The question then is the additional cost worth it. Employee tampering is rare and already dealt with in other ways. Also putting things on chain doesn’t prevent it because there are still employees making the game and thus can still add back doors that will be legit transactions.

I can’t believe I missed that.

I still don’t think the proof part is necessary even with the potential for internal employee tampering. With sufficient system authorization and security auditing catching someone tampering would be enough than wasting all that compute resource to prevent it for such a rare case.

Cool story though. I really like UO back in the day.

I think employee trust is not something you solve with a blockchain. This is like that section of the "why your idea won't work" checklists, where you have "you are attempting to solve a social problem with technology, which does not work". Access controls and audit logs are the way to go. Employees who know that they can't behave badly without the system recording all their bad actions are much less likely to do bad things. And when they inevitably do bad things (which would still be the case in a blockchain system), you have the audit trail to prove it, and you fire them and/or involve law enforcement.

Okay? What makes you think this would stop them from just running some GPU in the corner and generating a bunch of expensive items to peddle ? They'd have all the access to make it look legit ?