Five-year price · 20 complete calendar quarters · BTC-relative

Gaming Crypto Coins

Is Gaming outperforming Bitcoin, and is leadership broad?

Bottom line

Metaplex ranks first for research priority in Gaming crypto at 52.5/100, and its native activity evidence clears the coverage gate. The theme's 13-week excess versus Bitcoin is -9.2% on 9% breadth, which is what decides whether that lead is isolated or broad. 3 of the 43 assets here carry enough native evidence to move past a tape-led label.

These Gaming coins are part of the cryptocurrency universe this site tracks daily — 894 of the top 1,000 crypto currency assets by market cap, priced from exchange closes 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 5 years. Over the most recent two of them this theme is 56% behind Bitcoin. Protocol revenue across its protocols fell 35% on average over the last four reported quarters.

TURNING · ahead 1w·Price down, no fundamental support11 of 25 coins ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months

RS ↑1w · 2/25 >200d (+0) · 11/25 lead (+2) · EPS —

Gaming, equal-weighted, based at 200 Bitcoin, same base, same start trailing 12-month protocol revenue rising falling

Strength anatomy MixedHow much of the theme is participating, how recently, and whether the movers score well.

Together11 of 25 coins moving

Fresh4 crossed in the last 4 weeks

Down the cap ladder — bar is now, tick is four weeks ago

Large 2/50

Mid 6/9+2

Small 3/110

Participation is spreading downward — the mid and small companies added more this month than the large ones did.

Both lines start at 200 in the same week, so the distance between them is the whole 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 rebased to 100 at the start and the theme taking the median — so a price line pulling away from flat bars is a re-rating, not earnings. A bar turns red when that figure is lower than the quarter before. Rules are fixed and applied identically 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 any point to read both values and the gap. This is a description of what the numbers did, not advice.

RISK OFF market context

Gaming vs Bitcoin — Relative Strength & Breadth

Gaming crypto has underperformed Bitcoin by 40.4% over 52 weeks on an equal-weight index of current members. Over 13 weeks the figure is -9.2%. 3 of 34 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. B3 (Base) leads Bitcoin-relative strength at +89.4%. Price readings are as of 2026-07-24.

-9.2%13w vs BTC

-40%52w vs BTC

3/34Above 200-DMA

B3RS leader · +89%

Assets

canonical functional membership

Activity-covered

3/43

enough native evidence

Top score

52.5/100

Metaplex

Calendar quarters

complete; missing stays missing

Global asset selection · top 20 shown

Showing 20 of 43 assets

00 · exact additive research priority

4-Factor Crypto Evidence Score

A within-theme research-priority score for the 43 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. Metaplex is highest at 52.5/100 on 82% evidence. It ranks research attention, not portfolio action.

Market leadership · 35Network & economic traction · 30Value capture · 20Liquidity & downside risk · 15

Metaplex leads the current research queue at 52.5/100 with 82% evidence.

3/43 assets have enough native activity evidence to move beyond a tape-led label.

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.

1. Metaplex · MPLX

52.5/100 · Illiquid · research only · 82% evidence

Exact sum: 19.7 + 11.0 + 16.9 + 4.9 = 52.5

Decision use: Cheap on network economics while activity contracts: investigate value-capture trap risk.

19.7/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 2.1 pp · RS-sector 30.5 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

11.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees -52.8% · revenue -52.8% · users —

53% evidence

16.9/20Value capture

Fee yield 51.28% · revenue yield 51.28%

80% evidence

4.9/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $1,193,633 · vol 263.9%

100% evidence

2. Axie Infinity · AXS

43.4/100 · Lagging · market gate closed · 82% evidence

Exact sum: 5.7 + 15.2 + 10.3 + 12.2 = 43.4

Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.

5.7/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -26.4 pp · RS-sector -8.3 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.2/30Network & economic traction

Fees -45.9% · revenue -49.5% · users —

53% evidence

10.3/20Value capture

Fee yield 1% · revenue yield 0.93%

80% evidence

12.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $16,571,674 · vol 38.2%

100% evidence

3. Illuvium · ILV

25.4/100 · Illiquid · research only · 82% evidence

Exact sum: 6.0 + 7.0 + 6.5 + 5.9 = 25.4

Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.

6.0/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -25.4 pp · RS-sector -2.1 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

7.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees -88.7% · revenue -88.7% · users —

53% evidence

6.5/20Value capture

Fee yield 0.42% · revenue yield 0.42%

80% evidence

5.9/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $1,338,684 · vol 51.1%

100% evidence

4. Hamster Kombat · HMSTR

63.9/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 30.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 8.9 = 63.9

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

30.0/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 32.2 pp · RS-sector 22.7 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

8.9/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $12,612,147 · vol 258.2%

100% evidence

5. GoMining Token · GOMINING

60.4/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 22.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 12.7 = 60.4

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

22.7/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 13.9 pp · RS-sector 4.9 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

12.7/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $9,714,586 · vol 33.3%

100% evidence

6. Alien Worlds · TLM

58.3/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 55% evidence

Exact sum: 27.3 + 12.5 + 10.0 + 8.5 = 58.3

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

27.3/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 13.8 pp · RS-sector 97.7 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

12.5/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

8.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $29,375,682 · vol 340.2%

100% evidence

7. Capybobo · PYBOBO

58.3/100 · Illiquid · research only · 43% evidence

Exact sum: 25.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.6 = 58.3

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

25.7/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 13.2 pp · RS-sector 4.1 pp · 200-DMA below

80% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.6/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $620,894 · vol 26.3%

100% evidence

8. Gama Token · GAMA

56.1/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 24.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.6 = 56.1

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

24.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 20.4 pp · RS-sector 5.3 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

6.6/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $814 · vol 26.1%

100% evidence

9. WEMIX · WEMIX

55.2/100 · Illiquid · research only · 55% evidence

Exact sum: 22.1 + 15.5 + 10.0 + 7.6 = 55.2

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

22.1/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 13.9 pp · RS-sector 3.7 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.5/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.6/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $1,130,535 · vol 43.9%

100% evidence

10. B3 (Base) · B3

54.4/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 23.2 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 6.2 = 54.4

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

23.2/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 89.4 pp · RS-sector -2.2 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

6.2/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $5,033,032 · vol 130.7%

100% evidence

11. Rollbit Coin · RLB

54.1/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 21.7 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.4 = 54.1

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

21.7/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 10.2 pp · RS-sector 4.9 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.4/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $212,686 · vol 30.1%

100% evidence

12. ApeCoin · APE

52.3/100 · Illiquid · research only · 55% evidence

Exact sum: 25.7 + 12.9 + 10.0 + 3.7 = 52.3

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

25.7/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 9.4 pp · RS-sector 13.2 pp · 200-DMA above

100% evidence

12.9/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

17% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

3.7/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $4,268 · vol 84.3%

100% evidence

13. Nexpace · NXPC

50.9/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 15.4 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.5 = 50.9

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

15.4/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 2.3 pp · RS-sector -4.7 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

10.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $7,934,945 · vol 45.9%

100% evidence

14. Audiera · BEAT

50.0/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 0% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 50.0

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume — · vol —

0% evidence

15. Echelon Prime · PRIME

50.0/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 0% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 50.0

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume — · vol —

0% evidence

16. ECOMI · OMI

50.0/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 0% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 50.0

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume — · vol —

0% evidence

17. Moca Network · MOCA

50.0/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 0% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 50.0

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume — · vol —

0% evidence

18. Power Protocol · POWER

50.0/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 0% evidence

Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.5 = 50.0

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

17.5/35Market leadership

RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —

0% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.5/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume — · vol —

0% evidence

19. DEAPCOIN · DEP

48.9/100 · Illiquid · research only · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 16.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.0 = 48.9

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

16.9/35Market leadership

RS-BTC 3.6 pp · RS-sector -3.4 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

7.0/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $104,797 · vol 28.7%

100% evidence

20. Decentraland · MANA

48.6/100 · Tape-led · on-chain proof incomplete · 50% evidence

Exact sum: 12.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.7 = 48.6

Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.

12.9/35Market leadership

RS-BTC -12.1 pp · RS-sector 5.7 pp · 200-DMA below

100% evidence

15.0/30Network & economic traction

Fees — · revenue — · users —

0% evidence

10.0/20Value capture

Fee yield — · revenue yield —

0% evidence

10.7/15Liquidity & downside risk

30d median volume $10,989,446 · vol 65.5%

100% evidence

Showing 20 of 43 ranked assets

01 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which projects are generating the most network fees?

