Pokémon Card Tokenization Status Report

Author: Memento Research; Translation: Jinse Finance xiaozou

This article positions the enduring Pokémon Trading Card Game (TCG) as a unique durable collectible IP, which is entering the crypto space in the form of the "RWA × Gacha" platform (Note: Gacha, or draw cards, comes from the Japanese noun for capsule toy machines, gachapon), realizing a real economy that combines mobile-scale demand with crypto-native distribution.

This article covers a variety of topics, including the market share and asset performance of TCG IP, mobile demand funnel, growth of on-chain platforms, traffic quality and user demographics, unit economic benefits in various scenarios, as well as risks and catalytic factors.

We have concluded through data research:

Gacha accounts for over 90% of the platform's trading volume;

5-20% of users contributed about 90% of the consumption.

The net commission rate after deducting buybacks ranges from 12% to 31%.

1**, Market Overview and Background Introduction**

Pokémon continues to maintain a global mind share comparable to Disney (2017-2025), outperforming other popular fan-oriented IPs (Marvel, One Piece, and the recently popular Labubu).

The Lindy effect indicates that the longer something lasts, the longer its expected remaining lifespan. Persistent attention is crucial for long-term liquidity; this explains why the secondary market does not collapse due to short-term macro factors (such as watches, rare TCG cards, artworks, and classic cars).

It should be noted that: search interest scale ≠ consumption amount, but this is a leading indicator of the TCG activity. The following text will show how attention translates into paid behavior.

Since November 2017, the Pokémon card index has outperformed the S&P 500 index by approximately 4.7 times, even matching the performance of Bitcoin — specific events (the Logan Paul hype, the COVID-19 crisis, the 25th anniversary) have driven this momentum.

Pokémon TCG Pocket (TCGP) generated approximately $915.3 million in revenue within six months, significantly surpassing other Pokémon mobile products, while Pokémon GO's lifetime spending ($8.6 billion) confirms the paid foundation of this IP. This showcases the enormous payment funnel of card pack openings and how the gacha mechanism has become a money-making machine.

The application revenue of $477.5 million in the first half of 2025 (showing strong performance at the beginning of the cycle) demonstrates the "new work explosion effect" driven by the digital card pack unboxing. Similar to the Labubu phenomenon, this confirms the continued appeal of the blind box economic model - gacha platforms replicate the same behavior patterns with physical cards.

Blind boxes and gacha culture originate from Japan's capsule toy machines: they allow consumers to randomly obtain toys/figurines from a series, characterized by low cost and high repurchase rates. TCG, on the other hand, focuses on the opportunity to draw rare, high-value cards. The effectiveness of the combination of the two is due to:

The surprise is the product: winning a rare card can obviously stimulate dopamine secretion.

Community + Spectacle Effect: Unboxing videos, unpacking live streams, social media flaunting culture;

Financialization: The wallet/box itself becomes a tradable asset (sealed Pokémon box, Bubble Mart cargo box).

2**, Pokémon**** Card**** Tokenization**** on**** Chain**

Focus on Courtyard ( Polygon ), Collector's Crypt ( Solana ), Phygitals ( Solana ) and Emporium ( Solana ) platforms.

The monthly trading volume of the card tokenization trading segment reached a historical peak of approximately $114.5 million in August 2025, an increase of about 6.2 times compared to January 2025—this data covers four major dominant platforms: Courtyard (Polygon), Collector Crypt, Phygitals, and Emporium (the latter three are all based on Solana).

The data indicates how these platforms create sustained liquidity through compound network effects (inventory depth × user scale).

Note: Trading volume includes gacha mechanism and market transactions.

Data clearly shows that the Gacha mechanism is the dominant driving force (accounting for about 90-99% of the total trading volume on the four major platforms), which accurately reveals the actual sources of most income (pack profits, transaction fees, and repurchase gains), rather than peer-to-peer trading in the secondary market.

Gacha spending expanded from approximately $10.4 million (January) to about $61.1 million (August), an increase of about 4.9 times. In line with the recent booming trend of traditional card game platforms, these on-chain platforms have found product-market fit. More notably, the growth rate of user spending has surpassed the growth rate of market trading volume, indicating that users have a good acceptance of the buyback/redeem cycle model.

In terms of market share, Courtyard maintains a leading position, but Collector Crypt's share has surged from about 9.8% (January) to approximately 36.5% (August); Courtyard accounts for about 61.4%; Phygitals account for about 2%; Emporium accounts for about 0.1%.

3**、Gacha User Spending Habits and Financial Status**

Analysis of Income Contribution and Consumption Distribution of Users at All Levels and Breakdown of Total Income

**（1）**Courtyard

In terms of Courtyard, it can be seen from the consumption pattern that 74.5% of users spend ≤$50, while only about 5.9% of users contribute approximately 90.5% of the total gacha expenditure. This is a typical whale economy model.

As of the beginning of the year until now (January to August), Courtyard's gacha spending is approximately $203 million, with a net profit margin of about 21.5% after buybacks. This indicates that under the scale effect, even with a large inventory cycle, the "gacha + buyback" flywheel can still achieve a net profit margin of over 20%.

**（2）**Collector Crypt

Collector Crypt data shows that 17.5% of users drive about 92.8% of the consumption, with approximately 49.6% of users spending over $1000. The consumption distribution is more in-depth compared to Courtyard, leaning towards the "power collectors" group. Pricing strategy, buyback speed, and series planning should reflect a higher risk tolerance.

Since the beginning of the year, the Gacha consumption on the platform is approximately $75.3 million. After about $66.1 million in buybacks and moderate platform/copyright fee expenditures, the net profit margin is approximately 12.5%. The lower net profit margin compared to Courtyard suggests it may adopt a more aggressive buyback strategy, a different cost structure, or higher inventory levels, with most of the revenue embedded in the gacha mechanism.

(3) Phygitals

The data from the Phygitals platform shows that 71.9% of users spend ≤50 dollars, but about 9.5% of users contribute approximately 93.6% of the total spending. Since the beginning of the year, the gacha spending has been around 2 million dollars, with a net profit margin of about 30.7% after approximately 1.42 million dollars in buybacks; note: most cards are only purchased at the time of claiming.

The on-demand purchasing model can generate higher net profits on a smaller scale because there is no need to bear sales costs in advance, which is particularly beneficial for platforms lacking a strong balance sheet. However, the risks are transferred to the fulfillment stage—any delays or vendor errors can quickly lead to a loss of user trust.

**（4）**Emporium

Approximately 46.6% of users on the Emporium platform contribute about 93.5% of the consumption amount, and about 73.8% of users spend over $250. The data indicates that the platform is positioned towards the mid-to-high spending demographic, attracting more loyal collectors. Since the beginning of the year, gacha spending has been approximately $350,000, with a net profit margin of about 20.5% after a repurchase of around $270,000.

4**, Conclusion**

For all platforms, the Gacha mechanism is the core business - as it accounts for 90-99% of the capital flow; placing it on the chain to attract crypto community enthusiasts achieves product-market fit.

Different whale groups have different operational paths: Courtyard = broad user base + few whales; Collector Crypt/Emporium = deep consumer base; Phygitals = dumbbell-shaped structure with both claiming and procurement advantages.

The net profit margin is the result of policy orientation. The frequency of buybacks, cost structure, and inventory patterns collectively determine whether the platform operates at a net profit level of approximately 12%, 20%, or 30%.