History of Axie Infinity

The Evolution of AXS: Axie Infinity's Tumultuous History of Innovation and Controversy

Axie Infinity Shards (AXS) emerged as a governance and utility token within the groundbreaking Axie Infinity ecosystem, aiming to blend monster battling RPG gameplay with blockchain-based ownership. Its creation in 2020 marked a significant milestone in the integration of NFTs and play-to-earn (P2E) mechanics with tokenomics, positioning it as a central force in the early GameFi surge. However, the trajectory of AXS has been anything but linear, shaped by technical vulnerabilities, economic fluctuations, and governance constraints.

Initially developed by Vietnamese game studio Sky Mavis, AXS was designed to facilitate staking, voting rights, and payments within the Axie ecosystem. Unlike typical ERC-20 tokens, AXS operated alongside Smooth Love Potion (SLP), also an in-game currency, creating a dual-token model that introduced complexities in maintaining ecosystem stability. This dual-tokenomics approach struck an experimental chord reminiscent of critiques found in unpacking-curve-finance-major-critiques-revealed, where inflationary pressure raised sustainability concerns.

The explosion of Axie Infinity in 2021 coincided with global lockdown periods and intense demand for passive income-generating mechanisms. However, this growth revealed systemic fragilities. The game became overly reliant on new user acquisition to sustain rewards, drawing criticisms similar to those levied at unsustainable DeFi models. As flagged in unpacking-compound-the-future-of-defi-lending, token-based incentive structures can falter without organic demand, a challenge AXS faced head-on.

The exploit of the Ronin sidechain in one of the largest known crypto hacks—resulting in the theft of over $600M in ETH and USDC—further eroded trust. The bridge vulnerability highlighted the centralization risks tied to low validator node counts, a recurring weakness in fast-scaling Layer-2 or custom chains—echoing concerns in kusama-the-wild-testbed-for-blockchain-innovation. The fallout led to delayed AXS staking rewards and undermined the perceived decentralization Sky Mavis promised.

While community governance was initially pitched as a driving force for the protocol, control largely remained with the core team and early backers. Proposal throughput stagnated, and treasury usage transparency issues surfaced—hallmarks of governance bottlenecks that bear resemblance to criticisms documented in rdao-under-fire-key-criticisms-explained. Token holders were theoretically empowered, but practical mechanisms for proposal submission and execution were cumbersome and selectively gatekept.

Despite these issues, AXS carved an undeniable legacy in crypto history—pioneering models, sparking regulatory discourse, and shaping Web3's approach to incentivization. Its journey underscores the broader lesson of economic design fragility in gamified environments. For those looking to engage with such experimental ecosystems, trading AXS and similar assets remains viable through platforms like Binance, albeit with the requisite caution.

How Axie Infinity Works

How AXS Powers the Axie Infinity Ecosystem: Game Mechanics + Token Dynamics

At its core, AXS (Axie Infinity Shards) functions as a multi-utility ERC-20 token that powers the Axie Infinity ecosystem’s gameplay, governance, and staking mechanisms. Originally designed for the Axie metaverse, AXS integrates tightly with play-to-earn systems, providing both behavioral incentives for users and critical economic infrastructure for the ecosystem.

Each Axie, a non-fungible token (NFT), acts as a player-owned asset that interacts with the game logic hosted off-chain. These Axies participate in battles, breeding, and trading. While Smooth Love Potion (SLP) facilitates in-game breeding rewards and utility, AXS is used to govern key game decisions and distribute staking payouts.

Staking is foundational to AXS utility. Token holders can stake AXS to receive a portion of ecosystem-wide rewards derived from marketplace fees and game-generated revenue streams. However, actual yield varies based on community treasury inflows and policy parameters set through decentralized governance. Holders who actively participate in governance may receive additional rewards, though governance activity remains limited, raising concerns of token concentration among early investors and low participation.

In terms of game mechanics, AXS is required for several smart contract-triggered events, such as breeding Axies—a burn function that introduces deflationary pressure on supply. This makes AXS integral not just conceptually, but functionally necessary for core gameplay. However, this dual-token model introduces complexity. SLP inflation can dilute AXS value unless carefully managed through breeding fee calibrations or deflation mechanisms.

AXS also plays a role in Axie Infinity’s decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) ambitions. Token holders collectively vote on changes to the game economy, reward models, and treasury spend. Yet, governance power skews toward early adopters and entities holding large chunks of early allocations, which challenges the system's decentralization claims. For a nuanced example of DAO governance risks, explore insights from https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/the-forgotten-role-of-on-chain-governance-in-fostering-decentralized-community-engagement-and-trust-in-blockchain-ecosystems.

Another major component of AXS utility is its role in funding ecosystem growth. AXIE treasury revenues fund grants, development incentives, and player tournaments. Those rewards, however, have triggered accusations of favoring core team-controlled wallets, echoing broader criticisms of centralized behavior in nominally decentralized environments. This mirrors concerns levied at other token-governed ecosystems covered in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/unpacking-rdao-a-deep-dive-into-tokenomics.

While AXS is tradeable on major exchanges like Binance, actual demand fluctuates based on gameplay engagement, treasury governance, and the delicate coordination between SLP supply and AXS burn mechanisms. Users engaging with the ecosystem can access AXS via decentralized protocols or centralized platforms through this referral link.

Understanding the tokenomics behind AXS reveals a system that's deeply gamified and directly tied to in-game behavior, yet vulnerable to governance centralization and inflationary pressure from its economic counterparts.

Use Cases

Axie Infinity (AXS) Use Cases: In-Game Utility, Governance, and Beyond

Axie Infinity Shards (AXS) are the primary utility and governance tokens powering the Axie Infinity ecosystem—a blockchain-based game running on Ethereum sidechains. AXS functions as both a value layer and a coordination mechanism across various game modules, economic interactions, and governance channels.

In-Game Currency vs. Gameplay Incentive

At its core, AXS allows players to engage with multiple Axie mechanics. While Smooth Love Potion (SLP) is used for breeding Axies and daily rewards, AXS is required for key game processes like breeding fees, entry into certain tournaments, and engagement in premium content. However, due to the game’s evolving tokenomics, the dual-token model has faced criticism for economic imbalance. Pressure exists from both inflationary SLP issuance and inconsistent demand for AXS in gameplay, impacting sustainable player earnings over time.

Governance Participation and Voting Rights

AXS doubles as a governance token, theoretically allowing holders to participate in decentralized decision-making. Staking AXS grants voting power for proposals ranging from treasury management to game updates. While this introduces DAO-driven progression, practical governance engagement remains limited. Participation is often constrained by low voter turnout and the relatively centralized influence of early investors and core team-controlled wallets. This mirrors challenges seen in other DeFi ecosystems struggling with decentralized governance implementation.

Staking for Yield and Treasury Access

One notable use case is AXS staking, allowing holders to earn passive rewards from the Community Treasury. This treasury accumulates through ecosystem fees and redistributes them to stakers. However, rewards are subject to emission schedules and subject to significant dilution risk. Tokenholders staking primarily for yield, rather than governance, introduce speculative behavior that may misalign with long-term game development.

Axie Ecosystem Interoperability

The Axie universe is expanding through third-party developers building on Ronin, its Ethereum-linked sidechain. AXS may be integrated into these emerging games or applications. Yet, such interoperability remains in its infancy. Unlike modular infrastructures like those seen in Sui, Axie’s reliance on vertically integrated assets limits flexibility in ecosystem-wide utility adoption.

Web3 Ownership and Community Incentives

There’s a narrative push for AXS to represent “user ownership” in the Axie economy. While token-based incentives allow historical players to share in the growth, that ownership is contingent on speculative appreciation and does not confer actual ownership over IP or game assets. Unlike decentralized music platforms, which offer creator royalties and content rights, Axie’s promises of ownership remain abstract and primarily symbolic.

Holders looking to interact with AXS may do so via major exchanges such as Binance, supporting AXS trading and staking integrations for added liquidity and reward utility.

Axie Infinity Tokenomics

Deep Dive into AXS Tokenomics: Supply Dynamics and Incentive Architecture

Axie Infinity’s native governance and utility token, AXS (Axie Infinity Shards), operates at the heart of the game’s play-to-earn ecosystem. Its tokenomics design is tightly coupled with user engagement, treasury participation, and staking incentives, but not without concerns regarding centralization and emission pacing.

Total Supply and Emission Curve

AXS has a capped total supply of 270 million tokens, distributed over a multi-year release schedule. The vesting period spans roughly five and a half years, front-loading emissions while aiming to gradually transition to a community-owned economy. However, this aggressive initial allocation window has drawn scrutiny, particularly when compounded with investor and team unlock schedules. Massive token unlocks tied to early backers and internal stakeholders have periodically created supply shocks, which pose systemic risk to price stability and long-term holder confidence.

Allocation Breakdown

AXS distribution heavily favors insiders at launch: 29% to the team and advisors, 21% to private sale investors, and 20% reserved for play-to-earn incentives. Only 11% was allocated to public sale participants. While this structure is typical for early-stage token projects needing upfront capital and operational bandwidth, it presents long-term centralization concerns—an issue faced by other gaming-centric tokens like CELT.

Importantly, governance voting powers are directly tied to AXS, meaning those with large holdings—mostly early investors and developers—have disproportionate influence over key protocol decisions. This design inherently limits decentralization during the initial growth phases and could delay true DAO-level autonomy, unlike more decentralized models such as those discussed in RDAO.

Staking Mechanics and Incentives

AXS staking was introduced to incentivize longer-term holding, with rewards distributed from a dedicated staking pool. However, staking yields have periodically diluted as more tokens enter circulation, raising sustainability questions. Additionally, AXS stakers receive voting rights in governance decisions, a double-edged feature that further entrenches early holders’ control.

Integration with Binance and other major exchanges via this referral link has simplified access to AXS, but it arguably contributes to its speculative trading volume outpacing in-game utility usage.

Utility Bottlenecks

While AXS is intended for governance, staking, and payments within the Axie ecosystem (such as breeding fees and land staking), the friction between gameplay demand and speculative accumulation causes imbalance. Many players opt for the Smooth Love Potion (SLP) utility token for operational activity, relegating AXS to a governance and yield asset for whales. This reduces organic sink pressure on AXS, challenging the equilibrium between game economy and token circulation.

Axie Infinity Governance

Axie Infinity Governance: Decentralization or Controlled Delegation?

Axie Infinity’s governance is at the intersection of Web3 ideals and the operational complexity of a game-native economy. Powered by the AXS token, governance in the Axie ecosystem is designed around community participation, yet critics argue it leans heavily toward delayed decentralization.

Holders of AXS are entitled to participate in governance, primarily through staking mechanisms and voting on protocol-level decisions. However, actual governance implementations have been limited in scope. Rather than a fully autonomous decentralized organization (DAO), Sky Mavis, the parent company, maintains significant influence over proposals, timeline execution, and treasury management.

This hybrid control structure mirrors similar constraints voiced in analyses of other governance-first assets, such as those covered in rdao-under-fire-key-criticisms-explained, where decentralization is more aspirational than operational.

The Axie Community Treasury is a central point of governance-related contention. While the treasury is funded by AXS staking rewards and ecosystem fees, its deployment strategies remain largely in the hands of core developers. The governance roadmap envisions transitioning decision-making to community-elected representatives via various DAO phases, but little on-chain tooling has been executed to ensure decentralization. Comparably, ecosystems like decentralized-governance-the-power-of-ens-community have rolled out more advanced community voting structures with active proposal participation.

Key governance actions—such as proposing updates, electing subDAO leaders, or directing development funding—require a proposal submission process, quorum attainment, and final approval. Yet the minimum threshold for proposal development and the technical expertise required often limits real participation to a small cohort of high-stake AXS holders and Sky Mavis-aligned delegates.

Critics argue this skewed influence introduces centralization risks and favors ecosystem insiders. The governance mechanism in Axie Infinity could benefit from on-chain reputation systems, mirroring innovations examined in the-power-of-on-chain-reputation-systems, which align incentives and build credible participation among lower-cap stake holders.

Additionally, there’s an over-reliance on off-chain signaling tools such as Discord and forums to shape governance sentiment. Without robust, transparent bridges from sentiment to on-chain execution, this can create governance theater rather than real policy influence.

While AXS may evolve toward a more community-aligned structure, users seeking more autonomous governance engagement might also explore alternatives via platforms like Binance through this referral link, where access to governance-driven assets is broader.

Ultimately, Axie Infinity’s governance remains in flux—ambitiously decentralized on paper, yet accumulation-driven and developer-led in practice.

Technical future of Axie Infinity

Axie Infinity (AXS) Technical Roadmap and Future Development Trajectory

Axie Infinity’s technical development trajectory centers around achieving sustainability and scalability for its play-to-earn (P2E) economy, with a specific focus on Layer-2 infrastructure, game engine improvements, and decentralizing governance through the AXS token. Central to this roadmap is Ronin, its custom Ethereum sidechain, which is continuously undergoing refinements to optimize performance and reduce security risks following past breach incidents. The technical evolution of Ronin involves integrating Zero-Knowledge (ZK) rollups or other Layer-2 compression mechanisms to support increased transaction throughput, addressing congestion that limits marketplace activity and gameplay experience.

The Axie Infinity team has prioritized moving from a monolithic game economy into a modular gaming platform, enabling third-party teams to build interoperable experiences using Axie NFTs and AXS tokens. This direction mimics broader trends seen in experimental ecosystems like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/kusama-the-wild-testbed-for-blockchain-innovation, where protocol evolution happens in public. Axie’s SDK for builders, known as “Project T,” is being packaged with APIs, asset libraries, and monetization frameworks, aiming to support community-led game creation without diluting the core brand.

From a smart contract architecture standpoint, Axie developers have incrementally upgraded core components—including staking, breeding, marketplace logic, and treasury flows—to a more composable, upgradeable structure using proxy patterns. However, limited audit transparency across iterations has prompted periodic community concern, pointing to the ongoing need for stronger formal verification processes—a concern echoed across ecosystems like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/curve-finance-paving-the-path-for-defi-innovation.

A sticking point in the technical roadmap is full integration of on-chain governance via AXS holdings. While staking mechanics exist, real implementation of decentralized proposals and execution is still largely off-chain via forums and Discord coordination. This exposes Axie to criticisms familiar in pseudo-decentralized projects, especially those lacking clear on-chain voting infrastructure seen in mature DeFi communities like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/rdao-redefining-governance-in-decentralized-finance. Addressing this governance stagnation requires credible on-chain execution tied to proposal inputs, a model yet to take root in Axie’s ecosystem.

Future plans include migrating a larger portion of game logic on-chain—particularly for Land gameplay and resource mechanics—as well as creating an Axie-specific identity layer for user authentication and asset provenance, potentially leveraging ZK proofs. Referral systems will likely follow, aligning user incentives as seen in major exchanges like Binance.

Comparing Axie Infinity to it’s rivals

AXS vs. ILV: Mechanics, Monetization, and Design Philosophy

When contrasting Axie Infinity's AXS with Illuvium's ILV, the divergence in core mechanics, token utility, and economic architecture becomes stark—especially for seasoned crypto-native gamers and investors attuned to the nuances of GameFi systems.

At the protocol level, AXS operates within a dual-token model alongside SLP (Smooth Love Potion), separating governance and in-game rewards. This design philosophy allows for fine-grained control but introduces dependency on SLP inflation for user incentives. In contrast, ILV consolidates its ecosystem around a single token, ILV, which governs the DAO, acts as a yield-generating asset through staking, and is awarded to players via in-game achievements. The unified tokenomics of ILV arguably favor long-term holders, while AXS’s dual-token split has historically led to complex monetary policy adjustments to control SLP oversupply—often resulting in playerbase dissatisfaction.

Gameplay also embodies different economic assumptions: Axie Infinity's battle system emphasizes simplicity and fast-paced strategy in a 2D, turn-based format. It's built for mobile scalability but lacks the fidelity required to attract mainstream gamers who prioritize graphics and immersive storytelling. Illuvium, however, leans into a high-end, 3D Unreal Engine-built tactical RPG that mimics AAA standards. The tradeoff? A significantly higher development and hardware entry cost, which limits immediate accessibility for users without gaming PCs or high-end devices.

On NFT integration, AXS pioneered monetized creatures with breed-and-battle mechanics. While groundbreaking in 2020, the model has shown issues with sustainability: breeding’s inflationary nature diluted NFT value and required regular patches to maintain equilibrium. In contrast, Illuvium aligns its NFTs with a finite supply model via Illuvial capture mechanics, creating controllable scarcity and longer-term value capture.

From a governance standpoint, both games embrace DAOs, but the execution differs. AXS token holders enact governance through the Axie Community Treasury, but governance has so far remained mostly passive. ILV allocates staking and protocol decisions to its DAO smart contracts with a more formalized proposal and voting system. The intent is to reduce reliance on centralized oversight, although critics argue that ILV governance is still nascent in decentralization metrics.

For readers interested in other play-to-earn models and tokenomic contrasts, our comparative analysis in CELT vs Rivals: A Gaming Crypto Showdown provides deeper insight into emerging contenders in the GameFi space.

For those looking to interact with either token, staking or trading through a reputable exchange can be accessed via a Binance referral link.

AXS vs SAND: Analyzing NFT Gaming Ecosystem Divergences

When comparing Axie Infinity's AXS with The Sandbox's SAND, the core divergence lies in the fundamental design philosophy—creature-based play-to-earn versus an open metaverse builder model. While both are gamified ecosystems leveraging blockchain NFTs, their utility, engagement strategies, and economic models represent two distinctly different calls to Web3 user bases.

AXS powers Axie Infinity, where gameplay is character-driven: players battle, breed, and trade digital creatures (Axies). This closed-loop asset utility drives transaction volume but heavily leans on game lifecycle relevance. In contrast, SAND enables asset creation and monetization via voxel-based NFTs across user-owned land in The Sandbox, functioning more like a blockchain-powered Roblox. This positions SAND closer to a decentralized user-generated content (UGC) platform rather than a traditional game.

Token utility also exposes structural contrasts. AXS, while used for governance and breeding mechanics, depends on continuous game participation to sustain value. SAND, on the other hand, is employed across a broader economic lattice: purchasing LAND, trading assets, staking, and accessing curated events—creating a diversified demand dynamic that extends beyond a single title. Notably, SAND’s utility spans multiple games and experiences, offering economic value for creators and players alike without dependency on a single gameplay loop.

In governance structure, both deploy DAOs, but mechanisms diverge in meaningful ways. The Axie ecosystem’s governance has been slower to materialize into on-chain efficiency, often centralized around developer decisions. Conversely, The Sandbox has implemented more transparent DAO mechanics, offering holders of SAND a clear protocol for submitting proposals and voting—a point that’s prompted comparisons in crypto governance circles similar to the analysis in rdao-vs-rivals-a-defi-governance-showdown.

A key concern for both projects is user concentration. Axie has historically leaned on guild-based economies, which raised issues around true player ownership and bottlenecked growth. The Sandbox faces the inverse—its LAND system has experienced hoarding by early buyers and large entities, making decentralization of in-game real estate uneven, driving criticism across NFT gaming forums.

Given that both tokens are available for trading on major CEXs, access isn't an issue. However, liquidity conditions and staking incentives vary, with some preferring centralized exchanges such as Binance for their deeper SAND integration due to The Sandbox’s partnerships.

Ultimately, SAND and AXS serve fundamentally different player archetypes and creator bases: one builds experiences; the other plays within them.

AXS vs. GALA: Evaluating NFT Gaming Economies with Differing Architectural Philosophies

When comparing Axie Infinity’s AXS token with GALA from Gala Games, two fundamentally different philosophies around ecosystem architecture, content strategy, and token utility emerge—each shaping their respective positions in the blockchain gaming landscape.

