還記得NFT是什麼時候嗎？

感覺就像我們在數字淘金熱的邊緣一樣。然後 - 流行。氣泡破裂，炒作冷卻，現在很多曾經被綠色的令牌都在……坐在那裡。

Remember when NFTs were the thing? Everywhere you looked, there was a new project, a new “must-have” digital collectible, and people throwing around words like “decentralized ownership” and “future of digital assets.” It felt like we were on the edge of a digital gold rush. And then – pop. The bubble burst, the hype cooled, and now a lot of those once-glorified tokens are just… sitting there.

還記得NFT是什麼時候嗎？您所看的任何地方，都有一個新項目，一個新的“必備”數字收藏品，以及人們圍繞“分散所有權”和“數字資產的未來”等詞。感覺就像我們在數字淘金熱的邊緣一樣。然後 - 流行。氣泡破裂，炒作冷卻，現在很多曾經被綠色的令牌都在……坐在那裡。

Meanwhile, in a totally different corner of the digital world, Counter Strike skins – yes, the same pixel-perfect gun wraps and knife designs – are still going strong. Some even gaining value, being traded daily, and staying at the center of a vibrant, community-driven economy.

同時，在數字世界的一個完全不同的角落中，反擊皮膚 - 是的，同樣的像素完美的槍和刀具設計 - 仍在發展。有些甚至獲得價值，每天進行交易，並留在一個充滿活力的社區驅動經濟的中心。

So… what gives? Why did NFTs crash while CS skins not only survived, but thrived? Let’s dig into that – because the contrast says a lot about what makes digital assets actually work.

那麼……什麼給？當CS皮膚不僅生存，而且蓬勃發展時，為什麼NFT崩潰了？讓我們挖掘這一點 - 因為對比很大程度上說明了什麼使數字資產實際上起作用的原因。

Utility Matters More Than Hype

公用事業比炒作更重要

公用事業比炒作更重要

Let’s start with the most obvious thing: CS skins actually do something.

讓我們從最明顯的事情開始：CS皮膚實際上做某事。

Sure, they don’t give you extra damage or faster reloads, but they live in a game that people play every single day. They have a purpose. You equip them, show them off, use them in clutch rounds, and they become part of your in-game identity.

當然，它們不會給您帶來額外的傷害或更快的重新加載，但是他們生活在人們每天玩的遊戲中。他們有目的。您將它們裝備，炫耀它們，在離合器彈中使用它們，並成為您遊戲中身份的一部分。

In contrast, most NFTs were just… images. No real function. You couldn’t use them in a meaningful way. You couldn’t flex them in a game, stake them for gameplay benefits, or really interact with them. The “ownership” was there, but the connection wasn’t.

相反，大多數NFT只是……圖像。沒有實際功能。您無法以有意義的方式使用它們。您無法在遊戲中彎曲他們，將它們籌集給遊戲玩法的好處，或者與他們真正互動。 “所有權”就在那裡，但沒有聯繫。

Like, imagine having a cool painting you love, versus having a brightly colored tile in a broader image with 9,999 other tiles. One you want to engage with, the other… well, it’s part of a set.

就像，想像一下自己喜歡的一幅很酷的畫，而不是在更廣闊的圖像中擁有鮮豔的瓷磚，而其他9,999個瓷磚。一個您想與之互動，另一個……嗯，這是一部分的一部分。

And with Counter Strike esports skins, there’s a built-in ecosystem where those skins have value because they’re used. They’re part of the experience, not just floating in a digital void hoping someone else will buy them.

借助反擊式電子競技皮膚，有一個內置的生態系統，這些皮膚具有價值，因為它們使用了。它們是體驗的一部分，不僅僅是在數字空隙中漂浮，希望其他人能購買它們。

A Culture Grew Organically

一種文化有機增長

一種文化有機增長

The CS skin economy didn’t appear overnight. It evolved naturally, starting with simple item drops in-game, then expanding to markets on Steam and third-party platforms, and finally blossoming into the vibrant trading communities we see today.

CS皮膚經濟並沒有在一夜之間出現。它自然而然地從遊戲中的簡單物品掉落開始，然後擴展到Steam和第三方平台上的市場，最後擴展到我們今天看到的充滿活力的貿易社區中。

People got into it not because someone promised they’d get rich, but because the skins were fun, cool-looking, and made the game feel more personal. It was about collecting skins you liked, trading with friends, and getting involved in the esports scene if you wanted to.

人們之所以加入其中，不是因為有人答應他們會變得富有，而是因為皮膚很有趣，看上去很酷，並且使遊戲變得更加個性化。這是關於收集您喜歡的皮膚，與朋友進行交易，並在電子競技場景中參與其中。

NFTs? Most of that hype came from outside – investors, influencers, marketing machines all converging on the same few projects. The community grew fast, but not deep. There wasn’t a shared culture or connection like in CS. It was more about FOMO and flipping than anything else.

nfts？大多數炒作來自外部 - 投資者，有影響力的人，營銷機器都聚集在同一項目上。社區發展迅速，但不深度。像CS中沒有共同的文化或聯繫。這比其他任何事情都更重要。

I remember buying my first skin – a basic pistol wrap that wasn’t worth much, but it felt like mine. I used it in almost every match for months, got to know the patterns and how it looked in different lighting. I even felt a pang of sadness when I finally traded it up for something else.

我記得我買了我的第一個皮膚 - 一種基本的手槍包裝，不值得，但感覺就像是我的。我幾乎在每場比賽中使用它，幾個月來都知道這些模式以及它在不同的照明中的外觀。當我終於把它換成其他東西時，我什至感到悲傷。

Now, contrast that with an NFT I once got in a free mint. It looked cool for about a day, then just sat in my wallet, an image among many, no real function or engagement. By the time the project went quiet, so had my interest.

現在，與NFT進行對比，我曾經獲得過免費的薄荷。它看起來很酷，大約一天，然後坐在我的錢包裡，這是許多圖像，沒有真正的功能或訂婚。當項目變得安靜時，我的興趣也是如此。

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Some NFT projects had strong communities and outlasted the initial hype cycle. But overall, I think the lack of inherent utility and the overwhelming focus on investment killed a lot of the potential there.

當然，每個規則都有例外。一些NFT項目具有強大的社區，並超過了最初的炒作週期。但是總的來說，我認為缺乏固有的效用和對投資的壓倒性關注造成了許多潛力。

Real Demand vs Manufactured Scarcity

實際需求與製造稀缺性

實際需求與製造稀缺性

Here’s another thing: scarcity only matters if there’s demand for the thing that’s scarce. NFTs were often built around artificial rarity – 10,000 unique monkeys, cats, goblins, whatever. But if no one cares about them tomorrow, that scarcity doesn’t hold up. It’s like printing 10,000 copies of a boring poem and hoping people will pay for them.

這是另一件事：稀缺性只有在需要稀缺的東西的需求時才很重要。 NFT通常是圍繞人造稀有性建造的 - 10,000個獨特的猴子，貓，妖精等。但是，如果明天沒有人關心他們，那稀缺就不會忍受。這就像打印10,000份無聊的詩，並希望人們能為他們付出代價。

In CS, certain skins are rare too. But the difference is – players actually want them. Not because they were told to by a shill on Discord, but because they look amazing, have a bit of history to them, or became iconic in esports events.

在CS中，某些皮膚也很少見。但是不同的是 - 玩家實際上想要他們。並不是因為他們在不和諧之中被騙子告訴他們，而是因為它們看起來很棒，對它們有一些歷史，或者在電子競技活動中成為標誌性的。

Take skins like the AWP Dragon Lore or certain knife finishes. Their value isn’t just tied to low drop rates. It’s cultural. Players recognize them, streamers show them off in big moments, and Counter Strike esports skins have built reputations of their own over years of competitive play.

服用諸如AWP Dragon Lore或某些刀飾面之類的皮膚。它們的價值不僅與較低的下降率有關。這是文化的。玩家認識到它們，彩帶在重要的時刻炫耀他們，而反罷工電子競技的皮膚已經建立了自己多年來競爭性遊戲的聲譽。

Like,

喜歡，