically or long term business minded.
Developing a toolkit for people to sandbox experiences within your own game? Yeah that's a decently proven model.
Open sourcing the developing of the game itself? Not so much.
Comments
Some games dish out funds based on a percentage per all landowners. But for the purpose of this conversation we're just talking about developing the land. Take something like The Sandbox, and stuff like that, the landowners are all buying up the land and creating content on it, or leasing it out to other players to create content on. They can do a lot of stuff with it, even going so far as charging admission.
You can not own land, but lease the land from someone, and imo the landowner should be taxed on those earnings depending on how the payout is structured, but... the landowner is still technically in charge of developing the land, even if someone else is renting it from him and doing it. For example if the land was abandoned, it doesn't just default to someone else, it's just that, an abandoned piece of undeveloped land.
Which is also a big sticking point in NFT games where land sales translate into content. If a landowner buys land but doesn't do anything with it, then that's just a piece of land wasted.
None of this is in any way something I want in my game.
I just want to play a game. And if I am playing as a Baron or something I do not want to pay a tax because my serfs are farming my land
PS: But keep in mind that once the door opens it won't shut again. Maybe the NFT collectible tax is the start but I assure you that eventually they will come for the value of whatever the player leasing the land is making there.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I don't even know why gaming sites cover this pseudo-gaming shit or why we even bother discussing them as if we were talking about real games.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Calling slot machines gaming is a bit of a stretch too though and that's what NFT "games" most closely resemble: one-arm bandits and pachinko.
Also... RPG gaming sites don't cover casinos whether the analog or digital variety although they could I suppose if all they cared about was clicks and not integrity.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
These things are not. They are crypto NFT collection and sales schemes with just barely a game in them almost as an afterthought.
I've seen that "but we bitched about F2P too!" argument posted here many times but that misses the point that these things are not real games.
Could a real game be developed that also happens to have NFTs? Sure, but not one has done it or is doing it because that's not what they're interested in making. They want the crypto collectibles get rich quick scheme to just resemble a game enough so they can market it easier for this incredibly gullible crowd that is gamers.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Well, now I gotta pay attention to this train wreck.
Can't say it's completely off base, because players are creating content for other players in a lot of games like roblox and minecraft and whatever. So I get it, and I think a lot of these developers think that if they're "paid" to make the content from other players when they play it, that it'll somehow work out.
But in practice, we haven't really seen it work out exactly that way. Because the developers have to build the game first, and then players have to build content afterwards... so... yeah it's not likely we'll see it pan out that way anytime soon.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Open third party development in part implies the broader capacity and potential reliance on open source development of game content beyond the "key game systems", which not only lends to issues developing the base game itself, but also open the game to being copy-pasted for a bunch of variants that leaves the original's model/design languishing.
I just don't see the tactic as they phrased it being particularly technically or long term business minded.
Developing a toolkit for people to sandbox experiences within your own game? Yeah that's a decently proven model.
Open sourcing the developing of the game itself? Not so much.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018