Red Flags in Play-to-Earn Crypto Games: proposal and Testing of a Checklist Based on Ponzi Scheme
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2025.230807Keywords:
Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies, Crypto games, Red flags, FraudAbstract
This study aims to assess to what extent it is possible to detect characteristics commonly employed in the financial crime known as a Ponzi scheme in play-to-earn crypto games. A literature review was conducted to identify red flags present in traditional schemes and cryptocurrencies. These red flags were validated by digital forensic experts as a possible criminal checklist. The checklist was tested against a sample of crypto games. Some red flags proved to be more relevant than others. The findings suggest that game mechanics, token value, and withdrawal difficulty are the most important aspects in assessing the risks of Ponzi schemes in crypto games. On the other hand, webpages, tokenomics, and utility of the token and NFT are less relevant for risk assessment. This study is groundbreaking in its specific focus on identifying red flags in Ponzi schemes within the play-to-earn gaming market, a recent and underexplored area, thus filling a gap in previous research on cryptocurrencies. In this exploratory study, the literature review was limited by the lack of research regarding Ponzi schemes in crypto games. The identification of red flags associated with schemes in crypto games can provide insights for investors and users, aiding the prevention of participation in fraudulent schemes, thereby contributing to the reduction of these acts stemming from large-scale globalization.
Downloads
References
An, J., & An, E. (2019). What an investor wants; What an investor needs: Identifying deceptive projects on blockchain market. ICIS 2019 Proceedings.
Bartoletti, M., Lande, S., Loddo, A., Pompianu, L., & Serusi, S. (2021). Cryptocurrency scams: analysis and perspectives. Ieee Access, 9, 148353-148373. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3123894
Benson, S. S. (2009). Recognizing the red flags of a Ponzi scheme. The CPA Journal, 79(6), 18.
Bhujel, S., & Rahulamathavan, Y. (2022). A survey: Security, transparency, and scalability issues of nft’s and its marketplaces. Sensors, 22(22), 8833. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22228833
Botha, J., Botha, D. P., & Leenen, L. (2023). An Analysis of Crypto Scams during the Covid-19 Pandemic: 2020. In ICCWS 2023 18th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security. Academic Conferences and publishing limited. 18(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.34190/iccws.18.1.1087
Cotler, B. (2023). Tokenized and Non-tokenized Assets: Legal Considerations. The Emerald Handbook on Cryptoassets: Investment Opportunities and Challenges, 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80455-320-620221017
Cres, F. (2014). Esquema Ponzi: Como Tirar Dinheiro dos Incautos. Portuguese Edition ed. Armada Press.
Cross, C. (2017). Anatomy of a Ponzi Scheme: Scams Past and Present. Slice Publishing Mystery and Thriller Books.
Dal Magro, C. B., & Cunha, P. R. D. (2017). Red flags in detecting credit cooperative fraud: the perceptions of internal auditors. Revista Brasileira de Gestao de Negocios, 19, 469-491. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v19i65.2918
Delfabbro, P., Delic, A., & King, D. L. (2022). Understanding the mechanics and consumer risks associated with play-to-earn (P2E) gaming. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(3), 716-726. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2022.00066
Dias, S. (2016). Caracterização e Identificação de Esquemas Ponzi. Dissertação. (Mestrado em Auditoria) - Lisboa: Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração de Lisboa.
Drescher, D. (2017). Blockchain Basics: A Non-Technical Introduction in 25 Steps. Berkeley, CA: Apress.
Dupuis, D., Smith, D., & Gleason, K. (2023). Old frauds with a new sauce: digital assets and space transition. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(1), 205-220. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-11-2021-0242
Frankel, T. (2012). The Ponzi Scheme Puzzle: A History and Analysis of Con Artists and Victims. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fu, S., Wang, Q., Yu, J., & Chen, S. (2022). FTX collapse: a Ponzi story. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09436. http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09436
Gil, A. C. (2012). Métodos e Técnicas de Pesquisa Social. Atlas.
Gunay, S., & Kaskaloglu, K. (2022). Does utilizing smart contracts induce a financial connectedness between Ethereum and non-fungible tokens?. Research in International Business and Finance, 63, 101773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101773
Heyman, C. E. (2023). A red flag checklist for cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes. Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-05-2023-0118
Jesus, S. B., Austria, D., Marcelo, D. R., Ocampo, C., Tibudan, A. J., & Tus, J. (2022). Play-to-Earn: A qualitative analysis of the experiences and challenges faced by axie infinity online gamers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Psychology and Counseling, 1(12), 291-424.
