Executive summary

Undeads Games is a hybrid GameFi ecosystem that launched with a collection of tradable NFT "Undead" characters, deterministic progression mechanics and competitive arenas where players can earn governance tokens and in-game currency. What makes Undeads noteworthy in 2025 is its layered approach to sustainability: a multi-token model (utility token + in-game currency), a curated marketplace with fee sinks, and initial partnerships with third-party guilds and streaming platforms designed to bootstrap durable demand.

From an allocator's perspective, Undeads is interesting because it combines on-chain asset liquidity with an ops-forward product play: active crafted content drops, seasonal balance patches (to maintain competitive integrity) and measured token emission schedules. But it also presents material risks: smart-contract exposure, token velocity, and dependence on continuous user growth to underpin marketplace valuations. This insight provides a playbook, risk matrix, and recommendations for pilot exposure.

Origins & product — how Undeads is designed

Undeads launched as a limited NFT drop of ~18,000 characters, each with unique traits and rarity tiers. Characters function as both avatars and yield-generators: they accrue a base rate of in-game currency (Bones) over time and unlock skill trees through play. The design emphasizes PvP duels and seasonal battle passes rather than open-world sandbox mechanics — a deliberate decision to concentrate engagement and create replayability loops suited for spectator content.

Core product pillars:

  • Characters as assets: tradable NFTs with metadata for cosmetics, stats and evolution paths.
  • Dual-currency economy: a governance/utility token (UND) and an in-game consumable (Bones) for upgrades and entry fees.
  • Marketplace liquidity: built-in marketplace with royalty and burn mechanics to create sinks.
  • Competitive play & streaming: ranked ladders, tournaments and partner integrations for streaming platforms to monetize viewership.

Tokenomics — emission, sinks and treasury mechanics

Undeads' token model addresses several classic GameFi failure modes by combining graduated emissions, marketplace sinks, and a treasury allocation dedicated to ecosystem growth. High-level structure:

  • UND (utility/governance): used for governance votes, premium cosmetics, and limited staking. Initial emission front-load funded marketing and guild grants, with a planned taper across 12 months.
  • Bones (in-game): earned by play and used for character progression. Bones are burnable for permanent upgrades or exchanged (with friction) for small amounts of UND subject to slippage.
  • Treasury & reserve: holds a portion of primary sales and swap fees to back buybacks and long-term liquidity support.

Important dynamics: net token velocity depends on sinks (burns, upgrade costs, marketplace fees) versus minting (play rewards, airdrops). AstraSol’s modelling shows that with the current sink schedule, the break-even for token stability relies on sustained DAU in the 30–90k range and marketplace depth that prevents immediate liquidation. See our linked articles on token-driven yield and market layering for framework thinking. (See DeFi yield strategies.)

User acquisition & retention — LTV, CAC and guild dynamics

Undeads employs a three-channel acquisition model: organic streamer funnels (tournament + creator rewards), guild onboarding (guilds subsidize onboarding to capture player yield), and targeted paid campaigns. Metrics to watch:

  • DAU / MAU: early traction showed peaks during tournaments but variable baseline retention.
  • LTV / CAC: guild-sourced players can have lower CAC but require share of in-game rewards — the economics must be modelled net of guild rent-seeking.
  • Secondary market spend: percentage of players who engage in marketplace purchases is a driver of protocol fee income.

Recommendation: measure cohort LTV over 30/60/90 days and track marketplace conversion — these are leading indicators for token sustainability.

Marketplaces & liquidity — where value is realized

The marketplace is Delist-free (on-chain) and charges a protocol fee with partial burn. Initial floor prices for rare Undeads spiked at launch then stabilized as supply unlocked. Two liquidity channels are important:

  1. Peer marketplace depth: tight order books are necessary to prevent thin markets which amplify sell pressure.
  2. Liquidity pools & AMM exposure: a small portion of UND/ETH (or chain-native) liquidity sits on AMMs; these pools are protected by time-locks to reduce instant dump risk.

Operationally, a strong marketplace creates durable on-chain demand for NFTs and reduces the need for continuous token emissions as user-to-user trading accrues fees and burns supply.

Security posture — audits, upgradeability and economic exploits

Undeads released smart contracts with two independent audits and an active bug-bounty program. Key risks remain:

  • Economic exploits: creative combos between marketplace mechanics and staking can be used to extract value if not stress-tested.
  • Upgradeable contracts: admin keys and timelocks must be verified — upgradeability adds flexibility but also centralized control vectors.
  • Cross-chain bridges: if the project employs wrapped assets across chains, bridge security is a critical systemic risk.

Best practice: require proof-of-reserve for any treasury-backed buybacks, insist on long timelock windows for admin actions, and demand clear incident playbooks and insurance coverage where available.

Market fit — how Undeads compares to other GameFi projects in 2025

Undeads sits between casual play-to-earn titles and competitive esports-oriented projects. Compared to earlier GameFi experiments that relied solely on token emissions, Undeads emphasizes marketplace liquidity and spectator-friendly competition. If you’re evaluating multi-chain allocations — including exposure to Solana and Ethereum game primitives — consult our cross-chain yield and staking comparisons for context. (See Solana vs Ethereum staking 2025 and our markets report Trending coins on Solana.)

Three economics scenarios — stress-tested

We project three plausible outcomes over a 12-month horizon:

  1. Downturn: user growth stalls; token velocity remains high; marketplace liquidity dries up — UND loses >60% of initial value and the protocol requires treasury interventions.
  2. Base-case: moderate retention, marketplace sustains moderate fees; UND stabilizes after emission taper and reserves provide temporary support.
  3. Success: sustained DAU, robust secondary sales and integrator adoption (streaming + venues) lead to organic fee capture and a sustainable economy with low issuance.

Key inputs for models: retention curve, marketplace take-rate, burn rate for Bones and UND, and treasury runway. AstraSol’s dataset provides time-series to reproduce these scenarios (CSV link below).

AstraSol allocation & operational playbook

If you are a treasury manager, guild operator or active allocator, consider this staged approach:

  1. Pilot (1–2% of deployable risk capital): run a 30–60 day pilot focused on marketplace activity and withdrawal cadence; require attestations for any treasury-backed buybacks.
  2. Conditional scale (up to 5–8%): only if 90-day retention and marketplace depth meet base-case thresholds and if admin timelocks >72 hours for sensitive ops.
  3. Ongoing monitoring: automated dashboards tracking DAU, cohort LTV, marketplace depth, reserve coverage and velocity. Incorporate automated alerts for decline in 7/30-day fee yield or a >15% drop in marketplace depth.

For guilds and creators: model per-player yield after rent and commission; ensure positive unit economics after a 90-day window. For active players: favor diversified exposure to multiple characters and preserve liquidity by using proven marketplaces.

Case study — tournament monetization and durable demand

A partnering tournament organizer ran a 3-week season with entry fees denominated in Bones and a UND prize pool partially subsidized by sponsorship. The tournament increased marketplace volumes by 32% for relevant asset categories and improved average order size. This demonstrates how competitive formats — when paired with streamer incentives — can temporarily increase both spend and player LTV. The important lesson: tournament-driven volume must be converted into long-term retention via meta-progression and content cadence.

FAQ

Is Undeads a good short-term trade?

It depends on your timeframe and risk tolerance. Short-term traders can capture volatility but face tail risk from token emission cliffs. For longer-term allocators, ensure you have strong telemetry and on-chain metrics to support any scale decision.

Can I stake UND or use it in DeFi?

UND has limited staking options and some partner liquidity pools. Using UND in DeFi increases composability but can also increase velocity — which may be counterproductive to token stability unless offset by sinks.

How does Undeads interact with broader crypto yield strategies?

Undeads’ in-game assets and token rewards can be layered into yield strategies tactically (e.g., NFT-backed lending, LPs), but be mindful of counterparty and smart-contract risk. For context on wider yield layering, see our DeFi yield playbook. (See DeFi yield strategies.)

Conclusion & next steps

Undeads Games in 2025 exemplifies a matured GameFi play that intentionally pairs product design with economic levers: dual currencies, curated sinks, and tournament-driven demand. It is not without risk — economic velocity, smart-contract exposure and the need for ongoing content cadence are real constraints — but for allocators and operators who run disciplined pilots and monitor key metrics, Undeads offers an opportunity to participate in a market that bridges on-chain asset liquidity and spectator-friendly competition.

Run a Pilot with AstraSol DeFi Yield Strategies