[TL;DR]
- Tokens can be classified into seven types based on where their value is generated: network tokens derive value from the blockchain protocol itself, security tokens from traditional financial securities, and arcade tokens from utility within a specific system.
- WaaS abstracts away the technical complexity of blockchain infrastructure – such as smart contract development, key management, multichain support, and gas fee handling – so that companies can easily handle the entire lifecycle of tokens from issuance to distribution and management.
- In real-world use cases like entertainment fan tokens, in-game NFT items, and corporate loyalty programs, WaaS works as the core infrastructure that allows users to enjoy the benefits of digital ownership and transparency without having to be aware of the underlying blockchain.
1. The Seven Types of Tokens
As blockchain-based token models have diversified, clearly distinguishing between different token types has become increasingly important. In its article “Defining Tokens,” a16z crypto proposed a framework that classifies tokens into seven types. This framework categorizes tokens based on their source of value creation into network tokens, security tokens, enterprise-backed tokens, arcade tokens, collectible tokens, asset-backed tokens, and memecoins.
A token is data stored on a blockchain ledger that contains information such as quantity and permissions. Since it can only be modified according to the rules set on the blockchain, it becomes a vehicle for granting rights that can be enforced in practice. Because it is implemented in software, nearly any form of digital asset can be expressed through programming. It can be used as a store of value like Bitcoin, as the fuel that powers a network like Ethereum, as an in-game item or a payment instrument like USDC, or even as a digitized representation of company equity.
How you design a token determines whether it is suitable as a store of value, whether it functions as a productive asset that generates real economic value, or whether it is essentially valueless. Some tokens grant rights such as voting power or revenue sharing, while others act merely as a service access right. There are freely tradable tokens and restricted tokens, and they can be divided into fungible tokens, where every unit is identical like money, and non-fungible tokens, where each unit is unique.
These design choices also determine how the token will be regulated by law. Mistaking a memecoin for a network token, or confusing an arcade token with a security token, can easily land you in regulatory trouble. Whether you are creating, investing in, or using tokens, understanding the characteristics of each type is essential.
1.1 Tokens Connected to Networks
Network tokens are tied directly to how a blockchain or smart contract protocol operates, and derive their value from that protocol. They are used to maintain the network, reach consensus, upgrade the protocol, and reward participants. DOGE, Bitcoin’s BTC, Ethereum’s ETH, Solana’s SOL, and Uniswap’s UNI fall into this category. In protocols like Uniswap or Aave, these are also called protocol tokens or application tokens.
Protocols with a native network token embed economic systems that influence the token’s value. They may automatically buy back tokens, distribute revenue to holders, mint new tokens, or burn tokens to adjust supply. These mechanisms help maintain the network by managing the token’s value appropriately. The U.S. SEC’s 2019 guidance and the FIT21 Act both suggest that if a network is sufficiently decentralized, such tokens may be excluded from securities regulation.
Decentralization here means that the system can operate on its own without any specific person, company, or management team. Network tokens are useful for bootstrapping a new network, attracting participants, distributing control over the network to users, and enabling the network to generate its own operating funds. Binance Coin (BNB) is an example that started as a token controlled by a company and later evolved into a network token with the launch of Binance Smart Chain.
Security tokens are traditional financial securities mapped onto a blockchain. This includes conventional instruments like company stock or corporate bonds, but also more exotic structures such as profit-sharing rights in an LLC, a share of a professional athlete’s future earnings, or the right to receive legal settlement proceeds. Securities grant clear rights and benefits to holders, and the issuer can freely structure the risk exposures of the underlying assets. Etherfuse’s StableBond and Aspen Coin, which represents fractional ownership of the St. Regis Aspen Resort, are examples of security tokens.
1.2 Enterprise- and Utility-Centered Tokens
Enterprise-backed tokens are tied to off-chain services operated by a company or centralized organization, and derive their value from those services. While they use blockchain technology, they are connected to an off-chain business rather than the network itself, so the company effectively controls token issuance and value. They differ from arcade tokens in that they tend to become speculative assets, and although they do not clearly grant ownership rights, they share a similar trust structure with securities because their value depends on a system controlled by someone.
Enterprise-backed tokens have the potential to form a legitimate category of their own, but in practice they have often been used as a way to avoid securities regulation. FTT, which was tied to the revenues of the FTX exchange, is a typical problematic example. You could imagine a cloud service company issuing a token that combines service access rights with a claim on a portion of platform revenue. Many attempts in this category have taken this form as a way to raise capital while trying to sidestep securities rules.
Arcade tokens are tokens that have utility only within a particular system and are not designed as investment instruments. They are often used like currency in digital environments: in-game gold, membership points, and digital service access rights are typical examples. FLY, the loyalty token used in the Blackbird restaurant network, is a representative case. Pocketful of Quarters was recognized by the SEC in 2019 as a token used within games that did not raise securities concerns.
Arcade tokens are deliberately designed to suppress speculation. They may have unlimited supply, restricted transferability, decay or lose value if not used, and only have meaning inside the system that created them. Since they do not provide financial returns or plant an expectation of profit, they do not fit the profile of investment products and generally fall outside U.S. securities laws. The issuer manages monetary policy like a central bank of a digital economy, benefiting more from keeping the token price stable than from price appreciation.
1.3 Tokens Representing Ownership and Assets
Collectible tokens derive their value and meaning from the record of owning a particular good, whether physical or digital. These include digital versions of art, music, or writing; collectible items such as concert tickets; community memberships; and virtual assets like in-game items or land in a metaverse. They are typically non-fungible and often have real utility. They may function as event passes, in-game items, or proof of intellectual property ownership.
Collectible tokens are associated with finished works or products and do not depend on someone’s future efforts, so they generally fall outside the scope of U.S. securities laws. NFTs representing ownership of digital art, profile picture collections like CryptoPunks or Bored Ape Yacht Club, in-game items, and on-chain identities such as ENS domains are representative examples. Some projects provide digital versions of physical products, like Pudgy Penguins toys, while others, like BAXUS’s spirits custody NFTs, make it easier to track and trade physical goods.
Asset-backed tokens derive their value from rights to some underlying asset or from being pegged to that asset’s price. Underlying assets can include real-world assets like commodities, fiat currencies, and equities, as well as digital assets such as cryptocurrencies or liquidity pool shares. They may be fully or partially collateralized, and can be used as stores of value, hedging instruments, or on-chain financial tools. Unlike collectible tokens, whose value comes from ownership of a unique item, asset-backed tokens derive value from their collateral structure, pricing peg, and exchange rights.
Regulation of asset-backed tokens varies depending on their structure and use. Fiat-backed stablecoins generally avoid securities regulation, but some derivative-like tokens can fall under securities or commodities laws. This category includes stablecoins pegged to currencies, derivatives that track the price movement of underlying assets, DeFi protocol liquidity provider tokens, and staking receipts that represent staked assets. Examples include USDC, Compound’s cTokens, Lido’s stETH, and Opyn’s Squeeth.
Memecoins are tokens with no real utility or intrinsic value that are tied instead to internet memes and community sentiment. They are not connected to any network, company, or application, and their price is driven purely by speculation and market psychology. The core idea is that they have no real purpose or function and operate as a zero-sum game where one person’s gain is another’s loss. While they may fall outside U.S. securities laws, they can still be subject to anti-fraud and market manipulation laws. Pepe, SHIB, and TRUMP are examples of memecoins.
1.4 The Fluidity of Token Classification
Not every token fits neatly into just one of these seven categories. Social tokens or reputation tokens, for example, behave like arcade tokens if they are not investment products, but take on characteristics of enterprise-backed tokens when managed by a centralized entity. Tokens can also move from one category to another as their properties change or new functions are added. BNB’s evolution from an enterprise-backed token to a network token is a classic example.
This classification is less about drawing hard lines than about providing a framework for understanding tokens. The key question that separates each category is where the value comes from. Depending on whether a token draws value from the blockchain network itself, from an off-chain service, from merely certifying ownership of something, or from representing rights to another asset, its nature changes entirely.
These distinctions matter when creating or investing in tokens. Even when the same blockchain technology is used, regulatory treatment can differ dramatically depending on the source of value, and so can the risk and return structures for investors. Confusing a network token with an enterprise-backed token, or treating an arcade token as a speculative asset, can lead to unexpected problems.
This framework provides a reference point for designing and analyzing token economies. It helps you determine which token type fits your business model, what regulatory risks it entails, and what kind of value it can deliver to users.
2. Challenges in Token Issuance and Management
Once you understand the different token types, the next step is to examine the practical challenges that arise when actually creating and operating tokens. Since tokens are implemented on blockchain technology, technical complexity is inherent. On top of that, you must design an experience that users can actually navigate, while managing security and regulatory risks during ongoing operations.
2.1 Smart Contracts and Technical Complexity
To issue a token, you first need to write a smart contract. A smart contract is a program that runs on the blockchain and encodes the token’s total supply, transfer rules, burn mechanisms, and more. Standards like Ethereum’s ERC-20 provide a basic template, but implementing real business logic still requires significant development capabilities. A game company issuing item tokens must implement complex logic that integrates with the in-game economy, while an entertainment company issuing fan tokens needs to build systems that automatically grant different benefits based on membership tiers.
The problem is that once a smart contract is deployed, it is, in principle, immutable. If there are bugs in the code or business requirements change, you cannot easily fix it. There are upgradeable contract patterns, but they introduce additional complexity and security risks. The 2016 DAO hack is a textbook example of what can happen when a smart contract vulnerability is exploited: roughly USD 60 million worth of ETH was stolen, and the Ethereum community ultimately resorted to a drastic hard fork to remediate the incident.
A multichain environment adds another layer of complexity. Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, Arbitrum, and other blockchains each have different characteristics and ecosystems, and it is difficult to predict which chain users will prefer. If you issue a token on only one chain, you miss out on users of other chains; if you issue on multiple chains, you must develop and maintain separate smart contracts for each. Cross-chain bridges that move tokens between chains are themselves major technical challenges and security weak points. In 2022 alone, more than USD 2 billion in assets were stolen through bridge hacks.
After development, security audits are essential. Professional audit firms review smart contract code to identify known vulnerabilities and potential issues. Audit costs can range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on project size, and even then security is not guaranteed. Vulnerabilities can still be missed, or introduced in code changes after the audit. Nevertheless, skipping an audit makes it difficult to earn user trust, and if something goes wrong, legal liability can become a serious issue.
2.2 Dilemmas in Token Economy Design
Token economy design is just as important as technical implementation. Elements such as total supply, initial allocation, emission schedule, and burn mechanisms determine the token’s value and the sustainability of its ecosystem. Too large a supply leads to value dilution, while too small a supply can cause liquidity shortages. Allocating too much to early investors or the team may trigger community backlash, while allocating too little can weaken the incentive to keep building the project.
In game tokens, you must build a circular flow where players earn and spend tokens as they play. Axie Infinity, for example, gained huge popularity with a play-to-earn model in 2021, but its token value collapsed when new player inflows slowed. The system depended on new entrants buying tokens so that existing players could sell what they earned, which was fundamentally unsustainable. Token issuance continued to grow while real demand failed to keep pace.
Managing inflationary and deflationary pressures is another key challenge. Network tokens often issue new tokens as rewards for miners or validators while burning a portion of transaction fees to maintain balance. Ethereum’s EIP-1559 upgrade in 2021 introduced a mechanism that burns part of the transaction fee, and at times of high network activity, ETH has actually become deflationary. But reaching this equilibrium required extensive trial and error and community debate.
Fan tokens in the entertainment industry face a different set of challenges. Fans buy tokens to access special experiences and benefits, but if token prices skyrocket due to speculation, the very fans they were designed for may be priced out. Conversely, if prices steadily fall, fans end up losing money and the brand’s image takes a hit. Finding a balance where tokens remain primarily utility-driven while still retaining reasonable value is far from easy.
2.3 User Experience Barriers
Even if the technology is flawless and the economic design is robust, it is meaningless if users cannot or will not use it. The biggest obstacle for blockchain technology is user experience. To receive and use tokens, a typical user must first create a cryptocurrency wallet – a process that itself is a major barrier. They need to understand concepts like private keys and seed phrases, and accept that losing them means permanently losing access to their assets. In a 2022 survey, roughly 20% of crypto holders reported having lost access to their assets due to private key mismanagement.
The gas fee problem is even more tangible. On Ethereum, sending tokens or executing smart contracts requires gas fees, which can spike to tens of dollars during peak congestion. It is not uncommon for the gas fee to exceed the value of the NFT item being transferred. From a user’s perspective, the idea of paying a transaction fee every time you use an internet service is hard to accept. You can move to cheaper blockchains like Solana or use layer-2 solutions, but that introduces yet another layer of technical complexity.
In a multichain environment, users must constantly pay attention to which network they are on. To move tokens from Ethereum mainnet to Polygon, they must use a bridge, and each network requires its own gas token. Sending tokens to the wrong network by mistake can result in permanent loss. This is unimaginable in web2 services, but an everyday risk in blockchain.
The onboarding flow also needs significant improvement. Imagine a K-pop fan who wants to receive a fan token for their favorite artist. If they must sign up for a crypto exchange, complete KYC, buy crypto, transfer it to a wallet, and then finally purchase the token, most will simply give up. Users should be able to start with a simple email or social login like in traditional web services, but providing that level of convenience while preserving security and decentralization is technically challenging.
2.4 Operational and Regulatory Risks
The operational burden after token issuance is also substantial. Automating token distribution requires additional systems, and running airdrops or reward programs necessitates integration between smart contracts and backend systems. Customer support must be staffed with people who understand blockchain technology, and tools are needed to monitor and analyze on-chain data. For a typical company, hiring and retaining blockchain specialists is itself a major hurdle.
Security is a concern throughout all operations. If a wallet with token issuance privileges is hacked, unlimited tokens might be minted; if a smart contract has vulnerabilities, tokens can be stolen. Even with multisig wallets and hardware security modules in place, as long as humans are involved, social engineering and phishing attacks remain threats. In 2023, one NFT project suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses after its Discord account was hacked and a fake minting link was shared with users.
The regulatory landscape varies dramatically by token type. Security tokens clearly fall under securities regulation; network tokens may or may not, depending on the degree of decentralization; and enterprise-backed tokens often sit in a gray area. In Korea, virtual asset service providers (VASPs) are required to register under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information and implement anti–money laundering systems. In practice, obtaining real-name bank accounts for fiat on-/off-ramping is difficult because banks are reluctant to issue them.
If you operate internationally, you must consider the regulations of every jurisdiction you target. The U.S. SEC attempts to treat many tokens as securities, the EU is developing a comprehensive framework under MiCA, and China has banned cryptocurrency trading altogether. You must decide which countries to serve, which regulations to comply with, and how to obtain legal advice – all of which demand significant time and resources. Misinterpreting or ignoring regulation can lead not only to business shutdowns but also to criminal liability.
3. WaaS: A Token Infrastructure Solution
The complexity of issuing and operating tokens is a major barrier for companies seeking to adopt blockchain technology. Handling everything from smart contract development and security to user experience and regulatory compliance requires specialized talent and substantial investment. WaaS (Wallet-as-a-Service) addresses this by abstracting away technical complexity and enabling companies to offer token-based services without having to build blockchain infrastructure themselves.
3.1 What WaaS Is and Its Core Role
Traditional crypto wallets require users to manage their own private keys. Users install wallets like MetaMask or Phantom, securely store their seed phrases, and personally sign every transaction. This aligns with blockchain’s philosophy of decentralization and self-sovereignty but is too difficult and risky for mainstream users. Lose your private key and you lose your assets forever; sign one malicious transaction on a phishing site and your funds can be drained.
WaaS shifts this complexity to the service provider. Users log in with email or social accounts, while the WaaS provider securely manages the private keys. From the company’s perspective, there’s no need to build wallet infrastructure from scratch; they can integrate token issuance, transfer, and management into their services via API. For example, if a game company wants to turn in-game items into NFTs, it can connect to a WaaS API so that players receive and trade items without ever realizing blockchain is involved.
The core value of WaaS is abstraction. It hides the intricate technical details of blockchain so that companies can focus on business logic. When an entertainment company wants to issue fan tokens, it no longer needs to worry about which blockchain to use, how to write the smart contracts, or where to get security audits. The WaaS provider supplies a pre-verified infrastructure, and the company can focus on token economy design and user experience.
Another key point is that WaaS supports the entire token lifecycle. It doesn’t just help with issuance: it also handles user wallet creation, token distribution, transfer management, transaction monitoring, and analytics. For an airdrop campaign, WaaS can automatically send large batches of tokens to thousands of wallets. For reward programs, it can automatically distribute tokens to users who meet certain conditions.
3.2 Technical Architecture of WaaS
The security of WaaS starts with its key management system. In traditional systems, a single private key controls a wallet, and once that key is compromised, everything is lost. WaaS uses MPC (Multi-Party Computation) to split a private key into multiple shares, which are stored across different servers or hardware security modules. To sign a transaction, these shares collaboratively run cryptographic computations – the full private key never exists in one place at any time. Even if one or two shares are compromised, the assets remain safe.
Enterprise-grade WaaS providers like Fireblocks use MPC to deliver institutional-level security. Banks and major exchanges managing billions of dollars in crypto rely on this technology. Each transaction must be approved by multiple parties, and every step is encrypted and auditable. Policy engines allow you to configure rules such as transaction limits and whitelisted addresses, and suspicious transactions can be automatically blocked.
Account abstraction is another foundational technology for improving user experience. Implemented in Ethereum via the ERC-4337 standard, it turns user accounts into programmable smart contract wallets. This makes it possible to pay gas fees in tokens other than the native coin or even in fiat, and service providers can pay fees on behalf of users. Transactions can be batched together, and social recovery can be supported – for instance, if a user loses their private key, they can recover access with approval from a set of trusted contacts.
User-friendly WaaS providers like Dynamic, Magic, and Privy actively leverage account abstraction. Users sign in with Google accounts, receive and use tokens inside apps, and while blockchain transactions occur behind the scenes, they remain unaware of it. Service providers cover gas costs, and perceived transaction latency is hidden through optimistic UX patterns. From a user’s perspective, the experience is almost indistinguishable from web2, while still benefiting from blockchain’s transparency and ownership guarantees.
Multichain support is now a must-have for modern WaaS. It lets you work with Ethereum, Polygon, Solana, Arbitrum, and other networks through a single API. A company might initially launch on Polygon and later decide to support Solana without rebuilding its system from scratch – it simply changes the chain parameter in API calls. Many platforms also integrate cross-chain bridge functions, allowing users to move tokens between chains seamlessly.
3.3 Token Lifecycle and WaaS
Token issuance is the first step supported by WaaS. Once a company has designed its token economy, it can deploy a smart contract with just a few clicks in the WaaS dashboard. It sets basic parameters like token name, symbol, total supply, and decimal places, chooses whether to use ERC-20, ERC-721, or another standard, and selects the blockchain to deploy on. WaaS provides audited, battle-tested contract templates and handles gas optimization automatically.
Distribution is the process of getting tokens into users’ hands. Initial allocations to investors can be automatically released according to a vesting schedule, and community airdrops can simultaneously distribute tokens to tens of thousands of addresses. Through the WaaS API, you can filter users based on specific conditions, perform batched transfers to save gas, and automatically retry failed transactions. For example, a game can automatically grant reward tokens to players who achieve certain milestones by integrating its game servers with the WaaS API.
Everyday transfers and transactions are also managed by WaaS. When a user sends tokens to another user within an app, WaaS constructs, signs, and submits the transaction to the blockchain. If gas prices spike, WaaS can automatically delay non-urgent transactions until fees drop, or prioritize urgent ones by temporarily paying higher fees. It tracks transaction status in real time to keep users informed and analyzes failures to decide whether to retry or display an explanation.
Token burning is a key mechanism for adjusting supply. Games may burn tokens when items are upgraded; stablecoin issuers may burn tokens to maintain pegs; networks may burn fee income to induce deflationary pressure. WaaS encodes burn logic in smart contracts and exposes it through APIs so you can trigger burns at any time. Burn events are permanently recorded on the blockchain, enabling transparent verification.
Monitoring and analytics are indispensable for keeping token economies healthy. A WaaS dashboard typically visualizes token holder distribution, transaction volumes, liquidity pool status, and on-chain activity in real time. Teams can track whale movements, analyze interactions with specific smart contracts, and detect suspicious patterns. These insights inform adjustments to tokenomics, marketing strategies, and responses to emerging security threats.
3.4 Using WaaS for Different Token Types
Arcade tokens are among the easiest to implement with WaaS. When you move in-game currencies or loyalty points onto a blockchain, you gain transparency and transferability, but you must still prevent speculation. With WaaS, you can impose transfer restrictions, set tokens to automatically expire after a period, or allow them to be used only under certain conditions. Users continue to experience them as “points” inside the app, but behind the scenes, all activity is recorded as verifiable blockchain transactions.
A restaurant network running a loyalty token program could, for instance, automatically credit tokens whenever customers dine, using WaaS APIs, and handle redemptions for discounts or special menu items the same way. For the customer, the app feels like any other loyalty program, but because the points are on-chain, it becomes easier to form partnerships with other restaurant groups or integrate with third-party services. Blockchain interoperability helps convert closed ecosystems into open ones.
Collectible tokens are implemented as NFTs, and WaaS can manage everything from NFT issuance to marketplace integration. Suppose a music artist wants to mint album cover NFTs and sell them to fans. WaaS can upload images to decentralized storage like IPFS, mint NFTs with the appropriate metadata, and deliver them to fan wallets. Fans can then trade them freely on marketplaces such as OpenSea, while the artist automatically earns royalties on secondary sales via smart contracts.
When in-game items are represented as NFTs, player-to-player trading becomes transparent, and items can exist independently of the game servers. Even if the game shuts down, the NFT still lives on the blockchain, leaving open the possibility of re-use in other games or platforms. WaaS acts as the bridge between game servers and the blockchain, allowing developers to integrate NFT functionality without deep blockchain expertise.
Asset-backed tokens require more complex financial logic. Issuing a stablecoin, for example, requires linking fiat accounts with the blockchain and implementing mechanisms to maintain a 1:1 peg. WaaS integrates with oracle services to fetch real-time price data, monitors collateralization ratios, and automatically mints or burns tokens as needed. Compliance systems for KYC/AML may also be integrated into the WaaS platform, making it feasible to build services that must adhere to financial regulations.
4. Practical Applications and Use Cases
With a theoretical understanding of WaaS’s capabilities in place, the next step is to look at how it is used across actual industries. Entertainment, gaming, and enterprise services all have different requirements, and WaaS providers each bring their own strengths and specializations. By examining real-world use cases, we can see how WaaS solves concrete business problems.
4.1 Entertainment Industry
In the K-pop industry, WaaS is fundamentally transforming fan experiences. One mid-sized entertainment company used WaaS to convert its fan membership program into NFTs, and the striking part was that fans did not realize they were using blockchain at all.
Fans logged in with KakaoTalk, purchased memberships, and enjoyed benefits such as entries for fan meeting lotteries, early access to merchandise, and participation in online fan sign events. To them, it felt like buying a membership card and using it inside the app, but behind the scenes, WaaS was issuing NFTs on the Klaytn blockchain and sending them to fans’ wallets.
This structure is powerful because it combines transparency with the possibility of secondary markets. The company paid gas fees on behalf of users and hid transaction confirmation times through UI design to create an instant experience, but fans could still transfer NFTs to other fans if they wished.
All transactions were recorded transparently on-chain, which helped eliminate scalping, and the company earned royalties automatically from secondary sales, creating an additional revenue stream. From the fan’s perspective, the membership became more than a mere access right – it turned into an asset they could truly own and trade.
Extending this to music streaming platforms opens even more innovative models. Artists could issue new tracks as NFTs that fans buy and own, while a portion of streaming revenue is automatically distributed to NFT holders. Smart contracts encode the revenue sharing logic, and WaaS APIs automate royalty payouts as streaming counts are reported. Artists can raise upfront capital for production, fans can participate directly in the success of the music and share in the upside, and platforms can create new forms of engagement between artists and fans.
4.2 Gaming Industry
The gaming industry is where WaaS’s impact is most visible. A mobile RPG, for example, used WaaS to issue rare weapons and armor as NFTs while maintaining a traditional game feel. When a player cleared a dungeon, the game server called the WaaS API to mint an NFT and send it to the player’s wallet, and the player simply saw a new item appear in their in-game inventory.
The difference is that these items exist on the blockchain, not only in the game’s database, and players can trade them both in the in-game marketplace and on external NFT marketplaces.
This has far-reaching implications for game economies. In traditional games, companies fully control item values, and when a game shuts down, players lose the time and money they invested. With NFT-based items, however, assets persist on-chain even if the game ends, and can potentially be repurposed in other games or platforms. Players gain real ownership, while game companies earn ongoing revenue from secondary market fees.
P2E (Play-to-Earn) games are practically impossible to operate at scale without WaaS. In an environment where tens of millions of players are generating millions of token transactions daily, you cannot expect each player to manage their own wallet and gas payments. One P2E project used Privy to create embedded wallets for every player, recording all in-game rewards on-chain automatically. Players played the game, traded in the in-app market, and withdrew tokens when they wanted – all without knowing anything about blockchain. The game company batch-processed gas payments using a layer-2 solution to keep costs low.
Token economy management is crucial for the longevity of a game. If in-game currencies are minted without restraint, inflation will erode value and collapse the economy. WaaS dashboards enable real-time monitoring of token issuance and burning, helping teams fine-tune systems where tokens are burned when items are upgraded or collected as entry fees and then burned. This flexibility is key to sustaining a healthy long-term game economy.
Cross-game items illustrate how WaaS’s multichain capabilities unlock new possibilities. Multiple game studios can agree on common item standards and integrate them via WaaS so that a sword earned in game A can also be used in game B. Studios benefit by tapping into each other’s player bases, while players enjoy seeing their time and assets extend beyond a single game. This is an early experiment in shifting the gaming paradigm from closed ecosystems to an open metaverse.
4.3 Enterprise and Brand Use Cases
Traditional enterprises approach WaaS differently from entertainment or gaming companies. One airline, for example, tokenized its mileage program, facing the challenge of connecting decades-old legacy systems with blockchain. WaaS integrated with the airline’s existing mileage database through APIs so that every flight automatically credited tokens to customers’ wallets. Customers continued to view and redeem miles through the airline’s app, but behind the scenes, tokens were being recorded on-chain, adding transparency and interoperability.
Blockchain transparency changes the trust relationship between customers and enterprises. In legacy mileage programs, airlines could arbitrarily devalue points or modify rules. When rules are encoded in smart contracts, arbitrary unilateral changes become much harder. Expiration and accrual rules become explicit and verifiable, and all transactions are recorded on-chain for auditability. Onboarding new partners also becomes easier: hotels and rental car companies can accept and use the same tokens simply by integrating WaaS APIs.
Luxury brands use WaaS for authenticity verification. One high-end watchmaker, for instance, issues an NFT certificate with every watch it sells. This NFT is more than a digital receipt – it tracks ownership history. Buyers receive the NFT in a mobile app, and when they resell the watch, they transfer the NFT along with it.
New buyers can then check the on-chain history to verify that the watch is genuine and properly sourced. Even if counterfeiters clone the NFT’s appearance, they cannot replicate its blockchain history, helping protect the primary market and stimulate a trusted secondary market.
Community governance is also reshaping how brands and customers interact. One fashion brand, for example, experimented with using token holder voting to decide themes for seasonal collections. Using a WaaS-powered voting system, token balances determined voting power, and results were automatically executed through smart contracts.
Collections co-created with the community saw higher engagement and sales, while token holders experienced a sense of becoming co-creators rather than mere customers. This in turn reduced marketing costs and increased loyalty.
4.5 Key Considerations for Implementation
When adopting WaaS, the first priority is not technology but fit with the business model. You must honestly assess whether tokens actually solve a real problem or are just riding a trend. This means examining whether blockchain’s core properties – transparency and immutability – genuinely add value to the business.
You should evaluate whether users truly want real ownership, whether the token economy can be sustainable, and whether secondary markets will positively impact the ecosystem. Many failed projects launched NFTs purely as marketing gimmicks without such careful examination.
Once the business model is clear, user experience design becomes the main success factor. The less users see of blockchain, the better. This means ensuring that wallet creation, private key management, gas fees, and transaction waiting times are hidden from the user as much as possible.
While WaaS abstracts much of the technical complexity, UI/UX design remains critical. You must clearly communicate what users can do with the tokens they receive and translate blockchain’s benefits into tangible user value. Some games that introduced NFT items failed simply because players did not understand why those items were special – a reminder that value communication is just as important as technical implementation.
User experience must be balanced with regulatory compliance. This starts with understanding what type of token you are issuing and what regulations apply. Security tokens may require registration or filings as securities; even arcade tokens are subject to AML rules; and in Korea, you may need to register as a virtual asset service provider and secure real-name bank accounts for fiat handles. Even if WaaS providers offer compliance features, ultimate responsibility lies with the business. Misinterpreting or ignoring regulations can halt operations and expose management to criminal liability.
Finally, you must plan cost structures from a long-term perspective. WaaS subscription or usage fees, blockchain gas costs, smart contract deployment expenses, and security audit fees all add up. As your user base grows, gas expenditures can rise sharply, making layer-2 solutions and gas optimization strategies essential. Even if you cover gas fees for users in the early stages, you need a plan for how to share or offset these costs in the long run. One game, for example, experienced rapid growth but could not sustain its gas expenses and was forced to migrate to another chain – a cautionary tale underscoring the importance of cost planning.
5. Regulatory Landscape and Outlook
The fact that different token types face entirely different regulatory treatments is already evident in a16z crypto’s classification. Security tokens clearly fall under securities laws. Network tokens can potentially avoid securities regulation if they are sufficiently decentralized. Arcade tokens are typically designed to suppress speculation and therefore generally fall outside traditional financial regulation.
In Korea, virtual asset service providers must register under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, implement AML systems, and secure real-name deposit and withdrawal accounts, but banks’ reluctance to issue such accounts creates high entry barriers. In the U.S., the SEC is attempting to classify many tokens as securities, while the EU is building a comprehensive framework under MiCA, and each jurisdiction’s rules must be considered by any global service, driving up legal and compliance costs.
In this environment, WaaS further elevates the strategic importance of token infrastructure. It is unrealistic for most enterprises to build their own blockchain infrastructure and simultaneously handle regulatory compliance. WaaS providers, in contrast, often already hold licenses across multiple jurisdictions and operate mature compliance systems, significantly lowering entry barriers.
The mainstreaming of account abstraction will push user experience closer to web2 standards. As RWA tokenization accelerates, traditional assets like real estate, bonds, and commodities will migrate onto blockchains. The convergence of AI and token economies hints at self-operating economic systems. Entertainment and gaming are already redefining fan experiences and player ownership through WaaS, while traditional enterprises are introducing blockchain for loyalty programs and authenticity verification. In this landscape, WaaS is solidifying its role as the core infrastructure for Web3 mass adoption.
Token economies are no longer experimental playgrounds reserved for crypto enthusiasts; they are becoming a new standard for the digital economy. By abstracting technical complexity and improving user experience, WaaS enables mainstream companies to launch token-based services without deep blockchain expertise.
In Korea, services like KLAY-based Klip and Kaikas are leveraging the Kakao ecosystem to drive mainstream adoption. Building on the strength of the entertainment sector, fan tokens and collectible NFTs are being actively tested in K-pop and VTuber communities. Regulatory uncertainty remains a challenge, but as appropriate frameworks are established for each token type and WaaS providers continue to enhance their compliance capabilities, tokens are poised to become core infrastructure for digital ownership and economic activity.
[WEPIN Wallet SNS Channels]