Jiang, X. J., & Liu, X. F. (2021). Cryptokitties transaction network analysis: The rise and fall of the first blockchain game mania. Frontiers in Physics, 9, 57. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2021.631665
Kadoo, S., & Sodi, K. (2023). An Analysis of Cryptocurrency, Bitcoin and the Future. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology, 3(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.48175/IJARSCT-8157
Kshetri, N. (2022). Scams, frauds, and crimes in the nonfungible token market. Computer, 55(4), 60-64. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2022.3144763
Kiong, L. V. (2022). Metaverse Made Easy: A Beginner's Guide to the Metaverse: Everything you need to know about Metaverse, NFT and GameFi. Liew Voon Kiong.
Lewis, M. K. (2015). Understanding Ponzi Schemes: Can Better Financial Regulation Prevent Investors from Being Defrauded?. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Decentralized Business Review. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Nascimento, M. R., & Rech, I. J. Contribuições de Red Flags para Detecção de Fraudes Corporativas. Management in Perspective, 2(1), 112–138. https://doi.org/10.14393/MIP-v2n1-2021-66006
Sakız, B., & Gencer, A. H. (2021, August). Blockchain beyond cryptocurrency: non-fungible tokens. In International Conference on Eurasian Economies (pp. 154-161). https://www.avekon.org/?p=/conf/13/paperdetail&id=2527
Scholten, O. J., Hughes, N. G. J., Deterding, S., Drachen, A., Walker, J. A., & Zendle, D. (2019, October). Ethereum crypto-games: Mechanics, prevalence, and gambling similarities. In Proceedings of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play (pp. 379-389). https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3311350.3347178
SEC. (2013). Ponzi Schemes Using Virtual Currencies. Available at https://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ia_virtualcurrencies
SEC. (2023). Ponzi Scheme | Investor.gov. Available at https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/types-fraud/ponzi-scheme
Tavares, R., Sousa, J. P., Maganinho, B., & Gomes, J. P. (2023). Gamers' Reaction to the Use of NFT in AAA Video Games. Procedia Computer Science, 219, 606-613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.329
Vidal-Tomás, D. (2022). The new crypto niche: NFTs, play-to-earn, and metaverse tokens. Finance Research Letters, 47, 102742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.102742
Wang, L., Cheng, H., Zheng, Z., Yang, A., & Zhu, X. (2021a). Ponzi scheme detection via oversampling-based Long Short-Term Memory for smart contracts. Knowledge-Based Systems, 228, 107312.
Wang, Q., Li, R., Wang, Q., & Chen, S. (2021). Non-fungible token (NFT): Overview, evaluation, opportunities and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.07447. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.07447
Yücel, E. (2013). Effectiveness Of Red Flags in Detecting Fraudulent Financial Reporting: An Application In Turkey. Journal of Accounting & Finance, (60). Available at https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsx&AN=90619644&lang=pt-br&site=eds-live
Yuspin, W., & Fadhlulloh, Q. H. (2022). Ponzi Scheme: Risk and Regulation in Indonesia. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 5(10), 339-345. https://doi.org/10.47814/ijssrr.v5i10.599
Zheng, Z., Chen, W., Zhong, Z., Chen, Z., & Lu, Y. (2023). Securing the ethereum from smart ponzi schemes: Identification using static features. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 32(5), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571847
Zou W. et al. (2019) Smart contract development: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 47(10), 2084-2106. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2019.2942301
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rodrigo Barbosa de Almeida, Rafael Sousa Lima, Paulo Vitor Souza de Souza
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The RCO adopts the Free Open Access policy, under the standard Creative Commons agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The agreement provides that:
- Submission of text authorizes its publication and implies commitment that the same material is not being submitted to another journal. The original is considered definitive.
- Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with necessary recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their personal page) before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and citation of published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
- The journal does not pay copyright to the authors of the published texts.
- The journal's copyright holder, except those already agreed in the Free Open Access Agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), is the Accounting Department of the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of Ribeirão Preto of the University of São Paulo.
No submission or publication fees are charged.
Up to 4 authors per article are accepted. Exceptionally duly justified cases may be reviewed by the Executive Committee of the RCO. Exceptional cases are considered as: multi-institutional projects; manuscripts resulting from the collaboration of research groups; or involving large teams for evidence collection, construction of primary data, and comparative experiments.
It is recommended that the authorship be ordered by contribution of each of the individuals listed as authors, especially in the design and planning of the research project, in obtaining or analyzing and interpreting data, and writing. Authors must declare the actual contributions of each author, filling the letter to the editor, at the beginning of the submission, taking responsibility for the information given.
Authors are allowed to change throughout the evaluation process and prior to the publication of the manuscript. The Authors should indicate the composition and final order of authorship in the document signed by all those involved when accepted for publication. If the composition and authoring order is different than previously reported in the system, all previously listed authors should be in agreement.
In the case of identification of authorship without merit or contribution (ghost, guest or gift authorship), the RCO follows the procedure recommended by COPE.
