Just saying, they are not that much transparent. Their proposal is childish, just like all other proposals.

Basically, they want to sell 2 panda pictures for 28k... :)

Looking it with a business mind, no way, it can succeed. They say, they don't want to use AI art, but instead of paying for digital artists, or how the hell they call them - who by the way, 100% use AI, at least partly, but generally talking usually bigger % of the work done by AI.

Same with programming, coding. AI does most of the work nowadays, not developers itself!

No financial plan from the beginning, and now, when they are short with money, they don't even try to rationalize their spendings, adapt to current market.

Not to mention, if the game ever would come alive, the team would have totally empty pockets. So asap game will reach any playable level, they will start to sell some craps again.

It means, it will use the very same model, what other blockchain games use.

Create sellable nfts, tokens
Collect money from people by promising the Heaven
No liability, no dates
Without having a real product, already created an inflatory economy
They spend all the money for who knows what
If, when game is playable, asap more sells, more spendings
No token buybacks
As it is on Hive, double inflation. L1 and L2 both.

I don't say, it can't succeed, but not with the old models, what are provenly not sustainable! And obviously, they don't even try to adapt to nowadays environment.

Some projects already trying new models, bigger part of any income goes back to game's economy - mostly by buybacks. Or they make game funds, so they stake %age of income in a relatively safe asset (like stablecoins - not hbd), so game fund will generate outside of game income. Or they don't create own token, but use L1 token for economy, rewards (or bigger L2 tokens).

My point, what looked like working 4-5 years ago, today provenly not working, but this game - how all other on Hive -, still try to push the old, 'almost 100% sure it will fail' models... big red flag!