Games and Blockchain Use: What the 55% October Figure Means

The figure circulates as one number for one month, often without a source attached. Before repeating it, check three things: what was counted, which source produced it, and what the denominator was.

A share of transactions, a share of active wallets and a share of fees can all tell different stories. A category can lead on transaction count while bringing in far less value. The results reviewed for this guide do not include an October figure of 55%, so the number should be treated as unverified rather than established.

This does not make the claim false. It means the claim is incomplete. A useful version of it would state the month, the chains covered, the metric, the definition of 'game' and the original publisher. If any of those are missing, the figure is a headline, not a measurement.

Most onchain reports rely on a few core measures, and each answers a different question.

• Transaction count: every onchain action, including trivial ones such as token approvals or small transfers.
• Active addresses or wallets: unique accounts that did something in a period. One player may use several wallets, and one bot can control many.
• Fees paid: shows where network costs were incurred, but fees depend on congestion and gas prices.
• Value transferred: shows money moved, which is dominated by a few large transfers.
• dApp category: the label a dashboard or report assigns to a contract. Labels vary, and some games are counted as marketplaces, DeFi or other categories.

Bots, airdrop farming and promotional campaigns can inflate any of these measures. A careful reader asks which measure was used and whether automated activity was filtered out.

Game activity is often bursty. A new season, a limited item drop, a token reward program or a popular title launch can create a large number of transactions in a few weeks. Quiet months can then look very different.

Chain choice matters too. A category can lead on one network and be small on another, so a share calculated across all chains can differ from one calculated on a single chain. Changes in which chains a report includes can also shift the result.

Finally, incentives play a role. When a game pays rewards for actions, players often complete many actions, which increases counted activity. When rewards fall, that activity can drop quickly. A monthly share therefore reflects both player interest and the reward design behind it.

Several trends have been reported across the results reviewed. They are not a direct test of the 55% claim, because they measure different things, but they give context.

• One result reports that 407 blockchain games were discontinued in 2023, with 248 in the first half and 168 in the second half.
• Another reports that blockchain game investment was about $324 million in Q1 2024, $396 million in Q2 2024 and $128 million in Q3 2024.
• A snippet describes gaming transactions at $173.17 million, ahead of DeFi at $8.86 million, but it has no clear date or scope, so it cannot be used to fix a monthly share.
• Other articles describe a shift toward more traditional-style games built by Web3 studios, and toward games on scalable infrastructure.

Together, these points suggest that game activity can be high while the number of surviving games falls and investment cycles change. Read any single figure alongside its date and definition.

You can test a claim like this without specialist tools.

1. Find the original report or dataset, not a repost. Note the publisher, the publication date and the period covered.
2. Read the methodology. Look for the metric, the list of chains, the category definitions and any filtering of bots or spam.
3. Check whether 'games' includes marketplaces, wallets, metaverse land sales or collectible trading. Broad or narrow definitions produce very different shares.
4. Compare at least three months using the same method. A single month rarely shows a trend.
5. Use public chain explorers to inspect the contracts behind a game. Look at the number of unique addresses and whether activity is concentrated in a few wallets.
6. Cross-check with a second source that uses different data. If the two disagree, the difference often reveals a definitional choice.

If you cannot find a method, label the number as an estimate and avoid building conclusions on it.

Games that appear in onchain data vary widely. Understanding the categories helps you interpret the numbers.

• Play-to-earn games reward players with tokens or assets. Axie Infinity, which runs on Ronin with its AXS token, is a long-running example of this model.
• Trading card games use onchain assets for cards and battles. Splinterlands, built on Hive with the SPS token, is one example.
• Move-to-earn and idle games reward simple activity, and they can generate many small transactions.
• Metaverse and land-based games rely on owned virtual property. The Sandbox, with its SAND token, is a well-known example.
• Sports and fantasy games use licensed digital collectibles. Sorare is an example of this model.

A game with no blockchain features will not appear in onchain counts at all. Polytopia, for example, has no confirmed blockchain features, so its play does not contribute to chain data. The key question for any title is whether its core loop writes actions to a blockchain.

The high number of closures reported in the results is a useful reminder that onchain game activity is not a stable base. Many projects depend on token incentives, and when those incentives end, players often leave.

Several patterns recur. Rewards can be front-loaded, so early players earn more than later ones. Token prices can fall, which reduces the real value of earnings. Development can stall when funding slows, and servers or contracts can be discontinued.

If you are evaluating a game for its activity or your own participation, look for an active development roadmap, clear reward rules, a stated plan for what happens if the project ends, and a community that discusses gameplay as well as earnings. Check whether assets can be moved out of the game, and how.

Crypto games carry specific risks that are separate from the question of how much activity they generate.

• Token and asset prices change, sometimes quickly. Earnings measured in a token may be worth much less when converted.
• Phishing is common. Never share a seed phrase or private key, and be cautious with links sent in chats, direct messages or fake support accounts.
• Verify the contract address and the official website through the project's own channels before connecting a wallet or approving a transaction.
• Limit the permissions you grant to a wallet, and review approvals you no longer need.
• Some games or features involve wagering or real-money value. Check the rules where you live and the minimum age required, and remember that such activity is for adults only.

Nothing in onchain data guarantees a profit. Treat any game as an entertainment or research decision first.

When you repeat or use a claim like the one in this guide, make it precise. A reliable sentence states the period, the measure, the chains and the definition of games, and it cites the publisher and date. For example, 'In a given month, a named report counted games as a share of transactions across listed chains' is far more useful than an unqualified percentage.

When the source is missing or the method is unclear, say so. Readers can then decide how much weight to give it. If a new report appears, compare its definitions with earlier ones before drawing a trend.

Blockchain gaming changes quickly, so the most durable skill is reading the method behind a number. That skill stays useful whether the next figure is higher, lower or defined differently.