Recent industry trends show rising interest in persistent in-game economies that require transparent ownership and controlled asset logic. For example, in 2023, Coinbase’s embedded-wallet model proved that these layers can run under mainstream applications without changing the user flow. With demand growing through 2024–2025, studios now focus on selecting practical tools for production-scale tokenized features.
The technical and operational cost of adding crypto
Teams that explore on-chain mechanics face the same operational blockers:
- Key management: secure generation and storage of private keys requires fintech-level infrastructure.
- Wallet scaling: per-user wallets, signing flow, uptime, and monitoring increase backend load fast.
- Multichain logic: every supported network adds RPC, indexing, and additional failure points.
- Compliance: real-value assets trigger AML/KYC responsibilities most studios aren’t structured to handle.
- Maintenance: continuous monitoring, fraud checks, and protocol updates.
- Cost: crypto infrastructure demands specialists, DevOps, and long-term risk ownership.
Studios seek economic depth; the infrastructure overhead remains the primary barrier.
Personal Experience
Several teams I worked with tried adding on-chain features with budgets around $200–300K and expected 8–15% revenue or retention lift. Plans collapsed fast: key custody and monitoring added 20–30% extra backend cost, and compliance needs exceeded their internal capacity.
Another studio projected a 15% ARPPU increase from a tokenized reward loop and dropped the idea once wallet provisioning and fraud controls pushed timelines by months. The pattern stays the same: design sells the idea, operations block the launch.
Coinbase Precedent
That early embedded-wallet approach was formalized in Coinbase’s Wallet-as-a-Service: background wallet creation, MPC security, server-side key storage, and on-chain actions without seed phrases. Early gaming platforms validated the zero-friction approach, setting a reference architecture for studios evaluating blockchain-enabled mechanics.
Market Trend 2024–2025
Web3 gaming showed rapid expansion throughout 2024. DappRadar recorded 7.4 million daily Unique Active Wallets, a 421% annual increase, alongside thousands of new gaming deployments and a rising share of overall on-chain activity. These metrics reflect sustained demand for tokenized gameplay loops and persistent in-game economies.
Infrastructure providers responded with new wallet layers, SDKs, and managed custody tools. Studios now assess these systems as a way to integrate economic depth without restructuring their technical pipelines or carrying long-term crypto operations.
At this point, the question shifts from “do we need on-chain features?” to “what exactly do we expect from the wallet layer?” From conversations with teams, the requirements are surprisingly consistent:
- one integration instead of a separate stack for wallets, custody, AML, and monitoring
- server-side key management with audited security
- built-in compliance rails for value-bearing assets
- support for multiple assets and networks without extra engineering
- predictable cost and timelines instead of open-ended infra projects
Any wallet-as-a-service platform that claims to be production-ready for gaming has to match this checklist first; everything else is secondary.
Example: Implementing needs with WhiteBIT Wallet-as-a-Service
WhiteBIT WaaS is one of the top providers’ features that map directly to this wallet-layer checklist. In practice, it gives a game studio the following:
- API plug-in. The studio completes KYB, receives API keys, and connects WaaS to its backend. New user → API call → wallet address.
- Server-side custody. Keys stay on WhiteBIT’s side: encryption, WAF, audits, certified security, bank-grade storage.
- AML + monitoring. Transactions pass through built-in AML checks and monitoring, so the studio doesn’t run its own compliance stack.
- Multi-asset / multichain. Support for 330+ assets across 80+ networks in a single system — no separate integrations per chain.
- All-in-one cost model. Address creation, custody, checks, and transaction processing come from one provider, without juggling multiple services.
For a game studio, this turns the crypto layer into a simple integration task — not an infrastructure project.
If you strip the theory away and look at the operational reality, the difference becomes obvious. Here’s the direct comparison: internal wallet infrastructure vs WhiteBIT WaaS.
Liquidity becomes an active revenue lever once the wallet layer is automated. WaaS gives your game instant settlement, predictable asset flows, and zero delays in transactions — and that directly increases ARPPU and retention because players can earn, trade, and spend without friction.
Conclusion
Most studios want deeper in-game economies, but stall once they face the actual workload behind them. WaaS removes that weight: the provider handles custody, security, compliance, and scaling, while the game gets stable wallets and fast value flow. When liquidity moves quickly, the economy generates revenue instead of operational drag.
Top comments (0)