LeaderMetaplex · $11.9M

Gap546% versus #2

Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage4/43 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 five

1Metaplex MPLX$11.9M

2Axie Infinity AXS$1.8M

3Illuvium ILV$110.7K

4Beam BEAM$1.6K

Fee growthtop five

1Axie Infinity AXS-46%

2Metaplex MPLX-53%

3Illuvium ILV-89%

Network fees · asset comparison

4/43 level · 3/43 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Trailing 12-month fees	Fee growth
metaplex	$359.8K	-53%
axie-infinity	$426.1K	-46%
illuvium	$65.2K	-89%
hamster-kombat	—	—
gmt-token	—	—
alien-worlds	—	—
capybobo	—	—
gama-token	—	—
wemix-token	—	—
b3	—	—
rollbit-coin	—	—
apecoin	—	—
nexpace	—	—
audiera	—	—
echelon-prime	—	—
ecomi	—	—
mocaverse	—	—
power-protocol	—	—
deapcoin	—	—
decentraland	—	—
stepn	—	—
four	—	—
superfarm	—	—
smooth-love-potion	—	—
gamebuild	—	—
incrypt	—	—
hunt-token	—	—
hive	—	—
catizen	—	—
skale	—	—
adshares	—	—
xai-blockchain	—	—
gala	—	—
the-sandbox	—	—
somnia	—	—
bora	—	—
unipoly	—	—
big-time	—	—
cross-2	—	—
wax	—	—
enjincoin	—	—
yield-guild-games	—	—
beam-2	$98	—

Showing 20 of 43 assets

02 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?

LeaderMetaplex · $11.9M

Gap595% versus #2

Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage3/43 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 five

1Metaplex MPLX$11.9M

2Axie Infinity AXS$1.7M

3Illuvium ILV$110.7K

Revenue growthtop five

1Axie Infinity AXS-50%

2Metaplex MPLX-53%

3Illuvium ILV-89%

Protocol revenue · asset comparison

3/43 level · 3/43 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Trailing 12-month revenue	Revenue growth
metaplex	$359.8K	-53%
axie-infinity	$408.1K	-50%
illuvium	$65.2K	-89%
hamster-kombat	—	—
gmt-token	—	—
alien-worlds	—	—
capybobo	—	—
gama-token	—	—
wemix-token	—	—
b3	—	—
rollbit-coin	—	—
apecoin	—	—
nexpace	—	—
audiera	—	—
echelon-prime	—	—
ecomi	—	—
mocaverse	—	—
power-protocol	—	—
deapcoin	—	—
decentraland	—	—
stepn	—	—
four	—	—
superfarm	—	—
smooth-love-potion	—	—
gamebuild	—	—
incrypt	—	—
hunt-token	—	—
hive	—	—
catizen	—	—
skale	—	—
adshares	—	—
xai-blockchain	—	—
gala	—	—
the-sandbox	—	—
somnia	—	—
bora	—	—
unipoly	—	—
big-time	—	—
cross-2	—	—
wax	—	—
enjincoin	—	—
yield-guild-games	—	—
beam-2	—	—

Showing 20 of 43 assets

03 · complete calendar-quarter evidence

Where is capital actually committed on-chain?

LeaderGALA · $7.7M

Gap26% versus #2

Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth

Coverage11/43 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 five

1GALA GALA$7.7M

2WEMIX WEMIX$6.1M

3ApeCoin APE$2.6M

4Somnia SOMI$2.0M

5Beam BEAM$903.2K

TVL growthtop five

1WEMIX WEMIX-25%

2Beam BEAM-58%

3SuperVerse SUPER-61%

4Xai XAI-68%

5WAX WAXP-71%

Total value locked · asset comparison

11/43 level · 8/43 change

Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first

Asset	Quarter-end TVL	TVL growth
metaplex	—	—
axie-infinity	—	—
illuvium	$0	-100%
hamster-kombat	—	—
gmt-token	—	—
alien-worlds	$37.6K	-77%
capybobo	—	—
gama-token	—	—
wemix-token	$6.1M	-25%
b3	—	—
rollbit-coin	—	—
apecoin	$2.6M	-73%
nexpace	—	—
audiera	—	—
echelon-prime	—	—
ecomi	—	—
mocaverse	—	—
power-protocol	—	—
deapcoin	—	—
decentraland	—	—
stepn	—	—
four	—	—
superfarm	$22.8K	-61%
smooth-love-potion	—	—
gamebuild	—	—
incrypt	—	—
hunt-token	—	—
hive	—	—
catizen	—	—
skale	—	—
adshares	—	—
xai-blockchain	$70.6K	-68%
gala	$7.7M	—
the-sandbox	$0	—
somnia	$2.0M	—
bora	—	—
unipoly	—	—
big-time	—	—
cross-2	—	—
wax	$261.6K	-71%
enjincoin	—	—
yield-guild-games	—	—
beam-2	$903.2K	-58%

Showing 20 of 43 assets

04 · let price answer last

Which assets lead on price and relative strength?

