Author: Ivan Wu on Blockchain
Between August and September, there was a surge in the model of "minting physical Pokémon cards into redeemable NFTs and trading them on-chain." Multiple industry media and data sources reported that by August 2025, the monthly transaction volume in this niche market reached approximately $124.5 million, an increase of about 5.5 times compared to the beginning of the year. The market enthusiasm coincided with the launch of the platform's native token CARDS by the Solana ecosystem platform Collector Crypt; public information shows that CARDS went live on August 29, and this token is related to the tokenization, pack opening, and secondary trading of Pokémon cards. Within a few days of its launch, CARDS' fully diluted valuation was reported to be in the range of $300 million to $600 million by multiple sources. Trading activity was primarily driven by Solana's Collector Crypt and Polygon's Courtyard; the latter focuses on the core processes of rating card custody, 1:1 minting, and redeemability.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute any investment advice. Readers are advised to strictly comply with the laws and regulations of their location and not to participate in illegal financial activities.
1. The Surge: On-chain Pokémon Card Trading Volume Explodes in August
Between August and September, the model of "minting physical Pokémon cards into redeemable NFTs and trading them on-chain" saw significant volume growth. Multiple media and data sources reported that the relevant transaction volume in August was approximately $124.5 million, an increase of about 5.5 times compared to earlier in the year; this statistic has been cited multiple times by crypto media and trading platform press releases. Trading activity was primarily driven by Collector Crypt in the Solana ecosystem and Courtyard in the Polygon ecosystem.
Collector Crypt organized transactions around the process of "physical card → on-chain NFT → redeemable" and launched its platform token CARDS on August 29. Project and research websites stated that its fully diluted valuation reached approximately $450 million within a week of its launch, with the platform using a "Gacha" mechanism as a user entry point, combined with buyback and market-making to maintain liquidity.
Courtyard provides a business path for rating card (PSA/CGC/BGS) custody, 1:1 minting, on-chain circulation, and final redemption on Polygon, attracting trading demand through a "digital pack - physical card comparison" method. Its official website publicly explains the service elements of "digital pack - physical card, custody, and insurance."
Regarding transaction scale and participation, CryptoSlate reported that "the transaction volume of tokenized Pokémon cards reached $124 million in August, amplifying 5.5 times compared to the previous period," with similar data points provided by several industry articles and platform information such as Yahoo Finance.
2. RWA Breakthrough and NFT Revival
In recent years, the tokenization of real-world assets (RWA) has extended from financial assets like bonds and real estate to the collectibles sector. Physical collectibles, represented by cards, bind offline physical items with on-chain certificates through a process of "professional grading - storage custody - 1:1 minting - redeemability," forming a digital ownership vehicle that can be traded globally 24/7. Courtyard disclosed in its public materials that it uses Polygon as the underlying layer, storing physical cards in third-party professional vaults and minting them into NFTs; Messari's introduction of this model also emphasizes the correspondence between "physical storage and on-chain ownership." Polygon's official documentation has previously listed Courtyard as a representative platform for "putting collectibles like Pokémon on-chain."
Before this wave of enthusiasm emerged, the NFT market was generally inactive. DappRadar's "Q2 2025 Industry Report" showed that NFT transaction volume fell to approximately $867 million in the second quarter, a 45% quarter-over-quarter decline, but the number of sales increased to about 14.9 million, reflecting a decrease in average transaction price and a "low price, high frequency" structural characteristic. Entering July and August, DappRadar's monthly observations indicated that the NFT market returned to a relatively high range in transaction volume and number of transactions since February 2025, with Courtyard-related collectible categories performing outstandingly in August.
The integration with the collectibles track accelerated in August. Multiple media and data sources reported that the monthly transaction volume of "tokenized Pokémon cards" was approximately $124 million in August 2025, amplifying about 5.5 times compared to the previous phase; Yahoo Finance and CryptoSlate verified this figure. The Block stated that after the launch of the platform token CARDS by Collector Crypt in the Solana ecosystem on August 29, mechanisms such as random pack opening (Gacha) and buybacks drove the cumulative scale of "randomized Pokémon card trading" upward. Research site Dropstab noted that CARDS went live on August 29, 2025, with a fully diluted valuation (FDV) reaching approximately $450 million within a week, generating about $75 million in revenue within the year; it pointed out that revenue mainly came from user spending driven by the Gacha mechanism, with reports indicating that in recent weeks, "weekly user spending was about $5.7 million."
From the perspective of category and chain distribution, collectibles and "redeemable" scenarios bring new transaction momentum to NFTs, with on-chain activity no longer solely dominated by PFP projects. DappRadar's August observation noted that the market performance of Courtyard-related collectibles once surpassed some established avatar projects; at the same time, on-chain NFT activity diversified across multiple public chains, with noticeable monthly share changes in ecosystems like Base and Solana (with variations in different months and metrics). This type of "physical backing + redeemability" transaction has become an important incremental source for NFTs in the second half of 2025.
In summary, the combination of collectible RWA and NFTs presents a structure of "physical rights confirmation and on-chain circulation running in parallel"; after a period of sluggish transactions, related platforms introduced new demand through custody and redemption mechanisms, driving the recovery of transactions in July and August. Future trends still need to be tracked in conjunction with monthly reports and project disclosures.
3. Analysis of the Physical Card Tokenization Model
These card platforms generally adopt a closed loop of "grading - custody - minting - trading - redemption." Taking Courtyard as an example, cards are graded by third-party institutions and then stored, with the platform minting corresponding 1:1 NFTs on Polygon; holders can submit redemption requests at any time, needing to complete KYC and bear shipping and tax costs. Official documents also state that cards are stored in professional vaults in the U.S. and insured, supporting global redemption and direct shipping from third-party e-commerce or grading institutions.
Collector Crypt employs a "Gacha (random pack opening) + instant buyback" mechanism on Solana. The official page lists the instant buyback ratio for different pack types at about 85% or 90% of real-time pricing, referencing transaction data from platforms like ALT and eBay; the cards obtained from pack openings correspond to NFTs that can continue to be traded on-chain or be bought back by the platform at a proportionate rate. The Block reported that the platform offers "approximately 85%–90% of real-time indexed value" buyback quotes to maintain liquidity and price discovery.
Both platforms regard "redeemability" as a core feature. Courtyard's process involves custody and insurance, on-chain NFT minting, and users buying or redeeming physical items in the market; Collector Crypt's process involves storing cards graded by PSA/CGC, generating redeemable NFTs on-chain, and users obtaining cards through random pack openings, with the option to resell on-chain or sell back at the instant buyback ratio. Interpretations from CoinGecko and DropsTab also provide explanations regarding the structure of "physical cards corresponding to NFTs and redeemability."
Regarding redemption and fees, Courtyard clearly requires identity verification to be completed before redemption, with users bearing shipping, tax, and necessary processing fees; community user feedback indicates that the costs for a single shipment can be relatively substantial after adding taxes, insurance, and shipping, with specific amounts varying by destination and timing.
In the custody and sourcing stages, the platform emphasizes 24/7 security and insurance management by professional vaults. Courtyard's public materials mention its use of professional custody solutions like Brink’s; information from Collector Crypt often cites industry entities such as PSA, PWCC, and ALT as sources and custodians for the cards.
This process connects offline authentication, storage, and logistics with on-chain registration, trading, and redemption, allowing "physical rights confirmation - digital registration - redeemable delivery" to be completed across regions.
4. Compliance Pitfalls from Past Rights Protection, Platform Ownership, and Securities Law
In terms of intellectual property, The Pokémon Company has filed lawsuits in Australia against unauthorized "Pokémon-themed NFTs/blockchain games." In December 2022, the Federal Court of Australia granted an injunction at the request of The Pokémon Company, prohibiting the "Pokéworld" project and related entities from issuing NFTs bearing the Pokémon brand or claiming association with The Pokémon Company; multiple media and law firms have documented the details and key points of this case.
Regarding platform processes and ownership arrangements, Courtyard's public documents and service terms explain redemption, KYC, and ownership transfer. Official documents state that cards are stored and insured in a vault, and holders can submit redemption requests at any time, which require KYC completion and payment of shipping and tax fees; to prevent abuse, redemptions do not support rerouting to other Brink’s locations. The service terms also emphasize that the platform is positioned as a matching market, with assets supplied by sellers; regarding ownership transfer, the terms reference the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC 2–401) and indicate that the platform does not transfer legal ownership of the physical items, with ownership transfer between buyers and sellers being subject to relevant legal provisions and mutual agreements. The terms also include risk warnings and arbitration clauses.
