The SandboxSAND: $133 million NFT, alleged SEC securities
Market cap is price times coins in circulation, from CoinGecko. The small words beside each coin are CoinGecko's own tags. A size ranking, not a pick.
What is Gaming crypto?
Gaming crypto coins are the coins CoinGecko tags as Gaming (GameFi), Gaming Blockchains, Play To Earn or Metaverse. Each coin sits in one theme only: the first, most specific one its tags match. We track 42 Gaming coins, 34 of them rated below.
Bottom line
GoMining Token ranks first for research priority in Gaming crypto at 68.9/100, and its native activity proof is incomplete. The theme's 13-week excess versus Bitcoin is -6.6% on 21% breadth, which is what decides whether that lead is isolated or broad. 3 of the 34 assets here carry enough native evidence to move past a price-led label.
These Gaming coins are part of the cryptocurrency universe this site tracks daily: the top 1,000 coins by market cap when the list was built, priced from exchange closes where we have a price we trust, and matched to protocol fees and revenue where a protocol publishes them.
The theme itself · before any single company
How has Gaming moved against Bitcoin?
The line below covers up to 5 years and opens on the 5Y view; the buttons cut it shorter. Over the most recent two of them this theme is 37% behind Bitcoin. Protocol revenue across its protocols fell 41% on average over the last four reported quarters.
FADING · −4 in 4w·Price down, no fundamental support7 of 25 coins ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months
Not ahead of Bitcoin right now; 10/25 >200d (−6); 7 of 25 ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months (4 fewer than four weeks earlier).
Gaming, equal-weighted, based at 200Bitcoin, same base, same starttrailing 12-month protocol revenue risingfalling
Gaming, equal-weighted, based at 200Bitcoin, same base, same starttrailing 12-month protocol revenue risingfalling
Gaming, equal-weighted, based at 200Bitcoin, same base, same starttrailing 12-month protocol revenue risingfalling
Both lines start at 200 in the same week, so the gap between them tells the story: the theme line is an equal-weighted index of its 25 coins. The bars underneath are trailing 12-month protocol revenue, one bar per reported quarter, each member set to 100 at the start and the theme taking the middle value, so a price line pulling away from flat bars means the market is paying more for the same earnings. A bar turns red when that figure is lower than the quarter before. The rules are fixed and the same everywhere on this site: ahead by 5% or more over three months, or behind by 20% or more over a year while protocol revenue grew 20% or more. Hover or tap any point to read both values and the gap.
BTC LED market context
Gaming vs Bitcoin: Relative Strength & Breadth
Gaming crypto has underperformed Bitcoin by 30.8% over 52 weeks on an equal-weight index of current members. Over 13 weeks the figure is -6.6%. 7 of 34 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. Metaplex leads Bitcoin-relative strength at +184.7%. Price readings are as of 2026-10-30.
-6.6%13 weeks vs Bitcoin
-31%52 weeks vs Bitcoin
7 of 34above their 200-day average
MPLXfurthest ahead of Bitcoin · +185%
Assets
34
canonical functional membership
Activity-covered
3/34
enough native evidence
Top score
68.9/100
GoMining Token
Calendar quarters
20
complete; missing stays missing
Global asset selection · top 20 shown
Showing 20 of 34 assets
00 · exact additive research priority
4-Factor Crypto Evidence Score
A within-theme research-priority score for the 34 assets in Gaming, out of 100. The four displayed point contributions add exactly to the total, and the market regime changes the action label, never the arithmetic. GoMining Token is highest at 68.9/100 on 50% evidence. It ranks research attention, not portfolio action.
GoMining Token leads the current research queue at 68.9/100 with 50% evidence.
3 of 34 assets have enough native activity evidence to move beyond a price-led label.
8 of the 42 Gaming coins are not rated this week: 8 report no traded volume. They are listed in full below the ranking.
Missing native metrics are not scored as zero and are not silently reweighted. They pull only the affected factor toward neutral and lower its visible evidence percentage. An asset with nothing measurable at all is not scored at 50 either: it is listed as not rated.