B3 (Base) leads the Gaming tape on Bitcoin-relative strength at +89% over 90 days. 3 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 2026-07-24.

Complete set · no silent drops

Which assets are in Gaming?

43 priced assets are assigned to Gaming, listed below by rank with every one visible — including tape-only names that publish no protocol activity. Each asset has exactly one canonical functional theme, chosen by a specific-to-general first match on its categories. Pegged, wrapped, liquid-staking receipt and tokenized-asset instruments are excluded because they have no independent price discovery.

Rank	Asset	Price	90d	RS-BTC	200-DMA	30d vol	Median volume	Price quality	Activity source	Score	Evidence
1	Metaplex MPLX	$0.0237	-15%	+2.1%	Below	264%	$1.2M	usable	protocol	52.5	82%
2	Axie Infinity AXS	$0.8885	-44%	-26%	Below	38%	$16.6M	usable	protocol	43.4	82%
3	Illuvium ILV	$2.87	-43%	-25%	Below	51%	$1.3M	usable	protocol	25.4	82%
4	Hamster Kombat HMSTR	$0.0002	+15%	+32%	Above	258%	$12.6M	usable	tape only	63.9	50%
5	GoMining Token GOMINING	$0.2891	-3.5%	+14%	Below	33%	$9.7M	usable	tape only	60.4	50%
6	Alien Worlds TLM	$0.0018	-3.6%	+14%	Above	340%	$29.4M	usable	protocol	58.3	55%
7	Capybobo PYBOBO	$0.0007	-4.2%	+13%	Below	26%	$620.9K	usable	tape only	58.3	43%
8	Gama Token GAMA	$0.2040	+3.0%	+20%	Below	26%	$814	usable	tape only	56.1	50%
9	WEMIX WEMIX	$0.2318	-3.5%	+14%	Below	44%	$1.1M	usable	chain TVL	55.2	55%
10	B3 (Base) B3	$0.0005	+72%	+89%	Below	131%	$5.0M	usable	tape only	54.4	50%
11	Rollbit Coin RLB	$0.0613	-7.2%	+10%	Below	30%	$212.7K	usable	tape only	54.1	50%
12	ApeCoin APE	$0.1430	-8.0%	+9.4%	Above	84%	$4.3K	usable	chain TVL	52.3	55%
13	Nexpace NXPC	$0.2600	-15%	+2.3%	Below	46%	$7.9M	usable	tape only	50.9	50%
14	Audiera BEAT	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	tape only	50.0	0%
15	Echelon Prime PRIME	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	tape only	50.0	0%
16	ECOMI OMI	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	tape only	50.0	0%
17	Moca Network MOCA	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	tape only	50.0	0%
18	Power Protocol POWER	—	—	—	—	—	—	usable	tape only	50.0	0%
19	DEAPCOIN DEP	$0.0010	-14%	+3.6%	Below	29%	$104.8K	usable	tape only	48.9	50%
20	Decentraland MANA	$0.0685	-30%	-12%	Below	65%	$11.0M	usable	tape only	48.6	50%
21	GMT GMT	$0.0073	—	—	—	—	$396.0K	usable	tape only	48.6	12%
22	Four FORM	$0.1974	—	—	—	—	$477.7K	usable	tape only	48.4	12%
23	SuperVerse SUPER	$0.0862	—	—	—	—	$281.5K	usable	protocol	47.9	17%
24	Smooth Love Potion SLP	$0.0005	-25%	-7.6%	Below	99%	$1.4M	usable	tape only	47.7	50%
25	GameBuild GAME	$0.0004	—	—	—	—	$0	usable	tape only	47.4	12%
26	Incrypt INC	$0.0762	-17%	+0.5%	Below	31%	$85.9K	usable	tape only	47.2	50%
27	Hunt HUNT	$0.0811	-21%	-3.3%	Below	66%	$199.9K	usable	tape only	46.2	50%
28	Hive HIVE	$0.0461	-27%	-9.1%	Below	38%	$1.6M	usable	tape only	44.0	50%
29	Catizen CATI	$0.0388	-18%	-0.2%	Below	92%	$4.4M	usable	tape only	42.8	50%
30	SKALE SKL	$0.0039	-46%	-29%	Below	119%	$6.2M	usable	tape only	41.8	50%
31	Adshares ADS	$0.4060	-33%	-15%	Below	35%	$86.8K	usable	tape only	41.3	50%
32	Xai XAI	$0.0683	-23%	-6.1%	Below	33%	$0	usable	protocol + chain TVL	40.8	55%
33	GALA GALA	$0.0020	-38%	-20%	Below	55%	$30.2M	usable	chain TVL	40.3	50%
34	The Sandbox SAND	$0.0449	-45%	-28%	Below	46%	$16.4M	usable	protocol	39.9	50%
35	Somnia SOMI	$0.0960	-47%	-30%	Below	65%	$6.0M	usable	chain TVL	39.2	50%
36	BORA BORA	$0.0231	-38%	-20%	Below	29%	$261.3K	usable	tape only	38.5	50%
37	Unipoly UNP	$0.1108	-32%	-14%	Below	43%	$159.7K	usable	tape only	38.4	50%
38	Big Time BIGTIME	$0.0064	-55%	-37%	Below	42%	$10.0M	usable	tape only	36.9	50%
39	CROSS CROSS	$0.0760	-42%	-24%	Below	54%	$3.0M	usable	tape only	36.7	50%
40	WAX WAXP	$0.0039	-44%	-26%	Below	52%	$861.3K	usable	chain TVL	35.6	55%
41	Enjin Coin ENJ	$0.0268	-58%	-40%	Below	45%	$4.8M	usable	tape only	34.7	50%
42	Yield Guild Games YGG	$0.0176	-60%	-43%	Below	63%	$6.1M	usable	tape only	33.4	50%
43	Beam BEAM	$0.0083	-57%	-40%	Below	117%	$9.6K	usable	protocol + chain TVL	26.5	63%