Collector Crypt, in its product descriptions and external communications, positions "random pack opening (Gacha) + instant buyback" as a core mechanism, mentioning on its page and social channels that buybacks are conducted at about 85%–90% of fair market value to provide liquidity and exit paths. Third-party interpretations also highlight the buyback ratio and the design of "replicating the physical pack opening experience" as key points of the platform.
Regarding the applicability of securities law, regulatory enforcement cases related to NFTs provide relevant references. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reached a settlement in September 2023 regarding the NFT issuance of the Stoner Cats project, determining that it constituted an unregistered securities offering; this case has been described by media and law firms as a representative event regarding the compliance boundaries of NFTs, although some committee members expressed differing opinions, suggesting that the boundaries for applying the Howey test to NFTs should be clarified.
5. Outlook: Is the Tokenization Trading Boom Sustainable?
From the market environment perspective, the volume increase in the collectibles track appears against a backdrop of overall volatility. In the second quarter of the year, mainstream tracking reports indicated that the total transaction volume of NFTs declined compared to the previous quarter, while the number of transactions increased, reflecting a low-price, high-frequency trading structure; the recovery in July and August pulled monthly data back to relatively high levels, but the continuation of this trend still requires validation from subsequent monthly reports.
In terms of pricing and liquidity, some platforms adopt a "random pack opening combined with instant buyback" approach, which forms indexed prices based on transaction data from external e-commerce and trading platforms, and offers buybacks at a certain discount rate. This mechanism can improve transaction depth in the short term while also introducing reliance on external price sources and market-making funds: if external transaction samples are distorted, data capture is delayed, or the scale of market-making funds fluctuates, it may transmit through buyback pricing to the on-chain environment. The custody and redemption stages remain key operational risk points. Platforms typically require identity verification to be completed before redemption, with users bearing shipping, tax, and insurance costs; in cross-border scenarios, customs clearance, logistics, and differences in destination tax systems can introduce uncertainties in timing and costs, and there may be periods where physical delivery and on-chain processes are not synchronized. The availability of the underlying network also needs continuous monitoring, as public chains have experienced block or finality anomalies in certain months, requiring platforms to clarify abnormal handling and delay risks through announcements and terms. Compliance primarily focuses on two types of issues: first, intellectual property and brand authorization, as there have been injunction rulings against unauthorized "Pokémon-themed" projects in the past; second, the boundaries of securities law and information disclosure, as overseas regulatory agencies have taken enforcement actions regarding specific NFT financing cases, highlighting the regulatory requirements for projects in terms of issuance, revenue expectations, and marketing statements. Additionally, on-chain analysis institutions have mentioned wash trading, price manipulation, and industry security incidents in multiple annual reports and special topics, which may still affect the funding and participation in this niche market through confidence channels.
From an observational perspective, several quantifiable indicators can be considered. First, the redemption ratio and redemption timeliness can reflect the performance capability and user preference of the "physical backing + redeemable" model; correspondingly, the transparency of storage, insurance, and logistics (warehouse names, insurance coverage, abnormal handling) should be continuously disclosed. Second, the discount rate for instant buybacks, the scale of the funding pool, and changes in funding sources determine the strength of secondary market support and price stability; if the platform introduces external quotes or pricing rules, the frequency of rule updates and the method of public disclosure need to be synchronized. Third, the proportion of "pack opening transactions" and "secondary resales" in the transaction structure involves revenue composition and sustainability, and combined with monthly active user and average transaction value metrics, it can provide a clearer judgment on whether the heat comes from one-time activities or stable demand. Fourth, changes in shares and fees between different public chains, such as confirmation times, failure rates, and average costs during peak periods, will directly impact user experience and transaction density. Fifth, the degree of public disclosure of authorization and cooperation documents, including key points and update rhythms of agreements with rating agencies, custodians, and price data providers, helps define ownership links and compliance boundaries. Sixth, the verifiability of data metrics and statistical methods, especially the calculation methods for monthly transaction volume, active users, and revenue, should be cross-verified with multiple sources as much as possible to avoid biases from single sources.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