1. GoMining Token · GOMINING
68.9/100 · Price-led, little network data · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 29.8 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 14.1 = 68.9
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +185 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +42 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
7.0/30Usage growth
Fees -81.8% · revenue -81.8% · users —
53% evidence
18.6/20Value capture
Fee yield 13.21% · revenue yield 13.21%
100% evidence
5.9/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $1.2M · price swings: 235.3% a year
100% evidence
3. Somnia · SOMI
66.3/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 31.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 9.6 = 66.3
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +103 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +2.1 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
9.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $3.4M · price swings: 59.3% a year
100% evidence
4. Unipoly · UNP
60.9/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 33.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 2.2 = 60.9
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +49.2 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +18.8 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
2.2/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $299.7K · price swings: 89.6% a year
100% evidence
5. B3 (Base) · B3
59.3/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 25.8 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 8.5 = 59.3
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +12 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −4.7 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
8.5/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $4.8M · price swings: 101.5% a year
100% evidence
6. SuperVerse · SUPER
58.2/100 · Thinly traded · 48% evidence
Exact sum: 27.5 + 15.2 + 10.0 + 5.5 = 58.2
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +78.6 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +0.7 pts · above its 200-day average
80% evidence
15.2/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
17% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
5.5/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $1.5M · price swings: 99% a year
100% evidence
7. Yield Guild Games · YGG
56.8/100 · Price-led, little network data · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 20.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.9 = 56.8
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +8.8 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +6.8 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
10.9/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $5.7M · price swings: 80.2% a year
100% evidence
8. The Sandbox · SAND
52.4/100 · Price-led, little network data · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 18.6 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 8.8 = 52.4
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −8.8 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +25.3 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
8.8/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $42.5M · price swings: 193.3% a year
100% evidence
9. Rollbit Coin · RLB
52.1/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 21.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.2 = 52.1
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −9.2 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +6.6 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
5.2/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $213.2K · price swings: 64.9% a year
100% evidence
10. Decentraland · MANA
50.6/100 · Price-led, little network data · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 15.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.4 = 50.6
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −12 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +0.2 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
10.4/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $14.7M · price swings: 85.6% a year
100% evidence
11. Big Time · BIGTIME
49.1/100 · Price-led, little network data · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 13.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.4 = 49.1
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −3.8 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −6.9 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
10.4/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $11.1M · price swings: 71.8% a year
100% evidence
12. SKALE · SKL
47.6/100 · Price-led, little network data · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 12.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 9.7 = 47.6
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −14 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +5.1 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
9.7/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $5.3M · price swings: 84.1% a year
100% evidence
13. Hive · HIVE
46.1/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 13.8 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.3 = 46.1
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −8.9 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +2 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
7.3/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $563.8K · price swings: 49.5% a year
100% evidence
14. Hunt · HUNT
44.4/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 13.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.7 = 44.4
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −8.5 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +2.8 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
5.7/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $85.4K · price swings: 37% a year
100% evidence
15. Enjin Coin · ENJ
44.3/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 9.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 9.4 = 44.3
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −24.6 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +0.3 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
9.4/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $4.5M · price swings: 77.9% a year
100% evidence
16. Adshares · ADS
43.4/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 11.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.4 = 43.4
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −13.3 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +8.5 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
7.4/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $348.7K · price swings: 21.2% a year
100% evidence
17. BORA · BORA
43.4/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 12.3 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.1 = 43.4
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −9.6 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −0.2 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
6.1/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $264.7K · price swings: 50.2% a year
100% evidence
18. WAX · WAXP
43.4/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 12.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.4 = 43.4
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −5.6 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −11.5 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
6.4/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $699.0K · price swings: 58.1% a year
100% evidence
19. Catizen · CATI
42.6/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 10.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.9 = 42.6
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −12.5 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −13.6 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
6.9/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $3.0M · price swings: 65.4% a year
100% evidence
20. Xai · XAI
41.9/100 · Thinly traded · 55% evidence
Exact sum: 15.0 + 13.8 + 10.0 + 3.1 = 41.9
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −2.5 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −5 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
13.8/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
17% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
3.1/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $443.0K · price swings: 84.4% a year
100% evidence
21. DEAPCOIN · DEP
41.8/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 10.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.1 = 41.8
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −22.1 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +17.2 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
6.1/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $116.9K · price swings: 52.3% a year
100% evidence
22. GALA · GALA
41.0/100 · Price-led, little network data · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 7.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 9.0 = 41.0
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −25 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −0.9 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
9.0/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $30.3M · price swings: 99.3% a year
100% evidence
23. Hamster Kombat · HMSTR
40.4/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 7.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.9 = 40.4
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −40 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +0.3 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
7.9/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.6M · price swings: 48.9% a year
100% evidence
24. GMT · GMT
39.7/100 · Thinly traded · 43% evidence
Exact sum: 10.8 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 3.9 = 39.7
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −22.5 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −4.8 pts · below its 200-day average
80% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
3.9/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $456.8K · price swings: 93.6% a year
100% evidence
25. Gama Token · GAMA
39.1/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 8.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.9 = 39.1
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −17 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −6 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
11.0/30Usage growth
Fees -51.3% · revenue -53.3% · users —
53% evidence
8.9/20Value capture
Fee yield 1.08% · revenue yield 1.01%
100% evidence
10.1/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $19.3M · price swings: 85.8% a year
100% evidence
27. Four · FORM
38.5/100 · Thinly traded · 43% evidence
Exact sum: 8.6 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 4.9 = 38.5
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −21.1 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −11.2 pts · below its 200-day average
80% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
4.9/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $653.7K · price swings: 64.3% a year
100% evidence
28. Smooth Love Potion · SLP
36.2/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 4.1 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.1 = 36.2
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −25.6 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −6.6 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
7.1/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $1.2M · price swings: 60.6% a year
100% evidence
29. Nexpace · NXPC
35.0/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 2.6 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.4 = 35.0
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −17 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −4.5 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
16.3/30Usage growth
Fees -29.9% · revenue -29.9% · users —
53% evidence
2.3/20Value capture
Fee yield 0.53% · revenue yield 0.53%
100% evidence
7.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $1.9M · price swings: 62.2% a year
100% evidence
31. ApeCoin · APE
34.2/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 7.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 1.5 = 34.2
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −34.3 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −4.9 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
1.5/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $7.0K · price swings: 116.8% a year
100% evidence
32. Alien Worlds · TLM
34.0/100 · Thinly traded · 55% evidence
Exact sum: 4.9 + 12.5 + 10.0 + 6.6 = 34.0
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −46.4 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −0.8 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
12.5/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
17% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
6.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $3.0M · price swings: 80.6% a year
100% evidence
33. WEMIX · WEMIX
31.7/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 1.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.7 = 31.7
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −55.5 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −12.7 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
5.7/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $505.8K · price swings: 54.1% a year
100% evidence
34. Capybobo · PYBOBO
30.2/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 1.8 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 3.4 = 30.2
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −66.1 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −9.2 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
3.4/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $458.5K · price swings: 90.6% a year
100% evidence
Showing 5 of 34 ranked assets
01 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Which projects are generating the most network fees?
Metaplex leads Gaming crypto on Trailing 12-month fees at $5.3M, 237% ahead of Axie Infinity. None of the 3 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 3 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderMetaplex · $5.3M
Gap237% versus #2
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage3 of 34 assets
Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture.
This conclusion weakens if: fee growth turns negative across two complete calendar quarters or fee coverage falls below the stated threshold.
Trailing 12-month fees is the sum of the latest four complete calendar quarters. Growth compares that sum with the prior four-quarter sum.
