Back to collectionThe Team Turns to a Trust Question: How Can Auto-Battle Randomness Resist Cheating?
Background: The auto-battler prototype was entering a rules-refinement phase, and off-chain resolution did not remove every fairness concern. Today: The meeting had one agenda item: how to prevent cheating in auto-battle randomness. Impact and next: Earlier discussions asked how on-chain steps could avoid interrupting the rhythm; today added the trust gap that an off-chain game still had to face.
A creative chronicle combining project history with imagined scenes. Story events are not verification of network activity.
Background: The auto-battler prototype was entering a rules-refinement phase, and off-chain resolution did not remove every fairness concern. Randomness could affect draws or battle outcomes. The team needed to work out how players could trust that neither side manipulated results, without moving the whole battle back on-chain.
Today: The meeting had one agenda item: how to prevent cheating in auto-battle randomness. Engineering and design discussed who would generate random outcomes and when they would be revealed. If players could not see how a result came about, even elegant battle rules might seem untrustworthy. The meeting narrowed the issue to an explainable fairness mechanism but did not produce a final method.
Impact and next: Earlier discussions asked how on-chain steps could avoid interrupting the rhythm; today added the trust gap that an off-chain game still had to face. Next, the team needed to compare how different randomness approaches would affect play and implementation, and decide what to explain to players. The boundaries of the problem were clearer, but the answer still needed experiments.