Axie Infinity operates on a vertically integrated model. Sky Mavis not only developed the game but also controls the underlying Ronin sidechain, NFT assets, and the UX pipelines (such as their proprietary Katana DEX). In contrast, Gala Games emphasizes a more decentralized approach to content hosting and game publishing, positioning itself more as a platform than a single-title economy. This makes GALA more akin to a Web3 Steam, focusing on onboarding diverse developers under a common economic layer. While this modular approach increases flexibility, it dilutes ecosystem cohesion, especially compared to AXS’s single-token alignment with one flagship game economy.

Tokenomics between the two also diverge sharply. AXS features a dual-token model alongside Smooth Love Potion (SLP), which introduced issues with inflationary spirals when breeding mechanics and farming incentives were not tightly controlled. GALA sidesteps this by integrating burn mechanics for utility across multiple games, though transparency issues remain. Gala periodically burns tokens via node licenses, NFTs, and ecosystem spending—but there’s been criticism over how well these mechanisms are communicated to holders. This lack of clarity contrasts with Axie’s publicly documented issuance schedules, staking rewards, and treasury mechanics, although even AXS has faced community pushback over governance centralization.

Network infrastructure is another dimension worth dissecting. AXS and Ronin now operate largely independent of Ethereum’s gas costs, enabling seamless microtransactions, which were vital for Axie’s early success. GALA, while Ethereum-based, is transitioning to GalaChain, an in-house L1 solution. Yet, the interoperability between Ethereum and GalaChain, and the clarity on how this impacts asset liquidity, remain underdeveloped. Early adopters have voiced concerns over liquidity fragmentation—unsurprising in an ecosystem that spans music, film, and gaming NFTs across a shared token.

For readers interested in how other gaming tokens are experimenting with asset economies, check out https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/celt-vs-rivals-a-gaming-crypto-showdown.

Finally, in terms of user onboarding and marketplace diversity, Gala may offer a broader sandbox, but Axie maintains tighter synergy across its stack, a double-edged sword that boosts UX consistency while throttling content variety. Readers looking to participate in either ecosystem can start by accessing tokens via platforms like Binance.

Primary criticisms of Axie Infinity

Primary Criticisms of AXS: Is Axie Infinity’s Token Model Sustainable?

Axie Infinity, powered by the AXS (Axie Infinity Shards) token, has faced pointed criticisms related to its economic sustainability, centralization risks, and play-to-earn (P2E) ecosystem design. Despite its popularity in the GameFi boom, many industry analysts and developers have raised concerns about structural weaknesses inherent in the project’s tokenomics and governance system.

Token Inflation and In-Game Economy Collapse

The AXS and SLP (Smooth Love Potion) dual-token structure has led to severe inflationary pressures. AXS was initially adopted as a governance and staking token, but SLP—earned through gameplay—became the core economic incentive. The problem occurred when massive numbers of players farmed SLP without a sufficient burn mechanism or demand-side driver. This imbalance cratered in-game asset value, leading to a feedback loop of user attrition and discontent.

Moreover, staking rewards distributed in AXS compounded the token’s inflation. As both AXS and SLP diluted their respective supplies, major GameFi participants began questioning whether the economy could ever achieve equilibrium. These concerns mirror those explored in Unpacking the Criticisms of Compound's COMP Token, where token emissions decoupled from platform usage raise sustainability issues.

Unsustainable Play-to-Earn Incentive Structure

A major philosophical critique is that Axie Infinity’s “play-to-earn” model became more “work-to-extract,” disproportionately benefiting early adopters. New players, especially those recruited in developing economies, often entered the game through scholarship programs where earnings were split with managers. This dynamic took on a pseudo-exploitative character, raising ethical questions about capital dynamics within the ecosystem.

Additionally, the reliance on constant user onboarding to sustain demand resembled a pyramid-style incentive system. With no organic reason for new users to buy Axies beyond gameplay yield, once that yield diminished, the incentive structure collapsed.

Governance Centralization and DAO Limitations

While AXS is branded as a governance token, real power remains heavily centralized. Sky Mavis, the developer team, retains outsized influence over protocol decisions. Unlike decentralized systems with active DAO structures like RDAO, Axie’s governance lacks meaningful community voice and transparency in key treasury allocation decisions.

