This report positions the ever famous Pokémon TCG as a unique durable collectibles IP that is now spilling into crypto on-chain in the form of a  “RWA × Gacha” platform → real economy with mobile-scale demand meeting crypto-native distribution.

The report covers TCG’s IP mindshare & asset performance, mobile demand funnel, on-chain platform growth, flow quality & user cohorts, unit economics by venue and lastly risks & catalysts.

What we aim to show in numbers

• Gacha is >90% of venue volume

• 5-20% of users drive ~90% of spending

• Take rates vary 12-31% net of buybacks

Market Overview & Background

Pokémon has sustained global mindshare that has been on par with Disney from 2017-2025, outperforming other popular fandom IPs (Marvel, One Piece and most recently Labubu).

Lindy effect, the longer something has survived the longer its remaining life expectancy. Durable attention matters for long-run liquidity; it explains why secondary markets don’t collapse independent of short term macro (e.g. watches, rare TCG cards, fine arts and classical cars).

We caveat that no. of search interest ≠ spending volume, but it’s a leading indicator for TCG activity, and later on we show how attention converts into paid engagement.

Since Nov 2017, the Pokémon Cards Index has outperformed the S&P 500 by roughly 4.7× and even managed to trade in line with BTC, with specific events (Logan Paul shenanigans, COVID 19 crisis, 25th anniversary) contributing to the momentum.

Pokémon TCG Pocket (TCGP) generated ~$915.3M in 6 months which significantly outpaced other Pokémon mobile titles, while Pokémon GO’s lifetime spend ($8.6B) underscores the IP’s paying base. This shows a massive payer funnel for pack-opening behavior and how gacha is a money machine. 

$477.5m in H1’25 app revenue with strong months early in the cycle shows “new-title surge” that is facilitated by digital pack openings. As with Labubus, this confirms a sustained appetite for blind-pack economics the same action gacha platforms replicate with real cards. 

Blind boxes and gachapon culture originated from Japanese gachapon capsule machines → random toy/figure from a set, low cost, high repeat purchase. While in TCG, there is a focus on a chance of pulling rare, high-value cards. Combining both dynamics work because:

• Surprise as a product: The reveal moment of a rare pull is the main dopamine driver

• Community + spectacle: Unboxing videos, rip-and-ship livestreams, social media flex culture

• Financialization: Packs/boxes themselves become tradeable (sealed Pokémon boxes, Pop Mart cases)

Onchain Pokemon RWA TCG

A look into Courtyard (Pokemon), Collector's Crypt (Solana), Phygitals (Solana) and Emporium (Solana)

The TCG RWA trading card sector’s monthly volume hit an ATH ~$114.5M in Aug ’25, ~6.2× Jan ’25 across four dominant players: Courtyard (Polygon), Collector Crypt, Phygitals, Emporium (all of which are on Solana).

This data shows how these platforms represent recurring liquidity with compounding network effects (inventory depth x audience).

Note: the volume includes gacha and marketplace; buyback mechanics inflate gross flow versus realized take.

The data is clear, gachapon is the dominant driver (≈90-99% of volume across all 4 platforms) and this tells you exactly where the bulk of the revenue is actually made (pack margin, fees, and buybacks), not in the secondary market P2P trading.

Gacha spending expanded by ~4.9× from ~$10.4m (Jan) to ~$61.1m (Aug). In line with the recent boom in traditional card game platforms, these on-chain platforms have found PMF → moreover what is interesting is that the user spending growth has outpaced the marketplace volume growth, and this implies users are comfortable with buyback/claim loops.

In terms of the marketshare, Courtyard remains the top, but Collector Crypt’s share has seen a drastic uptick from ~9.8% (Jan) to ~36.5% (Aug); Courtyard ~61.4%; Phygitals ~2%; Emporium ~0.1%.

Gachapon Users Spending Habits & Financials

A look into Revenue Contribution by User Tier and Spending Distribution and Total Revenue Breakdown

Courtyard

For Courtyard, in terms of spending pattern we can see that 74.5% of users spend ≤$50, while just ~5.9% of users contribute ~90.5% of total gacha spend. This is a classic whale economy. 

Courtyard also saw ~$203M gacha spent YTD (Jan-Aug), net margin ~21.5% after buybacks. This shows that at scale, the gacha + buyback flywheel can clear >20% net even with heavy inventory cycling.

Collector Crypt

Collector Crypto shows 17.5% of users drive ~92.8% of spending, with ~49.6% of users spending >$1,000. We see a much deeper spending distribution than Courtyard, skewing to “power collectors.” Pricing, buyback speed, and set curation should reflect higher risk tolerance.

They also had ~$75.3M gacha spend YTD, net margin ~12.5% after ~$66.1M buybacks and modest platform/royalty fees. This lower net vs Courtyard suggests either more aggressive buybacks, different fee stack, or inventory costs → most of the revenue is embedded in the gacha mechanics.

Phygitals

Phygitals saw 71.9% of users spend ≤$50, yet ~9.5% of users contribute ~93.6% of spend. In terms of their financials, ~$2.0M gacha spend YTD, ~30.7% net after ~$1.42M buybacks; note: many cards are only procured upon claim.

On-demand procurement can produce higher net at smaller scale because you’re not front-loading COGS, and this is particularly helpful for venues without deep balance sheets. However, the risk is then transferred to fulfillment where any delays or supplier slippage can lose user trust quickly.

Emporium

For Emporium, ~46.6% of users contribute ~93.5% of spend, and ~73.8% of users spend >$250. The data signals a mid-to-high spender venue; with more committed collectors. In terms of financials, ~$0.35M gacha spend YTD, ~20.5% net after ~$0.27M buybacks.

Key Takeaways

• For all platforms, Gacha is the business since it represents 90–99% of flow; put it on-chain for the CT degens and you found PMF

• Different whales, different rails → Courtyard = broad base + thin whales; Collector Crypt/Emporium = deeper spenders; Phygitals = barbell with procurement-on-claim edge

• Net margins are policy outcomes. Buyback cadence, fee stack, and inventory model decide whether you run at ~12%, ~20%, or ~30% net