Showing 20 of 43 assets

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 43 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 2026-07-24. Five-year weekly observations benchmarked to Bitcoin.

Protocol activityThrough 2026-07-24. Fees, revenue, protocol TVL and DEX volume.

Chain activityUsers and transactions through unavailable; separately sourced chain TVL through 2026-07-24.

Market capSnapshot dated 2026-07-04; no historical supply series is implied.

Questions the page should answer directly

Crypto analysis FAQs

These 18 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 refers to cryptocurrency projects grouped by what they actually do rather than by market fashion. This page tracks 43 such coins by market cap, price and Bitcoin-relative strength, with protocol fees and revenue where a project publishes them. Readings are as of 2026-07-24.

What is the total market cap of Gaming crypto coins?

The Gaming coins on this page are tracked against a universe of 894 of the top 1,000 crypto currency assets by market cap. Market-cap metadata is dated 2026-07-04, separately from the price series, and each coin's own figure is in the table on this page.

Are Gaming crypto coins outperforming Bitcoin?

Gaming has returned -40.4% versus Bitcoin over 52 weeks and -9.2% over 13 weeks on an equal-weight current-member index. 3/34 covered assets are above their 200-day averages as of 2026-07-24.

Which Gaming asset has the strongest research score?

Metaplex ranks first at 52.5/100: 19.7 + 11.0 + 16.9 + 4.9 = 52.5. It is labelled “Illiquid · research only” with 82% overall evidence and 64% native-economics evidence.

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 tape-led?

Tape-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 2026-07-24; protocol activity through 2026-07-24; chain users and transactions through the latest available chain date; chain TVL through 2026-07-24; market capitalisation is a separate snapshot dated 2026-07-04.

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 public MLA pages 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?

The read weakens if the sector’s 13-week relative return versus Bitcoin falls below zero, fewer than one-third of covered assets remain above the 200-day average, and the leading asset’s native activity also contracts.

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 $11.9M, 546% ahead of Axie Infinity. 0 of 3 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 4 of the 43 assets in this theme, through the Q2 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 $11.9M, 595% ahead of Axie Infinity. 0 of 3 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 3 of the 43 assets in this theme, through the Q2 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?

GALA leads Gaming crypto on Quarter-end TVL at $7.7M, 26% ahead of WEMIX. 0 of 8 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 11 of the 43 assets in this theme, through the Q2 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 $11.9M. Coverage is 4/43; this is network activity, not automatically token-holder income.