In the evolving landscape of Web3 gaming, few debates are as hotly contested as whether to build a separate token economy for each game or to anchor an entire studio’s portfolio around a single, shared currency. The choice is more than a technicality—it shapes the economic health of virtual worlds, the stability of player rewards, and even the legal exposure of the companies building them.

The Promise of a Studio Token

At its core, a studio token functions as the economic backbone across multiple titles. Instead of each game issuing its own volatile and often thinly traded coin, the studio rallies value creation around a central token. Think of Roblox’s Robux or Valve’s Steam Wallet credits—currencies that transcend individual games, building liquidity, familiarity, and long-term trust.

For players, this offers consistency: rewards earned in one title can have meaning in another, and loyalty accrues not just to a single game but to the studio’s ecosystem as a whole. For developers and publishers, it’s a chance to concentrate liquidity, create deeper staking and governance models, and reduce the fragmentation that has plagued earlier Web3 experiments.

The Problems With Game-Specific Tokens

The allure of a token tailored to a single game is obvious. Developers can calibrate supply and sinks tightly to a title’s design. Yet history has shown that many single-game tokens struggle to sustain value. Axie Infinity’s SLP is a textbook case: without robust, recurring sinks to balance emissions, the token’s value collapsed, leaving players disillusioned.

Game-specific tokens also splinter investor and player attention. Instead of one healthy, liquid asset, studios end up with a patchwork of fragile micro-tokens, each vulnerable to inflation and speculation. And when a game loses traction, its token often becomes worthless overnight—dragging down community trust.

The Case for Studio Tokens

A well-designed studio token, by contrast, has several advantages:

• Liquidity and stability: With value consolidated in a single token, markets are deeper, spreads are tighter, and price manipulation is harder.

• Cross-game utility: Players can carry their rewards and investments from one game into another, fostering a metaverse-like ecosystem.

• Simplified governance: Instead of fractured communities, a studio can channel decision-making through one governance layer, aligning incentives across titles.

• Fundraising and compliance: Investors prefer scale and liquidity, not fragmentation. A single studio token is easier to present as a serious, long-term asset class. It also streamlines compliance obligations, especially as regulators scrutinize token launches under securities laws (e.g., MiCA in the EU and SEC rules in the U.S.).

But It’s Not a Silver Bullet

Of course, centralizing value introduces its own design challenges. Balancing two games against the same token is far more complex than running separate economies. If one game over-rewards players, it can destabilize the currency across the entire portfolio. To prevent this, developers must design strong, persistent sinks—mechanics like item repairs, taxes, or blueprint costs that naturally drain tokens from circulation.

This is why games like Entropia Universe and EVE Online have succeeded for decades with real-value currencies: their sinks are not optional, and they scale with player activity. Without such design rigor, a studio token risks the same inflationary spiral as single-game tokens.

Hybrid Approaches and Flexibility

Some studios are adopting hybrid models: using the studio token for value accrual, governance, and premium sinks, while relying on soft in-game currencies for daily progression. This separation gives developers flexibility without diluting the studio token’s centrality. It also helps to shield casual players from token volatility, while keeping speculators and power users engaged in the larger economy.

The State of Play

It’s important to note that this debate is not settled. A growing number of studios are experimenting with studio-wide or ecosystem-level tokens, while others continue to run per-game or dual-token models. Concrete examples exist of both approaches: some ecosystems have consolidated into a single studio token, while others maintain separate or dual currencies to fine-tune balance. Opinion leaders in tokenomics are equally split, with some arguing strongly for one-token economies and others defending dual models. The reality is that the industry is still in an exploratory phase, and no universal consensus has emerged.

Why This Debate Matters

The stakes extend far beyond economic design. The choice between studio and game-specific tokens affects:

• Player trust: Will players see the rewards they earn today retain value tomorrow?

• Regulatory risk: Can the studio defend its token model to regulators under MiCA or SEC rules?

• Ecosystem growth: Does the studio attract developers and partners who want to plug into a robust, unified economy?

The Bottom Line

There is no one-size-fits-all answer. Casual puzzle games may not need a hard token at all, while sprawling MMOs can thrive on a single real-value currency. What’s clear, however, is that the early wave of game-specific tokens has proven brittle. As Web3 matures, a growing number of studios are exploring studio-wide tokens as a way to build resilient ecosystems, concentrate trust, and potentially deliver the stability both players and regulators demand.

For developers, the message is simple: a token is not just a currency—it’s the lifeblood of your virtual economy. Whether you build around a studio token, a game-specific coin, or a dual model, success depends on designing meaningful sinks, fostering community trust, and navigating compliance. But for studios with ambitions beyond a single title, the case for experimenting with a shared studio token is increasingly compelling.