Trailing 12-month feestop 3
1Metaplex MPLX$5.3M
2Axie Infinity AXS$1.6M
3Illuvium ILV$127.2K
Fee growthtop 3
1Illuvium ILV-30%
2Axie Infinity AXS-51%
3Metaplex MPLX-82%
Network fees · asset comparison
3 of 34 coins report it · 3 with a comparable change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Trailing 12-month fees
Fee growth
GoMining Token GOMINING
—
—
Metaplex MPLX
$390.0K
-82%
Somnia SOMI
—
—
Unipoly UNP
—
—
B3 (Base) B3
—
—
SuperVerse SUPER
—
—
Yield Guild Games YGG
—
—
The Sandbox SAND
—
—
Rollbit Coin RLB
—
—
Decentraland MANA
—
—
Big Time BIGTIME
—
—
SKALE SKL
—
—
Hive HIVE
—
—
Hunt HUNT
—
—
Enjin Coin ENJ
—
—
Adshares ADS
—
—
BORA BORA
—
—
WAX WAXP
—
—
Catizen CATI
—
—
Xai XAI
—
—
DEAPCOIN DEP
—
—
GALA GALA
—
—
Hamster Kombat HMSTR
—
—
GMT GMT
—
—
Gama Token GAMA
—
—
Axie Infinity AXS
$392.5K
-51%
Four FORM
—
—
Smooth Love Potion SLP
—
—
Nexpace NXPC
—
—
Illuvium ILV
$16.5K
-30%
ApeCoin APE
—
—
Alien Worlds TLM
—
—
WEMIX WEMIX
—
—
Capybobo PYBOBO
—
—
Showing 20 of 34 assets
02 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?
Metaplex leads Gaming crypto on Trailing 12-month revenue at $5.3M, 258% ahead of Axie Infinity. None of the 3 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 3 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderMetaplex · $5.3M
Gap258% versus #2
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage3 of 34 assets
Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture.
This conclusion weakens if: revenue growth turns negative or the revenue-to-fees take rate falls for two complete calendar quarters.
Trailing 12-month revenue is the sum of the latest four complete calendar quarters. Growth compares that sum with the prior four-quarter sum.
Trailing 12-month revenuetop 3
1Metaplex MPLX$5.3M
2Axie Infinity AXS$1.5M
3Illuvium ILV$127.2K
Revenue growthtop 3
1Illuvium ILV-30%
2Axie Infinity AXS-53%
3Metaplex MPLX-82%
Protocol revenue · asset comparison
3 of 34 coins report it · 3 with a comparable change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Trailing 12-month revenue
Revenue growth
GoMining Token GOMINING
—
—
Metaplex MPLX
$390.0K
-82%
Somnia SOMI
—
—
Unipoly UNP
—
—
B3 (Base) B3
—
—
SuperVerse SUPER
—
—
Yield Guild Games YGG
—
—
The Sandbox SAND
—
—
Rollbit Coin RLB
—
—
Decentraland MANA
—
—
Big Time BIGTIME
—
—
SKALE SKL
—
—
Hive HIVE
—
—
Hunt HUNT
—
—
Enjin Coin ENJ
—
—
Adshares ADS
—
—
BORA BORA
—
—
WAX WAXP
—
—
Catizen CATI
—
—
Xai XAI
—
—
DEAPCOIN DEP
—
—
GALA GALA
—
—
Hamster Kombat HMSTR
—
—
GMT GMT
—
—
Gama Token GAMA
—
—
Axie Infinity AXS
$378.4K
-53%
Four FORM
—
—
Smooth Love Potion SLP
—
—
Nexpace NXPC
—
—
Illuvium ILV
$16.5K
-30%
ApeCoin APE
—
—
Alien Worlds TLM
—
—
WEMIX WEMIX
—
—
Capybobo PYBOBO
—
—
Showing 20 of 34 assets
03 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Where is capital actually committed on-chain?
Xai leads Gaming crypto on Quarter-end TVL at $63.9K, 12% ahead of Alien Worlds. None of the 4 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 5 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderXai · $63.9K
Gap12% versus #2
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage5 of 34 assets
Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture.
This conclusion weakens if: TVL rises while fees and users fall; that pattern can be incentive-funded mercenary liquidity.
Quarter-end TVL uses protocol TVL first for protocol assets and exact-ID chain TVL for chain assets or where protocol TVL is unavailable. A blank is unavailable, not zero. Growth compares with the same complete quarter one year earlier.
