2026-01-17 05:30:12

On-chain game promotion is difficult because of this: new user influx is rapid, but retention drops even faster. Wallet connects, clicks in, then closes — the entire process may take no more than two minutes. On the surface, the data looks impressive, but in reality, the gameplay is cold and deserted.

Some time ago, I noticed Starknet launched a referral sprint activity for its Loot Survivor project, which truly addressed the pain point. Previously, promotional incentives focused on "how to bring people in" and spent money on that stage, resulting in inflated new user numbers paired with poor activity levels. This time, the mechanism shifted to "reward players who actually stay and play," with a completely different approach.

This indicates that the industry is beginning to reflect. Spending money on user acquisition is less effective than investing in retention — only when players genuinely participate and interact continuously can the on-chain game form a closed ecosystem. Adjusting the incentive lever is likely to change the entire competitive logic of the track.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MEVHunter_9000

· 01-19 11:39

Basically, it was all about artificially inflating user numbers before, but now someone finally understands that retention is the real deal.

View OriginalReply0

LidoStakeAddict

· 01-18 19:19

To be honest, the previous user acquisition model was purely a numbers game, and retention rates are really hard to describe. Starknet's recent shift is quite interesting; finally, someone is using their brain.

View OriginalReply0

P2ENotWorking

· 01-18 10:24

I should have known earlier, most blockchain games are just data games Two-minute process haha, I haven't even lasted half of the time I experienced Starknet really hit the key point this time, incentivizing retention is much more reliable than just attracting new users To put it simply, those previous activities were all just data scams for investors There are really only a few projects genuinely building ecosystems, everyone is just competing over who has a deeper incentive pool This is the right way, only those who stay and play are true users The problem is, there are too few people staying, no matter how many incentives there are, it’s useless

View OriginalReply0

MentalWealthHarvester

· 01-17 06:00

Hey, finally someone has woken up. Who are inflated data deceiving?

View OriginalReply0

PessimisticLayer

· 01-17 05:59

Really, the old method of user acquisition should have been phased out long ago. Spending money to buy data is useless; players leave in two minutes. --- Starknet's recent idea is indeed good. Rewarding and retaining players is always better than wasting money on zombie accounts. --- Is the problem with blockchain games really that simple? I think the main issue is that the games themselves are just not fun. --- Speaking of which, how many projects are truly willing to spend money on retention? Everyone wants to take shortcuts. --- Retention rate is more genuine than new user numbers, but the data looks good. Investors prefer to see new users during funding rounds. --- Loot Survivor is a good example. If it can truly change the industry’s approach, that would be interesting. --- But the problem is, there aren’t many fun blockchain games, and even with high retention, it’s still a joke. --- From user acquisition to retention, it sounds simple, but no one has really figured out how to execute it.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseMigrant