Good morning, and thank you for attending this press conference. The subject of our discussion today is the burgeoning phenomenon of "official money-making games," a term that has gained significant traction in recent months. Our purpose is to provide a clear, objective, and accurate overview of this complex and often misunderstood sector, addressing its mechanisms, its appeal, its inherent risks, and the critical regulatory questions it presents. To begin, we must define what we mean by an "official money-making game." This term broadly refers to digital games or platforms, often sanctioned or directly operated by governmental, financial, or licensed corporate entities, where participants can earn real-world currency or its digital equivalent through gameplay. It is crucial to distinguish these from traditional gaming. Standard video games may offer in-game rewards or virtual currencies that have no real-world monetary value outside the game's ecosystem. In contrast, the core promise of official money-making games is the direct conversion of in-game effort, skill, or assets into tangible financial gain. The operational models of these platforms are diverse, but they generally fall into several key categories. First, there are play-to-earn (P2E) blockchain games. These are built on distributed ledger technology, where in-game assets, such as characters, land, or items, are tokenized as Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) owned by the player. Players can earn native cryptocurrency tokens through activities like winning battles, completing quests, or crafting items. These tokens can then be traded on cryptocurrency exchanges for traditional fiat currency like US Dollars or Euros. The value is derived from the market demand for both the utility tokens and the unique NFTs. Second, we see the emergence of skill-based competition platforms. These are often framed as "e-sports for everyone," where players pay an entry fee to participate in tournaments for popular mobile or PC games. The prize pools are funded by these entry fees, and top-performing players receive cash prizes. The "official" nature may come from partnerships with established game developers or regulatory bodies that oversee games of skill, differentiating them from gambling. A third model involves government or corporate-sponsored simulation games. These are designed with an educational or recruitment purpose. For instance, a stock trading simulator sponsored by a financial regulatory body might offer real cash prizes to top performers to educate the public about market mechanics. Similarly, a company might use a gamified platform to crowdsource solutions to complex problems, rewarding successful contributors financially. The appeal of these games is multifaceted and explains their rapid growth. In an era of economic uncertainty and the rising cost of living, they present a compelling proposition: the potential to generate income through an enjoyable, accessible activity. They tap into the "gig economy" mindset, offering a form of flexible, decentralized work. For many in developing economies, the earnings from such games can represent a significant supplementary income or even a primary livelihood. Furthermore, the underlying blockchain technology in many P2E games promotes a concept of "digital ownership," where players truly own their in-game assets and can trade them in an open marketplace, a stark contrast to the traditional model where all assets remain the property of the game developer. However, this nascent industry is fraught with significant risks and challenges that cannot be overlooked. The most prominent risk is its extreme volatility and economic sustainability. The value of rewards in many P2E games is tied to highly speculative cryptocurrencies. A downturn in the crypto market can instantly evaporate the earning potential of a game, leaving players with worthless tokens. Furthermore, these economies often rely on a constant influx of new players to sustain the value for earlier adopters, a model reminiscent of a Ponzi scheme. When growth stalls, the entire in-game economy can collapse. The line between a game of skill and outright gambling is often dangerously blurred. While some platforms emphasize player skill, the element of chance and the requirement of an upfront financial investment (to buy NFTs or entry fees) create a dynamic that is functionally similar to gambling. This raises serious concerns about consumer protection, including addiction, financial loss, and the targeting of vulnerable populations. The lack of robust, globally consistent regulatory frameworks for these hybrid models leaves a vast grey area where exploitative practices can thrive. Security is another paramount concern. The intersection of gaming and finance makes these platforms prime targets for cybercriminals. High-profile hacks of blockchain gaming protocols and NFT marketplaces have resulted in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of digital assets. Unlike traditional bank accounts, transactions on a blockchain are typically irreversible, offering victims little recourse. Moreover, the "play" aspect can quickly devolve into repetitive, monotonous labor, or "grinding," as the primary motivation shifts from entertainment to income generation. This can lead to burnout and negatively impact mental health. There are also concerns about the environmental impact of some blockchain networks that use energy-intensive consensus mechanisms to validate transactions. This brings us to the critical issue of regulation. The current regulatory landscape for official money-making games is a fragmented and evolving patchwork. Different jurisdictions are approaching the phenomenon in vastly different ways. Some countries have taken a prohibitive stance, banning certain P2E games outright by classifying their token mechanics as unlicensed securities offerings or unauthorized gambling operations. Others are adopting a "wait-and-see" approach, monitoring the market's development before enacting specific legislation. A third, more progressive group of jurisdictions is working to create comprehensive regulatory frameworks. This involves clarifying the legal status of game assets and rewards. Are earned tokens considered securities, commodities, or a new class of digital asset? It also involves establishing clear rules for consumer protection, including mandatory age verification, spending limits, transparent terms of service, and mechanisms for dispute resolution. Anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) protocols, standard in the traditional financial sector, are now being considered for these gaming platforms to prevent illicit financial flows. Looking forward, the future trajectory of official money-making games will be determined by the interplay of technological innovation, market forces, and regulatory clarity. We can anticipate several potential developments. There will likely be a maturation of the business models, moving away from purely speculative, inflationary tokenomics towards models that generate sustainable value through utility, such as charging fees for platform services that are then distributed to players. We may also see greater integration with traditional finance, often termed "DeFi" or Decentralized Finance, allowing for in-game lending, borrowing, and staking of assets. The role of established, large-scale game development studios will be crucial. Their entry into this space, should it occur, would lend significant legitimacy and stability, but it would also attract greater regulatory scrutiny. Ultimately, the long-term viability of this sector hinges on its ability to balance the profit motive with genuine entertainment value and to operate within a transparent and secure regulatory environment that prioritizes user safety. In conclusion, official money-making games represent a fascinating and disruptive convergence of gaming, finance, and technology. They offer a new paradigm for digital interaction and economic opportunity but are accompanied by profound risks related to financial stability, consumer protection, and legal compliance. As this industry continues to evolve, a collaborative effort between developers, regulators, and the community will be essential to harness its potential while mitigating its dangers. The path forward is not about stifling innovation, but about guiding it towards a responsible, sustainable, and equitable future. We will now open the floor for questions.