It's not really related to gaming, but many games nowadays include an economy a la second life, with their own token/coin and downloadable contents. There even exists a token that has been designed just for games: enjin coin

I personally don't believe in this, I think we should have a unified currency that has so much volume that the value becomes stable. fragmenting currencies into 3000 coins like today creates volatility.
I thought there were so many problems in general with cryptocurrencies I had to write a long rant, I made a full fledged article about issues here:

https://motsd1inge.wordpress.com/2018/02/10/cryptocurrencies-not-there-yet/

So, 'd love to hear your thoughts about its content and if there are points you disagree and stuff.

Cryptocurrencies, like most currencies, have no intrinsic value.  They only have value because people are willing to exchange them at a given rate.  Much of the volatility in cryptocurrency is not because if issues with the math or the verification or the costs of mining, the volatility comes from the lack of established value and the lack of a link to physical goods except for the link of the cost of mining the coins. Apart from that, currencies are nothing more than a token. The token has value because people are willing to trade goods and services at a rate they deem fair.  Tokens like dollars and euros have a constant dynamic on their value, and because so many people use them for a wide range of items the value is easily maintained. Digital currencies like bitcoin have had far fewer users, and even though they are used for many things online their adoption rate is minuscule relative to the transaction rates of other currencies. 

No matter the currency, their value will always remain whatever value people are willing to trade for them.

As for making one unified currency, that sort of thing never works out the way people plan.  As long as people desire to trade good and services using a token as value, the token will have value.  

Ok for the value. And as for the "one unified" that won't work, that is a very sad observation. But I could tolerate the next best thing: The minimum number of different currencies.

Let's take the Euro crisis as an example of why a unified currency can't work, and let's establish the fact that we need some amount of elasticity in the value and the inflation rates of currencies based on local specificities, we still can attempt to minimize how many fragments are needed no ?

Your third point was usage in relation to goods. Yes, adoption is the main issue cryptocurrencies are facing.  But, will really buy/sell transactions for material goods, create a "peg" on the value of those objects ? didn't we see hyper inflation in period of war make the price of bread skyrocket to billions of Deutshmark in Germany ? It seems the value can still be volatile even when massively adopted. But inflation should be something controlled by the central banks, so in a system where the monetary base is fixed, there can be only deflation. And the speed at which it happens cannot spin out of control since the deflation is bound to the production volume of the whole economy, and not arbitrary loans, compensatory easing, or interest rates which are not controllable parameters in current cryptos. So the volatility diminution would have to come from an increase in liquidity only no ?

The main problem is that cryptocurrency isn't effective and that the best parts of it is already in used by existing government banks.

People say it's great because of no tax and fees. Yea that is what the miner fee is; it is tax and the worst kind. The more users use a cryptocurrency the more they would have to pay so that miners deal with there transaction first.

If the whole world used cryptocurrency and here is only power for 20% of the transactions, you could end up with a situation where you have to pay the miners $10 000 - $1 000 000 to deal with your transaction of a $1 000.

So sooner or later a fixed tax system would have to be implemented, say 4% of the transaction value goes to the miner. Except that wouldn't work because your miners will want to deal with the largest transactions to get the most money.

The simple fact is cryptocurrency is a self destructive system with no place for linear growth.

To fix the linear growth problem you need to give it some one authority over it and they would have to police it. Then you just end up with a system less effective than the banking we already have.

Honestly I think Bitcoin was made to see how long it takes to break the system.

12 minutes ago, swiftcoder said:

That's a problem specific to cryptocurrencies based on proof-of-work consensus.

True the bloating example is mostly to bit coin but peer coin has it's own list of flaws.

In the end the problem is that keeping the money secure requires work and work = money. The people using the system has to pay for it and often taking a cut from what they put in is the easiest and most fair way.

Cryptocurrencies will keep loosing value as they grow because there growth is what rises there costs. The system isn't even new it's just digitized.