Asset Ownership Illusion

Despite being built on Ethereum sidechains, criticism has emerged around the actual ownership rights of Axies and in-game assets. Users technically own NFTs, but their utility is strictly governed by the platform’s centralized infrastructure. This raises broader concerns about user sovereignty, similar to themes discussed in The Forgotten Role of On-Chain Governance in Fostering Decentralized Community Engagement.

As Axie Infinity attempts to decentralize further, interested users may explore exchanges for staking or trading via Binance.

Founders

Axie Infinity’s Founding Team: Leadership, Backgrounds, and Community Fractures

Axie Infinity, and by extension the AXS token, originates from Vietnamese game studio Sky Mavis. At the core of this project is a founding team that blends gaming industry design sensibilities, deep crypto-economic background, and entrepreneurial hustle. However, despite the technical and commercial milestones achieved—especially in the 2021 P2E boom—the team’s centralized decision-making model and communication practices have sparked recurring criticism from the crypto-native audience.

The most visible figure in Axie Infinity’s foundation is Trung Nguyen, who serves as CEO. Nguyen brings a background in software engineering and past experience in building enterprise-scale systems. His vision for blockchain-based gaming diverged from typical Web3 developer archetypes by prioritizing user acquisition and gamification over decentralized infrastructure purity. He led the charge during Axie’s meteoric rise, but his leadership has also been a point of contention—as debates over Axie’s degree of decentralization continue to divide the community.

Alongside Nguyen is Aleksander Leonard Larsen, better known in industry circles as “Psycheout.” As COO and public-facing evangelist, Larsen played a foundational role in community building and global business development. Before Sky Mavis, he was a competitive esports player and held board positions at the Blockchain Game Alliance. Larsen's position made him a leading force in shaping the P2E model and token-valued microeconomies that Axie pioneered—but it also placed him at the center of controversies around Axie’s governance opacity and economic sustainability.

One underemphasized but significant player is Jeffrey Zirlin (“Jihoz”), Sky Mavis’s Growth Lead. Jihoz specialized in grassroots community growth and tokenomics narrative crafting. His early engagement on Discord and Twitter helped shape Axie’s culture and rabid community following, yet his role in shaping token distributions and project messaging has raised concerns about insider incentives and market fairness, particularly following the Ronin Bridge exploit.

That exploit in 2022 further highlighted a core issue with the founding team: centralization. With validator control resting primarily in the hands of Sky Mavis nodes, the project failed to embody the decentralized resilience Web3 claims to offer. Lessons from projects like RDAO's decentralized governance evolution underscore what Axie Infinity's founding structure lacked—community-led validation and resistance to single points of failure.

Sky Mavis’s lean executive circle has succeeded commercially but drawn repeated rebukes from decentralization purists. As the community further demands transparency and true governance delegation, the founding team's prominence and choices remain under the microscope for a Web3 world that expects more than centralized startup control masquerading as decentralization.

For those interested in acquiring AXS or staking assets based on their own research, you can create an account on Binance.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://whitepaper.axieinfinity.com
• https://axieinfinity.com
• https://blog.axieinfinity.com
• https://substack.axieinfinity.com
• https://explorer.sky.mavis.com
• https://docs.axieinfinity.com
• https://bridge.skymavis.com
• https://roninchain.com
• https://dappradar.com/dapp/axie-infinity
• https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/axie-infinity
• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/axie-infinity
• https://skymavis.notion.site/Axie-Roadmap-d158c9ef4dd4459394c66bfd364832f3
• https://www.theblock.co/data/crypto-markets/spot/axie-infinity-axs
• https://www.cryptoslam.io/axie-infinity
• https://token.unlocks.app/axie-infinity
• https://defillama.com/protocol/axie-infinity
• https://nansen.ai/research/axie-research
• https://app.uniswap.org/#/tokens/ethereum/0xbb0e17ef65f82ab018d8edd776e8dd940327b28b
• https://etherscan.io/token/0xbb0e17ef65f82ab018d8edd776e8dd940327b28b
• https://medium.com/@Jihoz_Axie