Based on the idea of game theory and the previous article, we can look at some projects in the industry by gradually increasing or decreasing the constraints.the completely open non-cooperative game that can achieve general equilibrium is the BTC/ETH(PoW)/NEST category, i.e., no threshold review is required, and it is completely open.Under this category, there are two kinds of partial equilibria: PoS/DPoS chains and consortium chains.
First of all, PoS/DPoS chains essentially conducts a large-scale election first, through which all people participate, and then the nodes generated by the election play the game package. Once the node is selected, it is a local game in a given time. This structure is equivalent to splitting the process into two parts, the first part of the game out of the agent, and the second part of the game out of the block. This bipartite structure is still a local equilibrium in a given time, so the external information transfer to the block is split or even separated. This architecture, although not as direct as the consortium chain, is essentially similar to the consortium chain: it is impossible to get the real equilibrium assets.
Consortium chains, on the other hand, require the participation of nodes to be determined by means of auditing, and not everyone can go for a round of electoral gaming. This structure necessarily determines the localization, alignability and manipulation of the results, which means that instead of positioning itself as a brand-new risk-return structure (equilibrium asset) in the general equilibrium sense, it is trying to solve certain application problems with a different data structure. We don't need to include the consortium chains in the blockchain category at all, I think it's just another server composition solution, even with the so-called Coin.
The worst one is the so-called private chain, which avoids gaming altogether and keeps the general data structure of the blockchain, which no one would think has much advantage over a centralized server at this point, and in fact has even more disadvantages. This structure I think is extremely specific in its use and is out of the scope of our discussion.
When discussing Blockchain Game, there is one principle that is more important: if there is agency risk or centralized trust in any part of the game, the equilibrium of the whole game is bound to be distorted and thus eventually evolve into a traditional enterprise model, thus making it impossible to apply the valuation model to equilibrium assets, and the two cannot be compared. In this regard, just like people cite BNB and BTC, even people who do not know finance will not think they are the same kind of asset.