Quarter-end TVLtop 5
1Xai XAI$63.9K
2Alien Worlds TLM$56.9K
3SuperVerse SUPER$36.8K
4Illuvium ILV$0
5The Sandbox SAND$0
TVL growthtop 4
1SuperVerse SUPER-40%
2Xai XAI-60%
3Alien Worlds TLM-60%
4Illuvium ILV-100%
Total value locked · asset comparison
5 of 34 coins report it · 4 with a comparable change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Quarter-end TVL
TVL growth
GoMining Token GOMINING
—
—
Metaplex MPLX
—
—
Somnia SOMI
—
—
Unipoly UNP
—
—
B3 (Base) B3
—
—
SuperVerse SUPER
$36.8K
-40%
Yield Guild Games YGG
—
—
The Sandbox SAND
$0
—
Rollbit Coin RLB
—
—
Decentraland MANA
—
—
Big Time BIGTIME
—
—
SKALE SKL
—
—
Hive HIVE
—
—
Hunt HUNT
—
—
Enjin Coin ENJ
—
—
Adshares ADS
—
—
BORA BORA
—
—
WAX WAXP
—
—
Catizen CATI
—
—
Xai XAI
$63.9K
-60%
DEAPCOIN DEP
—
—
GALA GALA
—
—
Hamster Kombat HMSTR
—
—
GMT GMT
—
—
Gama Token GAMA
—
—
Axie Infinity AXS
—
—
Four FORM
—
—
Smooth Love Potion SLP
—
—
Nexpace NXPC
—
—
Illuvium ILV
$0
-100%
ApeCoin APE
—
—
Alien Worlds TLM
$56.9K
-60%
WEMIX WEMIX
—
—
Capybobo PYBOBO
—
—
Showing 20 of 34 assets
04 · let price answer last
Which assets lead on price and relative strength?
Metaplex leads the Gaming tape on Bitcoin-relative strength at +185% over 90 days. 7 of 34 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. Price shows what happened; BTC-relative strength shows whether the asset beat crypto’s opportunity-cost benchmark. Both lines run through 2026-10-30.
Complete set · no silent drops
Which assets are in Gaming?
34 of the 42 coins assigned to Gaming are rated and ranked below, and the other 8 are listed under it with the reason each one is not rated: price-only names that publish no protocol activity included. Each asset has exactly one canonical functional theme, chosen by a specific-to-general first match on its categories.
8 of the 42 Gaming coins are not rated this week: 8 report no traded volume. Each one stays on this page with its reason instead of being scored at the midpoint of a range nothing measured.
No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
Methodology · boundaries make the answer useful
What can make this comparison misleading?
This Gaming comparison names 5 ways its own evidence can mislead, all listed below. The largest is that crypto network activity is not company earnings: protocol revenue does not automatically accrue to token holders. Coverage is also uneven: 3 of 34 assets carry enough native evidence to rank on more than price.
Crypto network activity is not company earnings. Protocol revenue does not automatically accrue to token holders.
Market-cap values are a dated universe snapshot, not point-in-time historical supply data.
Current category labels are applied to historical prices; this creates survivorship and taxonomy hindsight.
Funding rates, open interest, liquidations, exchange flows, unlock schedules, historical circulating supply and developer activity are not held and are not inferred.
Equal weighting is used for sector history because true historical market-cap weights are unavailable.
Price and technicalsThrough 2026-10-30. Five-year weekly observations benchmarked to Bitcoin.
Protocol activityThrough 2026-10-30. Fees, revenue, protocol TVL and DEX volume.
Chain activityUsers and transactions: not published for these coins; chain TVL: not published for these coins.
Market capSnapshot dated 2026-11-05; no historical supply series is implied.
Questions the page should answer directly
Crypto analysis FAQs
These 20 answers cover the questions this page can settle from data it holds: what the category is, how the score is built, what the coverage gaps are, and what would change the read. Every answer below is also present in the page’s FAQ schema and in its plain-text rendition. None of them is a recommendation.
What is Gaming crypto?
Gaming crypto coins are the coins CoinGecko tags as Gaming (GameFi), Gaming Blockchains, Play To Earn or Metaverse. Each coin sits in one theme only: the first, most specific one its tags match. We track 42 Gaming coins, 34 of them rated below.
What is the total market cap of Gaming crypto coins?
The 34 Gaming coins on this page with a current market cap were worth about $1.8 billion together, by CoinGecko's reading of 5 November 2026. Individual figures are in the table.
Are Gaming crypto coins outperforming Bitcoin?
Gaming has returned -30.8% versus Bitcoin over 52 weeks and -6.6% over 13 weeks on an equal-weight current-member index. 7/34 covered assets are above their 200-day averages as of 2026-10-30.
Which Gaming asset has the strongest research score?
GoMining Token ranks first at 68.9/100: 29.8 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 14.1 = 68.9. It is labelled “Price-led, little network data” with 50% overall evidence and 0% native-economics evidence.
Why are some Gaming coins not rated?
8 of the 42 coins are not rated this week: 8 report no traded volume. They stay listed with the reason beside each one rather than being scored at a neutral midpoint, because a missing reading is not a middling reading.
How is the Gaming 4-factor score calculated?
The exact sum is Market leadership /35 + Network and economic traction /30 + Value capture /20 + Liquidity and downside risk /15. Missing data pulls only the affected factor toward neutral and lowers evidence; it is never silently reweighted.
Why can a Gaming asset be labelled price-led?
Price-led means price and relative-strength evidence exists but less than half of the native traction and value-capture evidence is available. Such assets remain visible but rank below fully evidenced assets.
Does protocol revenue accrue to the token?
Not necessarily. Protocol fees and revenue measure network economics; token-holder value depends on the protocol’s burn, buyback, staking, distribution and governance rules. This page never assumes accrual merely because revenue exists.
Does crypto have a P/E or PEG ratio?
No comparable company-style P/E or PEG is used. Where coverage permits, the page shows network fee yield and protocol-revenue yield against a dated market-cap snapshot, with an explicit token-accrual caveat.
How much history is shown for Gaming?
The page shows five years of weekly price and relative-strength history and 20 complete calendar quarters of on-chain activity where available. Missing periods remain gaps.
Why do the crypto data dates differ?
Prices and technical metrics run through 2026-10-30; protocol activity through 2026-10-30; chain users and transactions through the latest available chain date; chain TVL through the latest available chain-TVL date; market capitalisation is a separate snapshot dated 2026-11-05.
Are stablecoins and wrapped tokens included in Gaming?
No. Pegged, wrapped, liquid-staking receipt and tokenized-asset instruments are excluded because they do not have independent price discovery.
Can one token appear in multiple raw crypto categories?
Yes, but pages on this site assign each asset to exactly one functional theme using a specific-to-general first-match taxonomy. Gaming therefore has one canonical membership list.
What would invalidate the current Gaming theme read?
Two of the three weakening conditions are already in place as of 2026-10-30: the 13-week return versus Bitcoin is -6.6% (below zero) and 7 of 34 covered assets are above the 200-day average (below one-third). The read depends on native protocol activity remaining supportive, a contraction there would complete the invalidation.
Does this page include funding rates, open interest or token unlocks?
No. Those datasets are not held in the current research store, so the page names them as unavailable rather than inferring them from price.
Which projects are generating the most network fees?
Metaplex leads Gaming crypto on Trailing 12-month fees at $5.3M, 237% ahead of Axie Infinity. None of the 3 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 3 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero. Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture. This conclusion weakens if fee growth turns negative across two complete calendar quarters or fee coverage falls below the stated threshold.
Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?
Metaplex leads Gaming crypto on Trailing 12-month revenue at $5.3M, 258% ahead of Axie Infinity. None of the 3 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 3 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero. Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture. This conclusion weakens if revenue growth turns negative or the revenue-to-fees take rate falls for two complete calendar quarters.
Where is capital actually committed on-chain?
Xai leads Gaming crypto on Quarter-end TVL at $63.9K, 12% ahead of Alien Worlds. None of the 4 assets with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 5 of the 34 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero. Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture. This conclusion weakens if TVL rises while fees and users fall; that pattern can be incentive-funded mercenary liquidity.
Which Gaming project has the largest fee base?
Metaplex leads covered trailing-12-month fees at $5.3M. Coverage is 3/34; this is network activity, not automatically token-holder income.
Which are the biggest Gaming crypto coins by market cap?
GoMining Token is the largest Gaming crypto coin by market capitalisation at $159.9M, ahead of Axie Infinity at $146.7M and Decentraland at $141.1M. The 34 Gaming coins on this page carry $1.8B between them, with a market-cap figure on file for 34 of them. Market-cap metadata is dated 2026-11-05.