According to Decrypt on June 14, citing Messari’s market research data, the top seven tokenized Pokémon card platforms ranked in May collectively generated $230 million in sales through a gacha mechanism, a significant increase from $32 million a year earlier; Messari analyst AvgJoesCrypto described this growth as “ten-fold growth,” attributing it to “reduced friction.”
Messari-Confirmed May Market Data
According to data from the research firm Messari, the following items have been confirmed:
May 2026 Sales: The top seven tokenized Pokémon card platforms generated $230 million in sales through a gacha mechanism
Comparison benchmark: Sales in the same type of market a year earlier were $32 million (with the main participants at the time being Collector Crypt and Courtyard)
Messari Analyst’s Qualitative Assessment: AvgJoesCrypto said the growth reached “ten-fold,” attributed to reduced friction and blockchain liquidity advantages
Messari Analyst’s Exact Words: “We’re starting to see a snowball effect from product-market fit. Once these assets are tokenized, the blockchain rails become a better medium for trading these assets.” The above is Messari’s market research data and not official financial data from each platform.
Collector Crypt Confirmed Data: Cumulative $1 Billion and the Gacha Mechanism
Data confirmed by Collector Crypt CEO Holmberg during an interview with Decrypt:
Cumulative sales: Within 18 months since launch, it has facilitated $1 billion in total sales; the gacha mechanism contributes 90%-95% of business.
Physical custody: A 28,000-square-foot facility in Montana houses physical card inventory; some competitors connect directly to the trading card liquidity pool in Collector Crypt’s vault.
Instant buybacks: Collector Crypt offers instant buyback services, with prices 10% to 15% lower than the market rate.
Holmberg confirmed that some competing platforms “may have half of their inventory stored in closets”; he admits the service has a gambling-like nature, but defines it as a “gamified shopping experience.”
Gacha Mechanism: Confirmed Design Specs
Based on Holmberg’s confirmations to Decrypt and promotion from Solana’s official X account:
Mechanism design: Random NFTs containing card artwork, mimicking the unboxing experience of traditional physical card packs.
Expected value design: Holmberg confirmed that the machine design is “positive expected value”—users pay $50 and, on average, receive $55 back.
Solana Official Promotion: A video shared by Solana’s official X account asks: “Would you spin a gacha machine to get a Pokémon card worth $15,000?”
A comment from Dominic Jang, co-founder of Deadstock: “The real new twist is that the pull now comes from instant liquidity. Gacha and mystery packs have quietly become an entry point for players.”
FAQ
What exactly does “tokenization” of tokenized Pokémon cards refer to, and what do users hold?
Tokenized cards map physical Pokémon cards to NFTs or digital certificates on the blockchain. For example, in Collector Crypt, physical cards are stored in its 28,000-square-foot facility in Montana; users hold an NFT representing ownership of the corresponding physical card, and can choose to trade it on-chain or apply to redeem the physical card.
What transactions does Messari’s $230 million sales figure include?
Messari confirmed that $230 million is the sales generated by the top seven tokenized Pokémon card platforms ranked in May 2026 through a gacha mechanism. Holmberg noted that this figure includes repeat attempts by users (users purchase multiple times to obtain the target card); this is Messari’s market research data, not an official financial report from the platforms.
What confirmed differences exist between on-chain tokenized cards and eBay?
Messari analyst AvgJoesCrypto pointed out that eBay offers a refund policy but buyers still face the risk of counterfeit goods; tokenized platforms can complete asset transactions with just a few clicks. Collector Crypt stores cards in its physical facilities and offers instant buyback services (10%-15% lower than market price). This is the analyst’s assessment and not a systematic platform-to-platform comparison study.
