NBA Top Shot Utility Balance

The changes required to achieve true economic sustainability for Top Shot through utility system demand and supply reduction driver balance

In the last post, I laid out a detailed analysis of the prior NBA Top Shot gaming utility system of flash challenges, the improvements FastBreak has made over that model, and the economic concepts of supply faucets and sinks that make a demand economy sustainable or not. Because we’re not there yet.

FastBreak: The New Hardcourt

If there are any gaps in those demand drivers or sinks, changes to incentive systems can easily be done to realign those incentives, create user-driven value add churn, and foster a true generational product economy. That is the power of digital collectibles over physical.

And that is what is laid out here in 4 parts:

1. Analyzing where there are gaps in the current moment economy (The Current Top Shot Plumbing System)
2. Low, medium, high effort changes needed to balance these gaps in the most consistent, repeatable, automated way (The Duct Tape that Plugs the Gaps)
3. Hypothesis testing those proposed changes using the same analytical rigor (Did We Fix the Leaks and Overflows?)
4. Review of all utility systems after the changes to ensure ongoing user value proposition, demand drivers, sinks, and business revenue drivers (Is Each Part Now Working?)

The Current Top Shot Plumbing System

The first task is to categorize all Top Shot moments by player type, tier, and scarcity/collectability so we can be sure we’re not missing a segment of our market that has collectors. Then we will analyze these categories in each utility system to ask:

1. Is the system creating ongoing demand for old/new moments of this type?
2. Is this system driving the removal of the supply from circulation for this moment type, and is that removal temporary or permanent?
3. Are there any gaps where the product minted (and continues to mint) types of moment supply, but the systems are excluding them practically or explicitly from ongoing demand and supply reduction drivers, meaning the demand can’t keep up and they’ll lose value over time?

*NOTE: You wouldn’t need to make each and every system create demand or attribute value or points to each and every type of moment. The goal is to see if every moment type is allowable and practical in applying to either a demand driver or a supply reduction driver somewhere. That way, everyone can collect what they love without knowing someone else playing a different game is diluting them or getting an outsized return for less.

A few notes on the methodology below:

• Of the boxes in the overall utility view below, the first three columns are demand drivers and the last three are supply reduction drivers. Locking keeps moments off the market but does not remove them from supply permanently to balance new supply coming in, so I have that as a demand driver instead of supply reduction.
• Moment types can not be counted in a column if the system explicitly excludes using them there. For example, Top Shot has stated it will not be doing burn leaderboards for non-All Star players (except top 30 rookies). It also does not currently allow commons to be burned on All-Star burn leaderboards, so these can’t go there currently.
• Moments were also not counted in a utility if it is not practical to use them there, as in if the user would be destroying value or overspending by doing so. For example, there are trade tickets but using them to burn a legendary moment from any player would be irrational. And you could buy a LeBron S1 debut to play Fastbreak with, but a 60k base moment would work just as well so the game is not the demand driver to buy that debut; something else is. Likewise, you can buy a LeBron 60k common for a locking leaderboard, but the impact would be minimal.

Without further ado, the analysis below on the demand and supply reduction drivers of all current utility systems by Player Type, Tier, and Scarcity:

Current Utility by All Moment Types

As seen above, the utility systems currently create zero logical demand drivers or supply reduction drivers for: active role player accessible rares; collectible commons, all rares, and all legendaries for retired non-Hall of Fame players; and all team moments that are not early exit team moment redemptions being used as trade tickets.

These can also be looked at from an aggregate level for each player category, tier, and in-tier collectability additional insights on how many moment types within that dimension are being picked up by those demand or supply reduction drivers.

Current Utility by Player Type

Active All Stars moments have utility in 12 systems, active role players in 7, current injured players in 7, retired Hall of Famers in 8, retired non-Hall of Fame players in 1, and Team Moments in only 1 as well. Buying retired non-Hall of Fame players or Team moments clearly seems like demand will not keep up with any further supply, and be a long-term losing proposition as systems are currently designed.

Current Utility by Tier

The common moments have utility in 14 different systems, rare in 10, and legendary in 13. Doesn’t really tell me much, honestly.

Current Utility by In-Tier Collectability

Accessible moments (meaning the floor at each tier per player) have utility in 24 different systems, with the more collectible moments (whether they be debuts, more scarce, or more memorable) within the tier having utility in 12. This single graph above explains why collectability vs gameification is a debate here at all. If you want to hold the more inherently collectible moments on the platform, most of the current utility systems dis-incentivize you and potential future buyers from doing so at the expense of greater short-term edge seeking elsewhere.

The Duct Tape that Plugs the Gaps

There are easy fixes, medium effort fixes, and major overhauls needed to close those gaps. Easy fixes can be defined as ones where all the development is in place and some easily switchable parameter helps close a gap. Medium effort fixes are ones where a system has been developed but is not in use, and that use would need to be picked back up with some updates. Major overhauls are where there is no system in place that solves the needed utility gaps, or the one in place needs to be fundamentally rebuilt.

This last one is the one where people tend to get upset with me. Either the people who’ve already planned and made purchases for edge-seeking using a current system I suggest be modified, or the staff who has developed that system and takes my critiques personally. I’m not interested in protecting anyone’s edge-seeking plays (even my own) or anyone’s feelings. I’m only interested in the long-term success, sustainability, and slow growth of the Top Shot economy and userbase.

After those proposals we’ll analyze where existing moments would now fall into those proposed demand and supply reduction driver systems. We’ll also see the delta between current and proposed systems to get a better visual on where the changes either added to utility or took it away.

Minor Tweaks:

1. Commons need to stop being excluded from TSS burn leaderboards.
   - People have sometimes spent hundreds on common-level debuts, let them burn it if they want and make it more scarce for the holders. Instant sink by removing that exclusion consistently.
2. Fastbreak needs 10 nightly prizes for top scores rather than 1, and any tie breaker needs to be total TSS held in player played.
   - Don’t worry, there is still space for earning Fastbreak packs for achieving thresholds noted below. But a nightly push for more clear high-level rewards is both more sustainable with a static reward structure vs scalabe demand (creating dynamic difficulty), and more engaging by preventing quitting after taking a few losses.
   - The TSS tie breaker change is also necessary to close a utility gap and value proposition warping where having one low serial base common would be valued over a debut or stacks of commons in a tie breaker scenario. The change subtly reinforces the market economy for the game’s moments and not immediately selling when a player with low supply out gets a base common, while also being visually and structurally secondary to playing a good lineup to prevent new users from getting intimated and discouraged.
   - The image mockup below also shows the highest TSS moment the user has of the player as a visual reminder that this is a platform that sells moments, this part may take development time but the other is just an update to the tie breaker query.
3. Team Moments need to start being awarded to team locking leaderboards again.
   - They’ve gone all season (S23–24) with nothing and a proposed change below creates both new demand and supply reduction drivers for them, encouraging locking of inherent value moments, closing a utility gap and making a whole lot of other systems work better together
   - However, team series checklist bonuses probably need to be shut down; completing a $10 S23–24 team checklist for 10,000 team series bonus vs $1,000 new spend for 10,000 TSS is way out of whack, and the “bottlenecks” these created were only enjoyed by those that used them as an offramp to gouge those trying to play the team leaderboard game

Medium Effort Changes:

1. Burn leaderboards need to be held regularly for every player receiving new supply.
   - Five winners from a legendary burn leaderboard or 50 winners from a rare burn leaderboard will churn a lot of value, but allowing 500 people to burn a retired player’s existing moments for their new 5000 mint Archive moment will too, and engage a lot more users while doing so
2. Playoff Redemptions need to come back. On medium effort because they are a fast turnaround required by the curation team
   - No changes to the system needed, but the system needs to be supported to allow for the ongoing sink below. Plus they were hugely popular, fun, and create buyer confidence around playoff supply.
3. Burn leaderboard events need to happen at the end of the regular season for team moments.
   - Users would burn TSS in that specific team’s prior team leaderboard reward moments or team playoff redemptions for a pack with that team’s new playoff redemption, or burn TSS in any team for a pack with a random playoff redemption (just like All Day did for the 2023 NFL playoffs). If mints are of 5000, 4500 sold in packs, 400 to team specific burn winners, 100 into a pot of 1600 earned for burning any team moment.
4. Claiming Fastbreak packs at the end of a run needs to be the new Trade Ticket utility, but at the tier you’re receiving +1.
   - For example, you’d burn 3 floor commons that may be no good for the game (like a high mint retired player moment) for a 2 common pack of active players that may be better for the game, or burn 1 floor rare and 3 floor commons for a pack with a rare and 2 commons that might hit on something better.
   - The game’s reward system otherwise becomes a faucet (slow drip if made harder or gushing if made easier) with no sink. It is necessary for the game to scale and balance its own supply
5. Badges could come back.
   - Users not wanting to contribute to churning old supply for new during a Fastbreak run (as well as those that do) could still receive the implicit reward of a badge at the end of the run with their number of thresholds hit.
   - This sets up a very clearly defined Fastbreak low stakes ‘play for fun’ beginner lane, medium effort ‘burn floor for better’ packs lane, and an advanced user ‘build TSS and shoot for best score of the day for the best rewards’ lane.

Major Overhauls:

1. Fastbreak needs to be pivoted on its axis (as seen above). Rather than 5 players per night in a random stat, it needs to be select a lineup of:
   A) Points scored >= 30
   B) Rebounds >= 11
   C) Assists >= 8
   D) Blocks >= 2
   E) Steals >= 2
   F) Team moment scoring >= 130
   G) Team moment defense holding opponent <= 100
   - Same rules apply to uses per tier: 1 play per run for common/fandom, 2 for rares, 4 for legendaries.
   - Remove points in paint, three pointers, field goals, free throws, etc. They are secondary in their impact on the game to points scored.
   - The discussion around strategy becomes analyzing the upcoming matchups and picking your spots vs “stat of the day”
   - This pivot is necessary vs “well why can’t we just add a day for team moments?” because the second option is easily skippable, then circumventing the entire reinforcing of the concentric circle of team leaderboard competitions and moments
2. Crafting needs to return, but only for high performing active players utilized frequently by players in Fastbreak.
   -The crafted reward needs to sit in a new rare set (repurpose the “Spotlight” set name?).
   - But it needs to integrate a stop: the first 999 people to burn 1 of that player’s rare and 10 commons with one of those commons being from the current series get to have it craft the player’s new rare. The reason is that there are so many existing rares available for many players, especially prior All-Stars, that there is a likely scenario were so many people burn rares that the number that needs to be minted for the reward is no longer rare.

Did We Fix the Leaks and Overflows?

“You’re just trying to protect your bags!”
“These changes just help the legendary holding whales!”
“This just takes away from us who like utility and don’t care about this concept of collectability!”
“You’re just making stuff up for how you personally want to play the game!”

Setting aside that I couldn’t engage with most of this because I don’t have a very broad collection or stacks of moments for burns… we could always just rerun the analysis we did on the current ecosystem, then compare to see if the proposed changes took away from anyone’s utility to give to another and where.

Testing the Proposed Utility Models:

Proposed Utility for All Moment Types

Proposed Utility by Player Type

Proposed Utility by Tier

Proposed Utility by In-Tier Collectability

I see more blue above I guess, but maybe it will be easier to go to the delta views to more readily see if the changes added systematic demand drivers or supply reduction drivers for all moments on Top Shot. Did it improve or hurt the economic balance of faucets and sinks on the platform at all, where, and to what degree?

Delta Comparison:

Utility Change for All: orange= utility loss, light grey= no change, blue= utility gain

Utility Change by Player Type

Utility Change by Tier

Utility Change by In-Tier Collectability

Hmmm… looks like the delta analysis backs up these changes.

Overall utility was not lost from FastBreak game pieces. Or commons. Or the more accessible moments. The utility systems were just tweaked to now tie together and support all moment types rather than fight against each other.

The only individual utility loss was that of holding accessible (cheap) commons from high-performing active players expressly for the utility of having a low serial for Fastbreak tie breakers; that utility now moves to building TSS with more collectible moments of that player. The cheapest commons of star players are still good fits for Fastbreak entry game pieces but now also slot into the added utility of using them to craft new rares of high-performing active players.

Is Each Part Now Working?

I’m running out of plumbing metaphors.

But now we can ask: if we’re done making sure that there are demand drivers and supply reduction sinks for collecting each type of moment, does it now mean that there is a point to each utility system on Top Shot? Like do any systems exist just to balance the sinks of a specific type of moment but no one is actually going to use them and they don’t help the business at all either? i.e. “Why bother using the locking system if I’ll never earn anything from it?” or “Why bother spending $65 setting up for Fastbreak if no one wants to buy the moments I earn in reward packs?”

So we’ll check each proposed utility system for ongoing:
1. User Value Proposition
2. Demand Driver
3. Sink to balance any faucets needed
4. Business revenue driver

• FastBreak “Play” — Entry Level Gaming; User Value: Profile badges, bragging rights, learning the platform; Demand Driver: high-performing active player floor commons; Sink: none needed because faucet is non-supply dilutive run completion badges; Revenue driver: transaction revenue from minimum of $5 onboarding for one day setup and $65 for 13 day perfect run, easy onboarding to ladder up, demand for base common packs with scale
• FastBreak “Run” — Intermediate Level Burn-to-Earn Gaming; User Value: ability to upgrade (by burning) moments no good for the game live injured or retired or low-performing players for ones that may have much more demand (value) from game utility at the common and rare levels, burn commons for shot at rare or burn floor rare for guaranteed rare; Demand Driver: high-performing active player floor commons, renewed demand for team moments; Sink: floor commons and floor no good for game to balance system’s demand driver; Revenue driver: ongoing demand for base common packs due to +1 burn to earn similar to trade tickets
• FastBreak “Compete” — Expert Level TSS tiebreak Gaming; User Value: Higher value reward moments, immediate rewards, targeting opportunities; Demand Driver: high-performing active player collectible moments and stacks, renewed demand for team moments; Sink: none due to ongoing demand through collection competition; Revenue driver: transaction revenue from user setup of minimum of $5 for one day play to $65 for 13 day perfect run, easy onboarding to ladder up, demand for base common packs with scale
• Crafting — User Value: upgrade commons to rare, convert star player’s worst collectability moments (high mint count, unimportant) to a potentially more collectable moment; Demand Driver: stacks of star player commons, floor rare; Sink: removes supply of cheapest star moments useful for Fastbreak meaning users aren’t being diluted for holding; Revenue Driver: making one of commons for burn required to be from current series makes base commons an ongoing need for users
• Team Leaderboard Locking — User Value: Free airdrops of team moments scaled to common, rare, and legendary levels useful for FastBreak; Demand Driver: highly collectable moments of high performing teams; Sink: Season-end team moment burning leaderboards, playoff teams for team specific redemption or any team for pack; Revenue Driver: competition creates ammunition out of all ongoing active player moments released
• Player Burn Leaderboards — User Value: convert lots of less collectible moments into one potentially more collectable, removing overspend from users “books” psychologically removing frustration point; Demand Driver: mid-tier collectability moments from star players user is willing to burn while carrying enough TSS to compete, stacks from star players to compete on volume; Sink: ongoing churn of old moments for new to prevent per player dilution, ongoing removal driver to any artificially inflated TSS removing it from FastBreak tiebreakers, competing on volume also removes available supply of cheap game pieces- propping them up for game players; Revenue Driver: competition drives new spend of mid-tier collectability moments to not fall behind on reward, props up of long-term hold values through greater scarcity in time generating greater user confidence on new spend (if consistent and not cherry picked players who get them)
• Team Moment Burn Leaderboards — User Value: Convert team moments not using for Fastbreak anymore or from team not making playoffs into redemption moments to follow along the playoffs; Demand Drivers: earning/buying and holding team moments until end of season (both high performing and low), incentivizing higher completion on team leaderboards to earn more scarce and higher TSS team rewards more valuable on burning leaderboards; Sink: removes supply useful for Fastbreak to reset at end of year and prevent ongoing dilution as next series releases new leaderboard rewards; Revenue Driver: Creates churn driver for users next year to buy new moments to compete on team leaderboards to prevent sitting back and collecting rewards forever (S4 design)

The Promised Land

These specific proposals, if all done together, add utility to more moments in all aggregate categories. And they do so in a consistent way without needing to add of layers of complexity, all while retaining the game engagement and low barrier entry point for new users. They create sinks for moment types where a utility system isn’t creating demand which provides consumer confidence that spend on Top Shot today won’t be a guaranteed long-term losing proposition anymore. They create an ongoing value proposition for game players to use that sink to their own gain. They systematically generate confidence buying today that a sink will be created making that moment more scarce in time so it doesn’t unnecessarily lose value to dilution. And they provide user-driven demand for more pack drops and market transactions to generate ongoing revenue for the business to stay in business long term without diluting its users.

But the changes need to be made together in one cohesive vision for balance, because only then will it be true that: