Case Study - Zerpmon and XRPL Gaming Pioneers

Basic Information:

Name: Zerpmon
Type: Creature collecting and auto-battling game
Platform: Discord-based (accessible via browser)
Blockchain: XRP Ledger (XLS-20 NFTs)
Launch: Full release June 2023 (development started earlier)
Team: XRPL community developers (pseudonymous but active)

- Collect unique Zerpmon creatures as NFTs
- Battle other trainers in auto-battle format
- Earn XRP through daily missions and competitions
- Trade Zerpmon on XRPL marketplaces

NFT Structure:

• Each Zerpmon is 1/1 unique (no duplicates)

• 2,000+ discovered species

• Attributes: Type, Rarity, Stats, Moves

• Stored as XLS-20 NFTokens on XRPL

• Metadata on IPFS (standard approach)

• Common

• Uncommon

• Rare

• Epic

• Legendary

• Base stats

• Move power

• Collectibility

• Market value

Gameplay Loop:

Daily Engagement:

1. Missions (PvE):

1. PvP Battles:

1. Training/Progression:

1. Collection:

Battle System:

• Player selects team (1, 3, or 5 Zerpmon)

• Battle plays out automatically

• Type advantages matter (like Pokémon)

• Stats and moves determine outcomes

• RNG element in move selection

• Team composition planning

• Type coverage considerations

• Stat optimization through leveling

• Move set synergies

• Works in Discord environment

• No real-time input needed

• Accessible on any device

• Lower barrier to entry

Revenue Sources:

• Mission refills (potions)
• Equipment items
• Cosmetic elements
• Special event access

100% of store revenue → Reward pool

This is key: Store purchases fund player rewards.
Not token inflation. Not new player capital.
Actual revenue recycled to players.
```

Reward Flow:

Revenue Cycle:

Player A buys potion → 10 XRP enters pool
                          ↓
Pool accumulates from all purchases
                          ↓
Daily missions distribute from pool
                          ↓
Player B wins mission → Receives XRP from pool

- Store purchases continue
- Player engagement remains
- Rewards stay attractive relative to purchases

Applying Lesson 4 Framework:

• Daily mission rewards

• Tournament prizes

• Achievement rewards

• Store purchases (main sink)

• Trading fees to creators (5% transfer fee)

• Marketplace purchases (goes to sellers)

Key Question: Faucets vs. Sinks Balance?

• Rewards funded by actual purchases, not tokens
• No infinite emission schedule
• Rewards scale with revenue (if revenue drops, pool shrinks)
• Not dependent on new player capital

This is MORE sustainable than pure P2E
But still depends on ongoing engagement
```

Sustainability Assessment:

"Who Pays?" Analysis:

Q: Where do mission rewards come from?
A: Store purchases by players

Q: Can this sustain indefinitely?
A: Only if players keep buying store items

Q: What happens if purchases drop?
A: Reward pool shrinks, earnings decrease

Q: Is this Ponzi dynamics?
A: No—not dependent on new player capital
   Yes—dependent on ongoing purchases

Verdict: More sustainable than most P2E
         But still requires engagement maintenance
         Honest design with visible constraints

Available Metrics:

• Discord-based (no direct on-chain DAU)

• User numbers not independently verified

• Must estimate from observable data

• Discord member count

• Marketplace activity

• Transaction volume

• Community engagement

Estimated Activity (2024-2025):

• Daily active players: 500-2,000

• Weekly active: 2,000-5,000

• Total registered: 10,000-20,000

• Daily trades: 10-50 (estimate)

• Monthly volume: $10,000-50,000 (estimate)

• Active listings: Several hundred

• Axie peak: 2,700,000 DAU

• Gods Unchained: 10,000-20,000 DAU

• Most XRPL gaming is orders of magnitude smaller

Community Health:

Positive Indicators:
+ Active Discord with regular engagement
+ Developer responsiveness
+ Regular updates and events
+ Loyal core community
+ Organic content creation

- Small absolute numbers
- Concentration in dedicated users
- Limited mainstream reach
- Growth appears modest

XRPL Gaming Viability:

Proves Possible:
✅ Functional NFT gaming on XRPL
✅ Low-cost transactions enable frequent trading
✅ XRP rewards to wallets (instant settlement)
✅ Creator royalties working as intended
✅ Engaged community around XRPL game
✅ Multi-year operation (not quick rug)

Doesn't Prove:
❌ XRPL can support AAA gaming
❌ Large-scale user adoption achievable
❌ Long-term economic sustainability (still early)
❌ Mainstream crossover potential

Design Lessons:

• Simple, accessible gameplay (Discord-based)

• Clear value proposition (collect, battle, earn)

• 1/1 NFT uniqueness creates collectibility

• Store-funded rewards more sustainable than inflation

• Low transaction costs enable frequent engagement

• Fast XRP settlements feel good

• User acquisition (small community)

• Mainstream gaming appeal (crypto-native audience)

• Limited gameplay depth (auto-battle constraints)

• Scaling beyond dedicated community

Active/Notable Projects:

• Zerpmon (covered above)

• Various smaller collections with game elements

• Maladroids (battle royale concept)

• Various tournament-focused projects

• Limited presence on XRPL

• Most metaverse projects on other chains

• Some TCG-style projects in development

• Smaller than Zerpmon in activity

Overall: Zerpmon is dominant
Most other projects have minimal activity
```

Overview:

• Advocacy for blockchain gaming
• Developer resources and support
• Education on XRPL for gaming
• Community building
• Governance participation

Website: xrplgamingalliance.org
```

Assessment:

Strengths:
+ Coordination among gaming projects
+ Resources for new developers
+ Community focal point
+ Industry education efforts

- Small number of active projects
- Limited resources compared to competitors
- Ecosystem still nascent
- Mostly volunteer-driven

Program Overview:

• Developer education
• Project incubation
• Community building
• Resource provision

Purpose: Grow XRPL gaming ecosystem through
structured support for new projects
```

Significance:

• Deliberate ecosystem development

• Resources for gaming builders

• Community-driven initiative

• Focus on quality over quantity

• Small cohort sizes

• Impact takes time to materialize

• Can't compete with major chain funding

• Important but not transformative alone

Analysis of Limited Gaming Presence:

• Most game devs work in EVM environments

• XRPL tooling less familiar

• Fewer tutorials, examples, community support

• Learning curve for XRPL-specific development

• XRPL known for payments, not gaming

• XRP associated with Ripple enterprise

• Not "cool" for indie game developers

• No viral gaming success to reference

• No smart contracts limits complexity

• Gaming-specific infrastructure lacking

• Must build hybrid (on/off-chain) systems

• Easier alternatives available

• Players where games are

• Games where players are

• Breaking cycle requires breakthrough

• Ethereum/Solana grants larger

• More VC attention to other chains

• Ripple Creator Fund exists but limited gaming focus

| Factor              | Zerpmon       | Axie Infinity |
|---------------------|---------------|---------------|
| Peak DAU            | ~1,000-2,000  | 2,700,000     |
| Economic Model      | Store-funded  | Token inflation|
| NFT Uniqueness      | 1/1 unique    | Breedable     |
| Blockchain          | XRPL          | Ronin         |
| Smart Contracts     | None          | Yes           |
| Transaction Cost    | ~$0.00001     | Very low      |
| Team                | Community     | VC-backed     |
| Development Stage   | Growing       | Mature/pivoting|

| Factor              | Zerpmon       | Gods Unchained|
|---------------------|---------------|---------------|
| Game Type           | Auto-battler  | TCG           |
| Gameplay Depth      | Moderate      | High          |
| DAU                 | ~1,000-2,000  | 10,000-20,000 |
| Blockchain          | XRPL          | Immutable X   |
| Team Size           | Small         | Large studio  |
| Funding             | Community     | VC-backed     |
| Production Quality  | Indie         | Professional  |
| Smart Contracts     | None          | Yes           |

Key Insight:
Gods Unchained has 10-20x users with proper studio.
Zerpmon is community project on less-supported chain.
Relative to resources, Zerpmon is impressive.
Absolute terms, still very small.
```

Ecosystem Comparison:

- 100+ games in development/live
- Major partnerships (Marvel, DC, GameStop)
- Dedicated gaming infrastructure
- $500M+ ecosystem funding
- 300,000-400,000 DAW

- <10 active gaming projects
- No major game studio partnerships
- General-purpose NFT infrastructure
- Creator Fund less gaming-focused
- ~10,000-30,000 gaming DAW

Gap: ~10-40x in activity
     ~100x in project count
     Qualitatively different scale

Successful Patterns:

1. Collectible-First Design

2. Community-Centric Development

3. Sustainable Economics

4. Low Barrier to Entry

5. XRPL-Native Advantages

Challenging Patterns:

1. Complex Game Mechanics

2. Mainstream User Acquisition

3. Production Value

4. Network Effects

When Evaluating XRPL Gaming Projects, Look For:

Green Flags (Zerpmon exemplifies):
✅ Active community engagement
✅ Transparent economic model
✅ Regular updates and development
✅ Accessible gameplay
✅ Realistic expectations
✅ XRPL advantages utilized
✅ Sustainable reward structure

Red Flags (Avoid):
🔴 Promises of high earnings
🔴 Token inflation funding rewards
🔴 No visible community
🔴 Anonymous team with no track record
🔴 Complex mechanics without smart contracts
🔴 Claims of AAA quality without evidence
🔴 Ignoring XRPL limitations

✅ Gaming works on XRPL: Zerpmon demonstrates functional NFT gaming with real users, trading, and rewards

✅ Sustainable economics are possible: Store-funded rewards more viable than pure P2E token inflation

✅ Community projects can succeed: Without VC backing, passionate teams can build functioning games

✅ XRPL advantages translate to gaming: Low costs, fast settlement, enforced royalties are genuine benefits

✅ Small scale can be sustainable: Better to have 1,000 engaged users than millions of mercenary players

⚠️ Whether Zerpmon model scales: 1,000 → 10,000 → 100,000 untested

⚠️ Long-term sustainability: Still early; multi-year track record building

⚠️ Whether other projects emerge: Zerpmon relatively isolated as major XRPL game

⚠️ Mainstream gaming crossover: Current games appeal to crypto-native audience

⚠️ Community project limitations: Can grassroots compete with funded competitors?

🔴 Extrapolating Zerpmon to all XRPL gaming potential: One success ≠ ecosystem viability

🔴 Comparing absolute numbers to major chains: 1,000 DAU vs. 2,700,000 is not close

🔴 Assuming current trajectory means growth: Steady-state can remain steady

🔴 Ignoring survivorship bias: We see Zerpmon; we don't see failed XRPL games

🔴 Confusing interesting with investable: Fascinating project ≠ good investment

Zerpmon is a legitimate, functioning blockchain game on XRPL with a more sustainable economic model than many P2E games. It demonstrates that gaming on XRPL works technically. However, it operates at very small scale (~1,000-2,000 DAU) compared to games on other chains, has limited mainstream appeal, and exists somewhat in isolation as XRPL's only significant gaming project. It's a proof of concept, not proof of ecosystem viability. Impressive relative to resources; modest in absolute terms.

Assignment: Complete analysis of one XRPL gaming project using provided framework (15+ criteria evaluation).

Requirements:

• Zerpmon (recommended for most data availability)

• Another active XRPL gaming project (requires more research)

• Project name and website/Discord

• Team information (known/anonymous, background)

• Launch date and development history

• Blockchain details (NFT standard used, etc.)

• Core game concept (1 paragraph)

• NFT structure (what are the NFTs? how do they work?)

• Gameplay loop (what do players actually do?)

• Progression systems (how do players advance?)

• Competitive elements (PvP, rankings, etc.)

• Unique features (what differentiates this game?)

Part 4: Economic Model Evaluation
Apply Lesson 4 framework:

• List all ways value enters player hands

• Estimate daily/monthly emission

• Identify funding source for rewards

• List all ways value exits circulation

• Estimate sink strength

• Assess balance vs. faucets

• Source of player earnings

• Sustainability assessment

• Comparison to P2E models

Part 5: User Engagement Assessment

• DAU/MAU estimates (with methodology)
• Marketplace volume
• Community metrics (Discord, social)
• Growth trends

Rate engagement: High/Medium/Low with evidence

Part 6: 15-Criteria Evaluation

Rate each criterion (1-5 scale) with justification:

1. Entertainment value

2. Depth/complexity

3. Accessibility

4. Replayability

5. Unique mechanics

6. Sustainability of model

7. Earning potential vs. expectations

8. Sink effectiveness

9. Value capture for players

10. Creator/developer economics

11. Community health

12. Development activity

13. Marketplace liquidity

14. XRPL integration quality

15. Long-term viability

• Strengths (3-5)

• Weaknesses (3-5)

• Opportunities (3-5)

• Threats (3-5)

• Would you invest time/money in this project? Why/why not?

• What would change your assessment?

• What does this project reveal about XRPL gaming?

• Risk rating: Low/Medium/High with justification

• Research depth (25%): Thorough data gathering

• Framework application (25%): Proper use of economic analysis

• Critical thinking (25%): Honest assessment with evidence

• Synthesis quality (25%): Coherent overall evaluation

Time investment: 4-5 hours
Value: Applying analytical frameworks to a real project develops evaluation skills essential for any future gaming NFT assessment. The depth of analysis reveals what can and cannot be known about early-stage projects.

For Next Lesson:
Lesson 8 examines the developer perspective: what's it like to build games on XRPL? We'll cover development tools, technical architecture decisions, and assess ecosystem support for gaming developers.

End of Lesson 7

Total words: ~6,400
Estimated completion time: 55 minutes reading + 4-5 hours for deliverable exercise