8 July 2026
DrigzSo game shares only get about 1% right?
my bad, have to update the infografic to make it more clear
Drigztext not yet in the index
Fair, existing games stay as is for exactly that reason. But we're reworking pricing for new games right now. Really appreciate you digging into the numbers, this is the kind of feedback we want.
Ok even with this calculation it makes no sense to buy a game share for a original game if the game valuation price is over 166,00 for an original game.
Suppose the blackjack weekly distribution is 321WINR that puts it's valuation at 834,600,000WINR(321*52*p/e*premiumm) and 166WINR per share.
A 1M winr buys you less stake of profit from a game share vs NGR even if you were to assume that all the winr was in LP given that there is only 833M winr in circulation
DrigzOk even with this calculation it makes no sense to buy a game share for a original game if the game valuation price is over 166,00 for an original game.
Suppose the blackjack weekly distribution is 321WINR that puts it's valuation at 834,600,000WINR(321*52*p/e*premiumm) and 166WINR per share.
A
Are you sure you guys did not make any mistake in calculating game share formula?
Your math overshoots, p/e is 2 not 10. At 321/wk Blackjack's valuation is 321 x 52 x 2 x 5 x1000 = 167M, not 834M. That's about 20% of circulating supply, no game is above it.
But the threshold itself is right, and it's a good one. A single game's valuation crossing total WINR supply would be a broken state, and in practice the ceiling is lower since not all WINR sits in LP. We're taking that as a hard bound in the new game pricing model, max valuation as a % of circulating supply.
On the yield point, same answer as before. If you're optimizing yield per WINR, LP is the right product and originals aren't for you, they're trophy pricing plus burn. No mistake in the formula, it's rich on purpose.
For example in game share tab the top game in revenue is curse of set with winr price of 13,148 winr. That puts it's valuation at 13,148,000,000 WINR. Now you multiply it by 5 because of the premium value it has it puts it at 65B winr lol. A 1M winr would buy way less stake of profit if you were to buy gamw share vs putting it in lp
WINR InternYour math overshoots, p/e is 2 not 10. At 321/wk Blackjack's valuation is 321 x 52 x 2 x 5 x1000 = 167M, not 834M. That's about 20% of circulating supply, no game is above it.
But the threshold itself is right, and it's a good one. A single game's valuation crossing total WINR supply would be a bro
Yea but there is 5x premium
@WINRIntern for curse of set game the current valuation even without the premium is 13 billion winr
Yep, confirmed on our side, top revenue games scale the beta formula into valuations that don't make sense against supply. It's logged, the pricing rework covers it, and we'll share the new model with the community before it ships.
appreciate the deep dive today, genuinely. DMing you, want your input on the new model directly.
WINR Internanyone wanna join poker table?
Anyone joining? Don’t have lot of time but for experience we can try to play
EgzyAnyone joining? Don’t have lot of time but for experience we can try to play
I left the table but wanna play bad
DrigzNot to mention the obvious disadvantage of burning your winr forever and game shares gets significantly less profit share
Dude you are overthinking it and under appreciating the bigger picture. Participate in the ecosystem and earn credits and the shares get distributed to you in every pack you open. If you are motivated by price go up then lp and sit back and enjoy the ride!!
BlockDude you are overthinking it and under appreciating the bigger picture. Participate in the ecosystem and earn credits and the shares get distributed to you in every pack you open. If you are motivated by price go up then lp and sit back and enjoy the ride!!
Not overthinking just sharing what I found. It doesn't make sense to have a game valuation more than total winr in circulation.