Full Case Study
Project breakdown
Key Takeaway
A mobile RPG with 50,000 MAU launched with a dual-token model: GUILD (governance, 100M hard cap) and LOOT (utility, activity-gated emission). Compulsory sinks: tournament entry (30 LOOT), equipment repair (15 LOOT), crafting (25 LOOT). 32% sink-emission ratio at baseline. At 6 months: token price +34% vs industry median -91%. MAU 61,200.
The Challenge
The client had a successful mobile RPG (50,000 MAU, 4.2 App Store rating, strong retention) and wanted to add play-to-earn mechanics. They had watched Axie Infinity's collapse and came to us specifically to avoid that outcome. Our mandate: design tokenomics that survive a -70% token price scenario without triggering a death spiral.
The Tokenomics Design
Dual-token model: GUILD token (governance, 100M hard cap): earned through tournament achievements, not daily play. Team vested 3 years / 6-month cliff. Community treasury 30%. No inflationary emission. LOOT token (in-game utility, soft cap): earned through daily gameplay. Subject to emission/sink model.
The Bear Market Stress Test
We simulated token price at $0.05 → $0.015 (−70%): Player weekly earnings: $3.55/week (down from $11.85). Below $2/week: casual players exit (modeled 35% player exit). With activity-gated emission: emission drops 35% proportionally. Compulsory sinks remain (tournament + repair still required for competitive play). Net: selling pressure fell faster than demand; price stabilized at $0.018.
Actual Results at 6 Months
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| LOOT token price vs launch | +34% |
| Industry median (comparable GameFi launches) | -91% |
| Monthly active players | 61,200 (vs 50,000 at launch) |
| Average daily play time | 47 minutes |
| Tournament participation rate | 78% of active players |
| Monthly tournament entry fee revenue burned | 892,000 LOOT |
Development cost: $187,000 (tokenomics + smart contracts + game integration).
