WT pays its holders in dollars.
Supply is fixed at 100,000,000 and can only fall. There are no emissions and no burn programme. Every reward is paid in USDC out of what the casino actually earns. You can buy it, earn it by playing, or stake it to become the house.
A hundred million exist and no more will ever be made. Stake it and you share in what the casino earns, paid in dollars.
Most casino tokens burn their buyback. We tested that before designing around it. The ranking comes out backwards.
| Token | What it does with revenue | Price |
|---|---|---|
| RLB | Burns 90% of an hourly buyback. 68% of supply destroyed — the most aggressive burn in the sector. | −69.6% |
| SHFL | Weekly burn, then moved 15% of revenue out of the burn into player prizes. | −61.4% |
| $BC | Burns nothing. Redistributes the buyback to players and pays stakers a dollar-pegged yield. | +96% |
Burning supply does not create demand. Paying holders real money does. So WT has no burn programme. Every mechanism here moves cash to holders, to players, or into the floor.
Emissions. Rewards are paid in USDC, not in WT. That needs a cash budget, not a token allocation. Supply is fixed and can only fall — redeeming against the floor burns the token redeemed.
A chip. You do not bet with WT. Bets settle in USDC and the major crypto currencies. Keeping the wagering currency separate from the reward currency is what stops revenue from being denominated in our own token — the loop that broke both losers above. The arithmetic is in the appendix.
Everything is funded from net gaming revenue. No treasury emission, no inflation. The first claim belongs to the capital that hosts the games.
The cost of the capital that takes the other side of every bet. Paid first.
USDC monthly to staked WT, weighted by what you hold and what you play.
A ring-fenced USDC reserve that makes WT redeemable. It only rises.
Buys WT on the open market weekly and pays it to players. Never burned.
Runs the platform. Self-funding from month 16 of the base plan.
Stake WT, receive USDC monthly. The payment is weighted by your stake and your play, which keeps the reward pointed at the activity that funds it.
That yield is the whole valuation model. It can be checked against published revenue every month:
| Plan | Revenue/mo | To holders/mo | Floor | Fair value | vs entry |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bear | $48,523 | $19,215 | $0.0015 | $0.0150 | 0.48× |
| Base | $255,615 | $101,224 | $0.0078 | $0.0713 | 2.30× |
| Bull | $1,084,193 | $429,341 | $0.0351 | $0.2755 | 8.90× |
17.6% of revenue goes into a USDC reserve whose only job is to back WT. Any holder may redeem at the reserve's per-token value at any time. Redeemed tokens are destroyed.
The reserve starts empty and fills from revenue only, never from the raise. So the thing to watch is how fast it rises. That turns an unanswerable question into a checkable one: not "will this go up", but "when does the floor reach what I paid?"
Redeeming any fraction of supply removes exactly that fraction of the reserve. The ratio is unchanged — this is arithmetic, not a promise:
Where F is the reserve and C the circulating supply. There is no first-mover advantage and no bank run, because there is no fractional reserve: every token's claim is backed in full at the posted rate.
No competitor offers this. Stake USDC into the house bankroll and hold the operator's own position, on the same terms and the same edge. What you earn is the house edge on real volume.
The casino must hold at least 30% of the pool, so every $1 of ours admits exactly $2.33 of yours. Capacity grows only as the business grows, and when it runs out someone is turned away. WT decides who. Holding it lifts your ceiling above the standard 10% limit, puts you first in line, and drops the stake and unstake fees.
| Pool | Player capacity | Headline | Median | 5th pct | Loss odds | Worst drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $1.53M | $1.07M | 40% | 39.5% | 32.2% | 0.0% | 9.2% |
| $2.30M | $1.61M | 27% | 26.1% | 19.9% | 0.0% | 9.3% |
| $3.07M | $2.15M | 20% | 19.4% | 13.7% | 0.0% | 9.3% |
| $4.60M | $3.22M | 13% | 12.7% | 7.6% | 0.0% | 9.1% |
| $6.13M | $4.29M | 10% | 9.3% | 4.6% | 0.4% | 8.9% |
Every number there is provable. The pool publishes a signed epoch chain, per-account Merkle proofs of liabilities, and anchored tree heads — so you verify your own share against a signed record instead of believing our revenue figure. None of the three comparables offers this.
All 100,000,000 WT exist at genesis. There is no mint function — no schedule, no emissions, no treasury tap, no mechanism by which the number can rise. Every WT anyone receives comes out of an allocation that already exists, so distribution is the only question.
Token prices here are destroyed by supply arriving faster than revenue grows — not by too little burning. With unlocking done at month 18, the business needs 1% revenue growth a month to keep each token's claim rising. Stretch the schedule to month 36 and it needs 4% a month for three years. Short vesting is what makes the target reachable.
| Allocation | Share | Release |
|---|---|---|
| Private round | 32.3% | 3-month cliff, then 9 months linear |
| Public / launch pool | 10.8% | Liquid at launch |
| Player airdrop | 20.0% | Unlocked by wagering; arrives staked |
| Treasury | 19.9% | 12 months linear |
| Team | 12.0% | 6-month cliff, then 12 months linear |
| Exchange liquidity | 5.0% | Protocol-owned |
| Use | What you get |
|---|---|
| Stake it for a share of revenue | USDC monthly, weighted by holding and play |
| Stake to host the house | Bankroll capacity, priority, no stake/unstake fees |
| Redeem against the Floor | A claim on the ring-fenced reserve. Redeeming burns the token |
| Hold for the BT boost | Doubles your share weight in the weekly redemption pool |
| Not a use: betting. See the appendix | |
The receipt for house edge you have already paid. It turns into WT every week, it is never sold, and it expires after a year.
WT is the token you hold and get paid on. BT is the receipt for house edge you have already paid — and you can play it too.
The one you hold
A hundred million exist and no more can be made. Stake it and you share in what the casino earns, paid in dollars.
The one you earn by playing
Minted every time you pay house edge, win or lose. It turns into WT every week, has no cash price, and expires after twelve months.
Those are shares of the house edge you paid, not of your stake. A new account starts near the bottom of that range and climbs with level; 7.6% is the typical player, not the starting point.
The mint reads one number: the house edge you paid. Not whether you won. Two players who wager the same amount on the same game earn the same BT, so chasing losses earns you nothing extra.
A game with no house edge mints nothing, because the casino earned nothing. Betting BT mints nothing either — otherwise the token would print itself.
BT has no fixed value, and that is deliberate. Every week the casino puts 8.8% of what it earned into one pool. Everyone who cashes in BT that week splits it in proportion to what they hold — so cash in on a quiet week and your share is bigger.
We do not publish a BT-to-WT rate, because it is not a price — it moves when nothing real has changed. What holds still is the share of your house edge you get back. You are shown the pool, your share of it, and what that is worth this week.
Your own figure depends heavily on level, because level decides how large a share your BT claims: around 2–3% early on, past 10% as you climb, and the high teens at the top — then double that with WT staked.
BT is a claim on a share of revenue. Before WT has a market that share buys nothing, so it settles as the dollars instead. Same share, same pool, same week, same twelve-month clock — you are never left holding BT with nothing to cash in.
The alternatives fail. Waiting for listing stores up a year of claims that then hit a market days old, and breaks the expiry rule. Paying from treasury invents a price no market has set. Settling in dollars costs the casino the same and works from the very first real bet.
You can bet BT and win more of it, and more BT cashes in for more WT. But you are playing for a bigger slice of the same pool, not a bigger pool — a win comes out of what other players would have got, never out of the casino. That is why betting BT costs the casino nothing.
A single win is capped at one hundredth of all the BT in circulation, so one lucky round cannot swallow everyone else's share. And BT tables carry a house edge like any other game, so over time they burn more BT than they mint — which quietly makes everyone's share worth a little more.
BT also buys hash boxes, items and power-ups. Anything you buy with BT sells back for BT, so the weekly pool stays the only route from BT to WT.
Take your share of this week's pool, as WT once it is trading.
Win more BT, capped at 1% of everything in circulation.
What BT buys sells back for BT, never for WT.
Send BT to someone else. It keeps its original expiry date.
Two guards travel with the mint: the edge used is the one actually charged on that round, and games where another player sets the return are excluded — otherwise the mint would follow a number your opponent chooses.
Every figure above comes out of four assumptions. Move them and watch what happens.
Nothing here is a black box. The whole valuation runs on four numbers you can argue with: how much the casino earns, what yield a buyer demands, how much supply gets staked, and how the revenue is split. Move them.
Reference base plan · fair value $0.0713 · floor $0.0078 · 2.30× entry
The supply curve is exact: it is the six allocation schedules added up, and it reproduces every published circulating-supply figure to the decimal. Revenue is the base-plan ramp, scaled by your month-24 input. Everything else is the formulas printed in sections 04, 05, 06 and 08, applied month by month.
It lands within about 3% of the full monthly model — same month-12 trough, same month-24 floor, same BT figures, a point or two low on late fair value. Use it to test how sensitive the case is to each assumption, not as a quote.
The direction worth noticing: higher staking participation supports a lower price, because the same pool of dollars is shared more widely. And raising the holder share has to come out of operations — the other four claims are fixed.
Every line of the split except one is payable in dollars: backers staked dollars and are owed dollars, holder payouts go out in USDC, the floor collects USDC, salaries are salaries. Only the buyback spends dollars to buy WT. So if players bet WT, the casino takes in WT but owes dollars — and the gap can only be closed by selling WT.
| Revenue in WT | WT sold | WT bought | Net | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0% | 0 | 316k | +316k | net buyer |
| 8.8% | 316k | 316k | 0 | break-even |
| 20% | 717k | 316k | −402k | net seller |
| 30% | 1,076k | 316k | −760k | −10% of float/yr |
That selling is structural and price-insensitive. Nobody decides to do it — it is payroll. Holding the WT instead does not escape it: the dollar obligations then fall on a shrinking dollar share of revenue, reaching 100% of it at exactly 8.8%. Two branches of one identity.
Three more problems appear only when WT is the chip:
WT stays non-bettable. The reason is that the house mints it — not that it is worthless. A wagering requirement denominated in a token the house prints is a yardstick the house prints, and that stays true after listing.
Four capital requirements, sized independently: an 18-month operating window funded regardless of revenue; a $300k launch top-up ring-fenced outside operating cash; $200k of protocol-owned exchange liquidity; and a $190k bankroll seed that is not an expense — it stays on the balance sheet as pool shares and sets initial player capacity at 2.33× itself.
| Tier | Opex/mo | Total raise | % supply | Bear runway | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | $35k | $1.18M | 33.9% | 12m | bear runway |
| Recommended | $45k | $1.50M | 43.1% | 20m | passes 12/12 |
| Comfortable | $55k | $2.04M | 58.6% | 25m | cap table |
Sell about 43% of supply — $1.5M at a $3.5M valuation. Below 35% the 18-month window is unfunded and the bear case ends the company. Above 45% the airdrop, team, treasury and liquidity cannot all fit.
The band is narrow because revenue sets the ceiling, not negotiation: at $4.0M the return test already fails. The only lever that widens it is cost — every $10k a month off the burn frees $180k of runway, worth 5.2% of supply.
The bankroll's return is a cost of capital, paid before holder payouts, the floor and the company. What it costs is set by the pool's distribution share, not by the pool's size — and fair value scales linearly with what is left for holders.
| Distribution share | Cost of capital | Holder share | FDV ceiling | $1.5M sells |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.50 | 35.0% | 27.0% | $2.40M | 62.5% |
| 0.30 | 21.0% | 35.4% | $3.15M | 47.7% |
| 0.20 | 14.0% | 39.6% | $3.52M | 42.6% |
| 0.15 | 10.5% | 41.7% | $3.71M | 40.5% |
Every figure in this dossier uses the 0.20 row. A higher share moves money from token holders to bankroll backers one for one, and the valuation with it.
Three things get called dormancy; only one needs a rule. Dormant and unstaked is float nobody is selling — helpful, and no rule needed. Staked but inactive is already handled: payouts weight stake and play, so an inactive holder earns close to nothing and their share reverts to active ones — a 1.25× uplift at a 20% dormant rate.
Unclaimed payouts are the real gap. USDC that nobody ever claims would sit as a growing unowned liability — roughly $110k a year at month-24 volume. The rule: unclaimed for 12 months, it returns to the holder pool and is shared among active stakers. Stranded money becomes yield.